John Davenant and Hypothetical Universalism Part 6

In the last post, we began to survey Davenant's explanation of proposition #1.  This proposition asserts that

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)

Exposition of Davenant's Dissertation:

In the next section, but still in defense of the first proposition, Davenant turns to what he calls "the testimony," appealing to the Scriptures. The first Scripture text, not surprisingly, is John 3:16. The text, according to Davenant teaches (1) Christ as given by the Father to death is proposed as an universal remedy for the whole world. (2) The death of Christ is declared applicable to salvation to every man. (3) The condition or means of application is through belief.

Davenant is aware that some relegate the use of "world" in this verse as referring to the whole body of the elect (i.e. those who will believe in Christ), but Davenant responds by asserting that although "the death of Christ brings salvation eventually to the elect alone...it cannot be inferred that it was not a remedy applicable to others, and by the ordination of God to be applied, if they should believe." Davenant illustrates the point he wishes to make:

Suppose that all the inhabitants of a certain city laboured under some epidemic and mortal disease; that the king sent to them an eminent physician furnished with a most efficacious medicine, and caused it to be publicly proclaimed, that all should be cured that were willing to make use of this medicine. Doubtless, we might truly say of this king, that he so loved that city, as to send his own most skillful physician to it; that all who were willing to attend to his advice, and take his medicine, should not die, but recover their former health. But if any should object that this physician was sent only to those should follow his prescriptions, and that his medicine was applicable by the appointment of the king only to those who were willing to take it, he would in reality not only make the beneficence of the king appear less illustrious, but affirm what was evidently false. For medical assistance was offered to all, without any previous condition on the part of the person sent, or of the sick; healing medicine applicable to all without exception was provided. The willingness to receive the physician and take the medicine had no connection with the intention of the Sovereign in sending the medical assistance, but with the certain restoration of health. (344-345)

According to Davenant,

Our faith therefore is required not merely to assent to the proposition, that God has given or ordained his Son to be a remedy for us, but that being given and ordained, He should be received by us to the obtaining of eternal life. (345)

The second Scripture text that Davenant appeals to in support of the first proposition is John 3:17-18 annexed to John 12:47-48.  Davenant argues that in these texts we see that the Son of God was sent by the Father to be an universal remedy for the whole world.  Again, Davenant argues against taking the "world" in these passages as the "world of the elect."  Davenant claims that "this world" into which Christ was sent included both believers and those who would continue in unbelief (non-elect).  Second, Christ was sent to those who will be condemned on the last day.  Third, those who are declared to be condemned are condemned on the ground that "they have not believed in the only begotten Son of God, or, because they have rejected him."  It is perspicuous enough that Christ "was offered to them by God, and sent to save them."

The third testimony from the Scriptures offered in support of Davenant's argument, is Acts 13:38ff.  Again Davenant notes that the death of Christ is applicable "not only to those whom it is actually applied through faith, but even to the despisers, who rejected Christ."  Davenant is not ignorant of verse 48 which teaches that, "faith itself...is not found in unbelievers through their own fault, and is produced in them that believe through the special favor of a merciful God."  But, Davenant warns, as he does in other places, against allowing the mystery of election to determine or affect the doctrine of the atonement:

let us not by an unreasonable and too deep speculation into an awful subject, draw a veil over that Divine philanthropy from which has emanated a remedy applicable to all and every individual of sinners, though certainly effectual only to all those who believe.

The fourth testimony, found in 2 Cor. 5:18-20, receives extensive attention from Davenant.  Davenant makes three observations:

First, "that the Apostle here lays down what he calls reconciliation procured from God through the mediation of Christ, as a common benefit for the whole world."  The phrase "have reconciled the world" according to Davenant means, "to have ordained and granted to the world that universal remedy or propitiatory sacrifice of the death of Christ, which is applicable to all."


Second, Davenant notes the importance of observing

in what sense God is said actually to have reconciled the world lo himself, by the merit of the offering of Christ, namely, because the sacrifice of Christ being made, he will not impute their trespasses unto them; that is, He will not require from any man that he should make satisfaction for his own sins, that being impossible; nor, further, will he punish any one for his sins who shall make use of this propitiatory sacrifice. (347-348)

Note, that Davenant takes care to distinguish between the act of satisfaction for sin and the application of that satisfaction—namely, the removal of guilt and  punishment from the offender who believes on Christ.  So, while Davenant affirms that the propitiation is unlimited (i.e. for all men), the application of the death of Christ is limited by the mystery of election in which God is merciful to whom he wishes and hardens whom he wishes.  We might say that while Davenant does not differentiate in his language between atonement (or more specifically, expiation or propitiation) and redemption—the former being unlimited by the nature of the sacrifice and the latter being limited by divine election—his theology is certainly capable of allowing for that distinction.

Third, Davenant understands this passage to teach that this reconciliation (or non-imputing of sin) is understood by Paul as occurring "as soon as Christ is understood to have laid down his life for the sins of the world."  But, "there remains that the Gospel should be believed" before men are brought into actual possession of this grace.  

Davenant appeals to Aquinas and Musculus' understanding of the aformentioned text:


Aquinas writes that

[Paul's admonition "be ye reconciled to God"] seems contrary to his statement that God has reconciled us to himself. Therefore, if he reconciled us, what need is there to be reconciled? For we are already reconciled. I answer that God reconciled us to himself as efficient cause, namely, on his part, but in order that it be meritorious for us, it is necessary that reconciliation be made on our part (Commentary on 2 Cor. 5:19; Trans. F. Larcher)

Musculus, another commentator appealed to by Davenant, commenting also on 2 Cor. 5:18ff writes:

God reconciled to himself the whole human race, which was, and is, and will be from the beginning to the end of the world, when he gave his Son to death for all...God reconciled the world to himself in Christ, not imputing to them their sins, as far as relates to the work of reconciliation itself— prepared and sufficient for reconciling the whole human race. But since reconciliation cannot lake place between the unwilling, the Ministry of reconciliation was appointed by God himself, by which all are called and invited heartily to embrace this grace. If the whole world would embrace it, certainly the whole world would be reconciled to God, all imputation of sins being removed, and would be saved, nor would any mortal perish...That the ministers of this reconciliation should preach nothing else than the reconciliation made by God, and so made that he might reconcile the world to himself through Christ, not imputing to them their trespasses. To preach this grace faithfully, and to call every one to repentance and faith in Christ, is to preach the word of reconciliation. (Probably from Musculus' commentary entitled, In ambas apostoli Pauli ad Corinthios epistolas commentarii.)

Davenant warns against allowing election to interfere with this reconciliation made by God in Christ:

Those, therefore, who altogether apply themselves and adhere to the secret of predestination, so as at the same time to fritter away, and evidently to subvert this reconciliation of the world, overturn also the ground of our preaching the Gospel, which consists in this chiefly, that we assure every man, that God is so reconciled to him by the death of Christ, that if he believes in Christ, he will not impute to him his trespasses, but will bestow upon him eternal life. This work, confirmed on the part of God and Christ, is called the reconciliation and redemption of the world, although He hath not willed that the unbelieving and impenitent should be reconciled and redeemed. (349)

Appealing to Augustine's chief expositor, Prosper, Davenant quotes Prosper as saying, "The Redeemer of the world gave his own blood for the world, and the world would not be redeemed."  Further, Davenant quotes the Church of England's 31st article, "The offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone." (Thirty-Nine Articles)

Summarizing 2 Cor. 5:18-20, Davenant says that "God, by giving his Son to death, himself supplied for his enemies an asylum of reconciliation, to which whosoever flees for refuge, has God so appeased and reconciled through the benefit of it, that he will at once receive him into his favour."

The fifth testimony is found in the book of Hebrews, specifically 2:3 and 4:1-2.  Davenant sees three truths building on each other taught in this section of Hebrews.  First, that the Gospel, called salvation, is offered to all those to whom it is preached.  Second, this salvation, being laid up in Christ, is rejected by all unbelievers who lack faith in the promises of the Gospel.  Finally, this neglect and unbelief on the part of the unbeliever is the "true cause which prevents the ungodly from obtaining the rest of the Lord, that is, which deprives them of eternal life offered to them in Christ."  However, and this is Davenant and other moderate Calvinists' chief objection to the Owenian or high Calvinist model of the atonement, namely,

But none of these things [i.e. the three points just mentioned] can be said truly and seriously unless it is presupposed that salvation through the death of Christ is applicable to all men, according to the appointment of God. For who can properly be said to have neglected salvation, that is, the cause of salvation appointed and prepared by God, which never was prepared or appointed for him, or applicable to him? Or how does this neglect and unbelief exclude them from a participation in the salvation offered through Christ, who were entirely excluded from it on account of a defect of the appointment of God ? We must therefore admit that there must necessarily be some appointment of God, according to which, Christ, as a cause of salvation, was applicable to them who fell from salvation by their own fault. (350)

In other words, for Christ to be rejectable by the unbeliever, Christ must have been applicable to the unbeliever.

The sixth and final testimony is deduced from "those passages combined, in which the will of Christ in dying is declared to be of such extent as to be the procuring cause of salvation to all."  Davenant appeals to 2 Cor. 5:14, 1 Tim 2:6, Heb 2:9, and 1 John 2:2.  Davenant argues that the Remonstrants take these texts too far by affirming, "That each and every man was restored into a state of' grace and salvation by the death of Christ itself."  However, these texts do assume or teach that the death of Christ has been made applicable for "the obtaining of reconciliation and remission." 

In the next post we will survey Davenant's other arguments in support of the first proposition.

Any thoughts, objections, or questions with respect to Davenant and his view thus far?