John Davenant and Hypothetical Universalism Part 3

In this post, I want to continue working through Davenant's work focusing on his historical survey of the controversy which had ensued up until his own time. (part 1, part 2)

Exposition of Davenant's Dissertation:

Like any good theologian, Davenant was not content with grounding his view of the atonement by mere appeal to reason or a biblical text. Rather, like Owen (vol. 10, Works, 422-424) et al, Davenant begins his treatment of the question of extent with a historical survey of the question. Davenant starts his history claiming

that before the dispute between Augustine and Pelagius, there was no question concerning the death of Christ, whether it was to be extended to all mankind, or to be confined only to the elect.

According to Davenant, none of the church fathers expressed the extent of the atonement in such a manner as to exclude certain persons because of God's decree (viz. because of election). Although the church fathers agree that the atonement is "actually beneficial to only those who believe" yet they nowhere teach that Christ dies only for the elect. Davenant appeals to Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-c. 215), Origen (184-253), and Primasius of Hadrumetum (6th C.) for support.

Davenant then defends Augustine's view of the atonement against those who claim, like the Semi-pelagian Vincentians claimed in Augustine's time, that Augustine believed "that our Lord Jesus Christ did not suffer for the salvation and redemption of all men" (Vincentian words). Prosper, seen as the authoritative interpreter of Augustine, who came to defend Augustine's doctrine against the Vincentians, argued that Augustine taught that the "passion of Christ is profitable and saving to the elect alone" (Davenant's words) but not that "Christ suffered only for the elect" (Davenant's words). So, according to Davenant's reading of Prosper's defense of Augustine, Augustine sought to maintain the efficacy of Christ's death as pertaining only for the elect, but with regard to sufficiency and the virtue of the death of Christ--it was for all men. Davenant supports this claim by quoting Prosper contra the Vincentians:

That as far as relates to the magnitude and virtue of the price, and to the one cause of the human race, the blood of Christ is the redemption of the whole world: but those who pass through this life without the faith of Christ; and the sacrament of regeneration, do not partake of the redemption...The cup of immortality, which is composed of our infirmity, and Divine goodness, has indeed in itself what is profitable for all, but if it be not drunk, it does not heal.

Davenant further argues that if Augustine believed that "Christ died for the predestinate alone," then Proper would not have taught that infants who were not predestined to eternal life received the benefit of remission of original sin (from the merits of Christ). But in point of fact, Prosper and even the (fourth) Synod of Valence in 855 taught just such a doctrine--namely a benefit of Christ's death applied to a non-elect.

Davenant concludes by claiming "that Augustine and his disciples would never be the patrons of the doctrine, That Christ suffered for the predestinated alone."

Davenant then determines to take up the question of Pelagian's view of the atonement contra two errors propounded by theologians which are in contrast to each other. Some theologians teaching that Christ died for the elect alone argued that "Christ died for all" is a Pelagian error. Other holding the opposite opinion argued that "mere Pelagianism" holds that Christ did not die for all men. After replying to a misinterpretation of an Augustine quote (3,3,8), Davenant responds to the former opinion claiming that Augustine (obviously a non-Pelagian) did not find fault with Pelagius' view that Christ suffered for all

which opinion of Pelagianism it can be shown was not condemned in any Council that was formed against the Pelagians, nor in any work of Augustine written against the Semipelagians. He professedly writes against the errors of the Semipelagians in his books, On the Predestination of the Saints, and On the benefit of Perseverance: yet he never attempts to infringe the proposition--That Christ died for all men.

The latter view, which taught that Pelagius believed that Christ did not die for all men, was propounded by Grevinchovius, a Remonstrant theologian. Davenant shows that this understanding of Pelagius was based on a misreading of Faustus who actually was charging Augustine et al with such a view (though Davenant thinks Faustas misunderstood Augustine).

Davenant lays out three errors Pelagius made with respect to the death of Christ. First, Pelagius erred by teaching that "redemption through the death of Christ pertains to all men of all ages: and that infants are altogether free from sin and damnable guilt, from which they could be redeemed." In other words, that the death of Christ pertained to those who were without sin. Second, the Pelagians and Semipelagians were wrong in teaching that even those who persisted in unbelief participated in redemption through the death of Christ. According to Davenant this sort of teaching is "absurd, false, and very obscure." The third and "most grievous error" that they made was attributing the primary cause of the efficacy of Christ's death bringing certain persons to eternal life as lying in the human will and not in God's free gift of "perservering faith" to the elect. Davenant says that

Here the controversy directly regards the grace of predestination and free-will, and obliquely touches upon the death of Christ, inasmuch as the orthodox, assigning a reason why it eventually brings salvation to some persons, always ascend to the Divine predestination, the Pelagians descend to the human will.

After dealing with various other issues, Davenant summarizes everything with a helpful note:

that it ought to be added, that those Fathers, when they restrict the death of Christ to the predestinate, do not do it absolutely; but in consideration of the saving effect which, by means of faith, it brings to them alone: and on the other hand, when they extend this death of Christ to all, they do not extend to all that special will of God in calling them according to his own purpose, in giving them faith, and effectually working in certain individuals according to his own counsel and operation, that they may reap the benefit of the death of Christ.

From this quote, a couple observations may be made. First, Davenant is working off the well-known, though oft-abused, Lombardian formula which simply states that Christ died for all with regard to the sufficiency of the price but efficiently for the elect alone. The Lombardian formula becomes a hermeneutic not only with respect to the reading of the orthodox fathers, but also in his reading of the scriptures themselves. So, scripture texts which speak of Christ's death being for all men Davenant will read in terms of sufficiency and texts which appear to limit Christ's death to the elect alone will be read as to the efficacy of the atonement. A second observation, which Davenant will explain in more detail later in his Dissertation, is the distinction made between God's general and special will. The general will is that Christ died for all men in case that they would believe. The special will of God (as seen in the quote above) is God's will to effectually apply Christ's death to the elect by gifting certain men with persevering faith.

In the next post we will deal with Davenant's reading of Gottschalk (of whom some like Carl Trueman have suggested is the first theologian in church history to argue for limited atonement) and other medieval theologians moving into the reformation period.