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)Davenant continues his defense of this proposition by way of syllogistic argumentation. Specifically, Davenant lays out eight arguments in support of proposition one. Davenant follows standard Aristotilian logic by setting out various syllogisms taking the form of:
Major Premise: All men are mortal (all M are P)
Minor Premise: Soctates is a man (S is M)
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal (S is P)
Argument 1:
Davenant's first argument, following the above syllogistic format, goes something like:
Major Premise: "That death which brings some spiritual advantages even to those who are not saved, is not applicable to the elect alone"
Minor Premise: "but the death of Christ brings advantages even to some who will not be saved"
Conclusion: "the death of Christ, as to some of its effects at least, is not only applicable to all men generally, but is actually applied to some who will not be saved."
Davenant reminds his readers that "the death of Christ" mentioned in the major and minor premises refers to "all that accumulation of the meritorious obedience of Christ, to which his death put as it were the last finish." The key assumption Davenant is making is that "it is this infinite merit of the Mediator Christ, which God the Father beholds, when he bestows any spiritual benefit upon lost and miserable mortals in order to eternal salvation." [Italics mine]
Davenant recognizes that the minor premise, hinging as it does on the assumption above, is that which clearly needs defending for his argument to bear scrutiny. Accordingly, Davenant appeals first to the proclamation of the Gospel as a spiritual benefit derived from the "infinite merit of the Mediator Christ." So, Davenant asks, "is it not to be esteemed of considerable advantage, that God should deign to call many even of the non-elect to repentance and faith, and, under the condition of faith, to eternal life?" Davenant notes that Titus 2:11 calls the preaching of the Gospel, "the grace of God [which] has appeared that offers salvation." Further, God calls the
preaching of the Gospel, a treasure (2 Cor. iv. 7), and pronounces the feet of them that preach the Gospel beautiful (Rom. x. 15), and threatens the taking it away as the greatest punishment (Matt. xxi. 43), and declares that they shall be most severely punished who have despised and rejected this so great benefit. Luke x. 11, and 2 Thess. i. 8. All these things shew that the Gospel is a supernatural benefit granted even to those who abuse it. (252-253)Davenant, not content to rest his argument merely on the ground that the preaching of the Gospel is a spiritual benefit given to some of the non-elect, appeals to the famous Hebrews 6 passage which speaks of those "great and supernatural benefits" such as an enlightened mind and a taste of the heavenly gift--all given to many who are unbelievers (or non-elect). These benefits, according to Davenant, are "given through and for the sake of Christ." Davenant apparently see the gifts in Hebrews 6 as the same spiritual gifts promised to believers, appealing e.g. to John 1:16 and 1 Cor. 12:11 which says that spiritual gifts are given "by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills."
Francis Turretin, somewhat surprisingly (seeing he is a high Calvinist), argues that the problem between the "[Hypothetical] Universalists" and his own view does not respect whether the death of Christ brings "many blessings" to reprobates.
We do not inquire whether the death of Christ gives occasion to the imparting of many blessings even to reprobates. For it is due to the death of Christ that the Gospel is preached to every creature, that the gross idolatry of the heathen has been abolished from many parts of the world, that the daring impiety of men is greatly restrained by God's word and that some often obtain many and excellent (though not saving) gifts of the Holy Spirit. All these unquestionably flow from the death of Christ, since no place would have been given for them in the church unless Christ had died. (Turretin, Institutes, 2:459 (XI)).In other words, Turretin would seem to agree with the Davenant's minor premise. At the meetings of the Synod of Dort, the British Delegates write and argue that,
there are sundry initial preparations tending to Conversion, merited by Christ, and dispensed in the preaching of the Gospel, and wrought by the Holy Ghost in the hearts of many that never attain to true Regeneration or Justification, such as Illuminatio [en: Illumination], & Notitia dogmatum fidei [en: knowledge of the dogmas of faith], Fides Dogmatica [en: dogmatic faith], Sensus peccati [en: a sense of sin], Timor poenae [en: a fear of punishment], Cogitatio de liberatione [en: the thought of deliverance], Spes veniae [en: hope of pardon], &c. An evident example whereof may be seen in them that sin against the Holy Ghost, Heb. VI & X. And consequently we hold, that the whole merit of Christ is not confined to the Elect only, as some here do hold, and was held in Colloq. Hag. [Conference at the Hague (1611)] by the Contra-Remonstrants. (Quoted in Milton, The British Delegation, 219)Interestingly, the question of whether or not "whatever supernatural grace is given through Christ to any man, is given from the merit of Christ" was a debated point among Reformed scholars in Davenant's time. E.g., Samuel Ward, an English contemporary of Davenant and a fellow delegate to the Synod of Dort, wrote to James Ussher complaining that, "some of us [i.e. the English delegates to Dort] were held by some [as] half remonstrants, for extending the oblation made to the Father, to all; and for holding sundry effects thereof offered serio [en: seriously], and some really communicated to the reprobate." (Ibid., xliv). As an aside, the British delegates, as a whole, believed that this latter affirmation (viz. "sundry effects...really communicated to the reprobate" gained ground upon the Remonstrant's denial of perseverance of the saints, "and thereby easily repell[ed], not only their instances of Apostasie [sic], but also their odious imputation of illusion in the general propounding of the Evangelical Promises." (ibid., 217).
James Walker, the 19th c. Scottish Free-Church historian, also notes that the question of whether certain benefits are purchased by Christ for the reprobate was not new for Scottish Presbyterianism.
[The] scheme that Christ had purchased 'common benefits,' the ordinary temporal blessings of life, and that it is through His grace that the world is sustained as it is, and that all its bounties are enjoyed by mankind...[has] at different times and in different forms...been debated in the Scottish churches. [James] Durham has an essay, in which he considers whether any mercy bestowed upon the reprobate, and enjoyed by them, may be said to be the proper fruit of, or purchase of, Christ's death. And he answers decisively in the negative. The native fruits of Christ's death, he says, are not divided, but they all go together. So that for whom He satisfied and for whom He purchased anything in any respect, He did so in respect of everything. There may be certain consequences of Christ's death of an advantageous kind which reach wicked men. But that is a mere accident. Nay, to the wicked there may be given common gifts, by which the Church is edified and the glory of the Lord advanced; but these belong to the covenant redemption, as promised blessings to God's people. It is argued further, that it is very doubtful whether, looked at in every point of view, it can well be said that it is a blessing to men who yet reject the Son of God, that they have the morally purifying influences of Christianity, and are more or less affected by them in their character, or by any such blessing as can be said to fall from the tree of life. So, too, thought Gillespie, and so thought Rutherford. (Walker, The Theology and Theologians of Scotland, 50-51)In other words, Durham et al would have denied that the merit of Christ purchases benefits (albeit, common grace benefits) for the non-elect. Davenant may have retorted to someone like Durham by claiming that, "Christ does not confer any thing upon men which he hath not first merited for them by his obedience" including those spiritual blessings spoken of in Hebrews 6 which the reprobate receive. In defending this claim, Davenant appeals to Bernard of Clairvaux as stating that "whatsoever wisdom, whatsoever virtue you think you have, attribute it to Christ, the virtue of God, the wisdom of God. The source of fountains and rivers is the sea : the source of virtue and knowledge is our Lord Jesus Christ." (Cf. Bernard, Sermon 13 on the Song of Songs, Para. 1). Furthermore, Ambrose stated that, "every gift of the grace of God is in Christ." Thus, a common grace gift is from Christ also.
Another argument in support of the question of whether the death of Christ is applicable to the non-elect comes from Davenant's understanding of the early church's teaching that the "death of Christ was applied in baptism for the remission of original sin to every baptised infant." Davenant claims that this opinion can be confirmed by way of Prosper, the African Fathers in their Synodical Epistle, and the Council of Valence (5th Canon).
Argument 2:
The second argument employed by Davenant in defense of proposition #1 follows the following syllogistic pattern:
Major Premise: "He who by undergoing death by the ordination of God sustained the punishment due not only to the sins of certain individual persons, but of the whole human race; His passion, by virtue of the same ordination, is applicable not only to certain definite persons, but to every individual of the human race."
Minor Premise: "But Christ by dying sustained the punishment due to the sins of the world"
Conclusion: "Therefore, he willed that his death should be, as it were, an universal cause of salvation applicable to all."
Davenant begins by stating that the person who finds the major premise unsound must "shew why God willed that his Son should bear the sins of the human race, if he was unwilling to appoint in his death a cause at least applicable to the human race, although the application would not follow in many." Davenant sees the cause of God in offering Christ as a propitiation even for those who would not believe as proceeding from the pleasure of "the Divine goodness and wisdom to exact from our Redeemer, and as it were to receive into his own hands, an universal ransom applicable to all."
Davenant lists three other causes for Christ's death for all men. First, that the "liberty of the Divine will" might be made more manifest (in applying the remedy to those whom he wills by divine election). Second, "That he might afford a specimen of great mercy" towards the non-elect who are in the Church. Finally, that unbelievers may be convinced that God had provided a remedy which was not wanting with respect to their sins, but they still are not willing to come (cf. John 5:40).
In his defense of the minor premise, Davenant appeals to Isaiah 53:6. Further, he quotes Prosper, the disciple of Augustine, who said that "the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is the ransom of the whole world, from which they are excluded, who, either being delighted with their captivity are unwilling to be redeemed..." Davenant also mentions the second article of the Church of England's Thirty-Nine Articles which states that, "[Christ] truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men." (Cf. Art. 31 of the 39 Articles)
Finally, Davenant seems to leave the most 'air-tight' testimony as his last. Davenant quotes Paraeus, the chief disciple of Ursinus (whom Richard Muller has claimed to be a hypothetical universalist), as writing in a letter to the Synod of Dort,
The cause and matter of the passion of Christ was the sense and sustaining of the anger of God excited against the sin, not of some men, but of the whole human race; whence it arises, that the whole of sin and of the wrath of God against it was endured by Christ, but the whole of reconciliation was not obtained or restored to all. Act. Synod. Dordrect. p. 217. (quoted in Davenant, 356)Davenant understands this quote of Paraeus as affirming:
He who willed and ordained that Christ the Mediator should sustain the wrath of God due to the sins not of certain persons, but of the whole human race. He willed that this passion of Christ should be a remedy applicable to the human race, that is, to each and every man, and not only to certain individual persons; supreme power being nevertheless left to himself, and full liberty of dispensing and applying this infinite merit according to the secret good pleasure of his will. (356)If it is accurate, as Richard Muller asserts in his review of Jonathan Moore's book on English Hypothetical Universalism, namely, that Ursinus was a hypothetical universalist, and if Davenant has conclusively proved (and other historians have since confirmed) from the quote above that Paraeus, Ursinus' chief disciple, was a hypothetical universalist, then what shall we say about the Heidelberg Catechism authored chiefly by Ursinus? Is it positing a hypothetical universalist position in question 37?:
Question 37. What dost thou understand by the words, "He suffered"?Argument 3:
Answer: That he, all the time that he lived on earth, but especially at the end of his life, sustained in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sins of all mankind: that so by his passion, as the only propitiatory sacrifice, he might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, and obtain for us the favour of God, righteousness and eternal life. [italics mine]
Major Premise: "Whoever from the ordination of God may be called to believe in the Mediator, and they who by believing may obtain eternal life, to them the death of Christ from the previous ordination of God is applicable for salvation"
Minor Premise: "But every living person may be called to believe in the Mediator, and by believing, according to the evangelical covenant, may obtain eternal life"
Conclusion: "Therefore, the death of Christ is applicable to every living person."
Davenant begins by explaining that the connection between the antecedent and consequent found in the major premise is, "that a real call to believe presupposes an object prepared in which to believe, and this very possibility of being saved by believing implies a saving object, that is, That the death or merit of Christ was ordained as a remedy applicable to him to whom such a benefit is promised under the condition of faith."
This argument is not unique to Davenant. One of the chief concerns for the moderate Calvinist was the need for an object to which a sinner may be called to believe. If Christ is not applicable to all sinners, then all sinners cannot be called to believe in Christ. The connection in the major premise, for Davenant, is absolutely crucial.
The second premise, the minor, is a truth which Davenant thinks all orthodox Christians ought to concede. Although Davenant recognizes that the Gospel message will not, by God's providence, be proclaimed to all men, he nonetheless argues that,
God himself has appointed that the Gospel should be a thing really to be announced to all...If any one preacher could go over the whole world, and come to every individual mortal, it would be lawful for him to offer Christ to every man, and, under the condition of faith, to announce and promise salvation to be obtained through Christ...[the death of Christ] would not be sufficient to save all, even if all should believe, unless it be true that by the ordination of God this death is an appointed remedy applicable to all. If it be denied that Christ died for some persons, it will immediately follow, that such could not be saved by the death of Christ, even if they should believe. (357-358)At this point, Davenant raises an apparent objection, an objection most high Calvinists have raised against the hypothetical universalist position, namely:
That God has not commanded his ministers to announce that Christ died for every individual, whether they believe or not, but only for believing and penitent sinners, and therefore it cannot be demonstrated from the universality of the call, that the death of Christ is, according to the ordination of God, an universal remedy applicable to all. (358)However, Davenant finds this reasoning absurd. For "faith is not previously required in mankind, as a condition, which makes Christ to have died for them," but faith is the means of actually appropriating the (saving) benefits of the death of Christ to oneself. Davenant concludes his third argument by asserting that "when therefore we announce to any one, that the death of Christ would profit him if he believed, we presume that it was destined for him, as applicable before he believed."
Argument 4:
Major Premise: "If all men, as soon as the doctrine of the Gospel concerning Christ the Redeemer enduring death on account of the sins of mankind, is made known to them, are bound to be grateful and obedient to Christ, then it is certain that this work of the Redeemer in offering himself as a sacrifice to God, is to be considered as a benefit generally applicable to all; for there is no cause why we should say that they are bound to gratitude, or to the duties of obedience, on account of the death of Christ, who are altogether excluded from that benefit"
Minor Premise: "But an Apostle testifies that every man may be excited to obedience by this argument."
Conclusion: "[Therefore], unless the death of Christ be understood as a remedy applicable to all, the foundation on which the ministers of the Gospel build exhortations of this kind, will be always uncertain, and often false: Always uncertain, because it cannot be known by men who are the elect. Often false, as often indeed as it is exhibited to the non-elect, who by this kind of redemption are not bound to live to Christ, unless it be presupposed that the sacrifice offered by Christ for the redemption of the world was for them."
Davenant defends the minor premise by way of 1 Cor. 6:20 and 2 Cor. 5:15. Davenant even argues that Christ may not claim supreme dominion over each and every man by right of his death as Rom. 14:9 seems to suggest, unless the merit of Christ be applicable to all according to God's ordination.
Again, in conclusion, Davenant suggests that, "we ought, to extend his death to all, at least as to the right and power of a saving application," though acknowledging that "the Spirit of Christ (who bloweth where he listeth) gives to men the faculty and will of applying, as well as the benefit of the death applied, according to the decree of his special mercy."
1 comments:
That is how the holy spirit works.
Post a Comment