John Davenant and Hypothetical Universalism Part 5

In the last few posts (2, 3, 4), I had summarized Davenant's history of the controversy over the extent of the atonement. This post will begin a digest and interaction with the body of Davenant's Dissertation on the Death of Christ, specifically dealing with his four (plus one dealing with the limitation of Christ's death) main propositions on the nature and extent of the death of Christ.

Exposition of Davenant's Dissertation:

The first aspect of the death of Christ to consider, according to Davenant, is that the death of Christ is represented in the Scriptures as a "universal remedy appointed by God, and applicable for salvation to the whole human race."

This aspect of the death of Christ will be explicated by way of four propositions, which Davenant will defend. Then Davenant will give a final proposition defending the "particular" aspect of the death of Christ--wherein the death of Christ is "by the special decree of God to be efficaciously and infallibly applied to the salvation of particular persons." The former aspect--the universality of the death of Christ--will demand the most amount of attention from Davenant.

The first proposition to be defended goes like this:

The death of Christ is represented in holy Scripture as an universal remedy, by the ordinance of God, and the nature of the thing itself, applicable for salvation to all and every individual of mankind. (340-341)

For each proposition, Davenant first explains the proposition, then confirms the proposition by testimony (i.e. the Scriptures) and arguments, finally he defends his proposition against apparent objections.

Explanation of proposition:

According to Davenant, the death of Christ comprehends "the whole obedience of Christ, active and passive...Whatever therefore Christ did, and whatever he suffered, from the cradle to the cross, the whole of the meritorious and satisfactory work of the Redeemer." (Rom 5:19, Phil 2:7-8).

This death of Christ is represented in God's word as the universal cause of salvation. By this, Davenant means "that according to the will of God...this remedy is proposed indiscriminately to every individual of the human race for salvation, but that it cannot savingly profit any one without a special application."

Universal remedy and universal cause of salvation are used synonymously in Davenant and includes two things:

First, that of itself it can cure and save all and every individual: secondly, that for the production of this determinate effect in each individual it should require a determinate application. (341)

Thus Aquinas himself wrote that

the death of Christ is the universal cause of salvation, as the sin of the first man may be said to be the universal cause of damnation. But it is necessary that an universal cause should be applied particularly to each individual, that its proper effect may be experienced. (Summa Contra Gentiles, 4.LV.26)

Further, that this death of Christ is applicable to all and every individual of mankind, excludes both angels and the dead.  Also, it is not applicable to the living "under every condition, but [only] under the conditions ordained by God." So that if Peter had "persisted in denying Christ to the last" or Judas "had repented and believed in Christ," Christ's death would not be applicable to the former but only to the latter. This conditionality is why Davenant adds the clause "from the ordination of God, and the nature of the thing."

Davenant then appeals to Contra-Remonstrant delegates at the Hague Conference (1611), a precursor to the Synod of Dort. The Contra-Remonstrants said that

Unbelievers, although they have deserved condemnation, yet there is at present some way and means through which they may avoid it, namely, if they should believe...Any sinner may know, even before he departs this life, that Christ died for him also, as far as pertains to the sufficiency of his merits, and also as to their application, provided only he should believe in him.

For Davenant, the above statement by the Contra-Remonstrants is crucial in that "the non-application [of Christ's death] in such cases arises not from the limitation of the remedy, but because the only mode of application appointed by God is obstinately rejected." Thus Davenant does not affirm that at the moment of Christ's death the merits of his death were applied to all mankind, nor was it "infallibly to be applied to all." Rather, the death of Christ was applicable to all. This is an important point made on Davenant's part because of the charge most-often levied against the Hypothetical Universalist position, namely, that God failed. Owen, Turretin, et al., saw Davenant's position as positing some sort of failure in God's ordination (i.e., God ordained to redeem all, but all are not redeemed). However, In Davenant's theology, God has only ordained that the atonement be made applicable to all, not that it be applied to all.

How then does Davenant, as any good Calvinist must, deal with the fact that God only gives certain men (i.e. the elect) the means (i.e. faith) to appropriate the merits of Christ? He says that it "ought not to be inquired...but must be referred to the secret will of God."

In the next post, we will consider Davenant's exposition of the Scriptures in support of proposition #1.