Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism: Is it Orthodox?

Introduction

Davenant argued that there is a sense in which it can be said that Christ died for all men, and a sense in which he died for the elect. Davenant’s view of the satisfaction¹ of Christ is called “Hypothetical Universalism.” Michael Lynch paraphrases Davenant as teaching that “God’s intention was that Christ make a satisfaction for all sins such that if all believed, all would be saved.”² In other words, Christ made a satisfaction for all sins, providing a universal remedy that makes all men saveable upon condition that they exercise faith, which makes the remedy effective for them individually. When the elect come to faith and receive the benefits of Christ’s death applied, i.e., when they receive their actual pardon, their faith is the effect of the secret decree of predestination making Christ’s death effectual to them particularly.

Davenant distinguishes between the universal benefit of Christ’s death and the application of the benefit to the elect. He refers to the general and the special mode of Christ’s death.

That special mode is of this kind, that he cannot be said to have died for [the elect] alone, but he died for these only with the certain, eternal, gratuitous purpose of infallibly saving them, through the free gift of his special mercy flowing from some special providence, which we call predestination … But the general mode is of this kind, that we should acknowledge that Christ died for the whole human race, with an evangelical covenant, and that a most sure one, concerning expiating sins and conferring eternal life on each and every man, provided they should embrace this Redeemer of the world with a true faith … It is our part, therefore, to leave to God the decree of his secret predestination, according to which he determined how far, and to whom, he will effectually apply this death of Christ by the gift of his special grace.³

The heart of Davenant’s view is that he makes a distinction between the remedy (the payment of the price), potentially available to all, and the application of the remedy to the elect (their actual pardon). Christ’s satisfaction is potentially available and applicable to all, but it is applied only to those who take advantage of the universal remedy by faith, while recognizing that faith is a gift of God granted to the elect according to the eternal decree.

A key aspect of Davenant’s view is his interpretation of the Lombardian formula: Christ died for all, sufficiently, and for the elect alone, effectively. Davenant is unhappy with those who interpret the first part, “Christ died for all, sufficiently,” in terms of what he calls “mere sufficiency.” Those who hold to mere sufficiency argue that the value of Christ’s work is infinite and would have been sufficient to save all men, had God so determined. Over against the mere sufficiency interpretation of the Lombardian formula, Davenant holds to what he calls “ordained sufficiency.” Ordained sufficiency means that God intended through the work of Christ to make what he calls “an evangelical covenant” with all men in which pardon is offered to all, on condition that they believe.

Davenant gives the following illustration, which I think is helpful for understanding his view:

Suppose that a number of men were cast into prison by a certain King on account of a great debt, or that they were condemned to suffer death for high treason; but that the King himself procured that his own Son should discharge this debt to the last farthing; or should substitute himself as guilty in the room of those traitors, and should suffer the punishment due to them all, this condition being at the same time promulgated both by the King and his Son, That none should be absolved or liberated except those only who should acknowledge the King’s Son for their Lord and serve him. These things being so determined, I inquire, if those who persist in disobedience and rebellion against the King’s Son should not be delivered, would any charge of injustice be incurred, because after this ransom had been paid, their own debts should be exacted from many, or after the punishment endured by the Son, these rebels should nevertheless be punished? By no means; because the payment of the just price, and the enduring of the punishment was ordained to procure remission for every one under the condition of obedience, and not otherwise.⁴

Attenuates the Concept of “Satisfaction”

My primary critique of Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism is that it works with an attenuated understanding of Christ’s satisfaction. The Reformed orthodox do not believe that Christ’s obedience-unto-death merely made all men saveable, or provided a potential remedy that becomes effective only when men accept it. Rather, we hold, that Christ made a perfect satisfaction for all the sins of the elect such that the salvation of the elect is assured. As Dort affirms:

It was God’s will that Christ through the blood of the cross … should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father … that he should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith (CD 2.8).

We believe Christ’s death actually saved the elect. Consider the following verses. In Romans 5:9, Paul writes: “Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.” The term “justified” refers to the actual application of the benefits of Christ’s death to the elect. Christ’s satisfaction itself justifies the elect. It is not that the satisfaction makes it possible for God to justify the elect if they believe. It is that Christ’s satisfaction actually justifies them. Clearly seeing this helps to clarify precisely what we mean by “satisfaction.” Christ’s whole work, his obedience unto the point of death, satisfied God’s justice so that all those for whom he accomplished that work, are justified (at least in principle; it becomes subjectively applied and experienced by each individual elect through effectual calling).

Similarly, Paul says that Christ’s death “reconciles” us. Romans 5:10 (the next verse after the one just quoted above): “For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.” See also Col 1:21-22: “And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him.” The term “reconciled” and the term “justified” are practically synonyms, although they do have different nuances. But if we are reconciled to God, then we are justified, deemed righteous, and accepted before God.

We may also point to the passages that speak of Christ’s objective work using terms that imply its effectual application, for example, the passages that speak of Christ as the “propitiation” for our sins (Rom 3:25; 1 John 2:2; 4:10). The two Greek terms translated “propitiation” (hilastērion and hilasmos) mean a sacrifice that actually propitiates God and quenches his wrath, i.e., actually satisfies God’s justice. There is nothing to suggest that “propitiation” refers to a sacrifice that makes it possible for God’s wrath to be turned aside if certain additional conditions are met.

Another term for Christ’s satisfaction that implies its effectual application is “redemption” (apolutrōsis). See Rom 3:24; Eph 1:7; Col 1:14; Heb 9:12. This term means that Christ’s obedience-unto-death is the payment of the ransom price that sets the captives free. The ransom payment does not make it possible for the captives to be released, should they accept it. It actually sets them free. “In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins” (Col 1:14).

The very concept of “satisfaction” necessarily implies actual forgiveness and justification. This is highlighted by the double-payment argument. If Christ made satisfaction for the sins of the whole human race, then all men must be justified and none damned, for that is what it means to make satisfaction. If some for whom Christ made satisfaction remain unforgiven and are subsequently damned, then God is punishing sin twice – first in Christ, then again in the damned. But double payment would be unjust. The only way out of the dilemma is for Davenant to admit that when he affirms, in agreement with the 39 Articles, that Christ made satisfaction for the sins of the whole human race,⁵ he doesn’t mean that Christ truly, fully, and actually made satisfaction for all the sins of all men, but that Christ died so that the sins of all men could be pardoned on condition that they believe. But then this is to attenuate the notion of “satisfaction,” draining it of all meaning.⁶

Wrongly Grounds the Application of Christ’s Satisfaction

What is the ground, basis, or cause of the application of Christ’s satisfaction to the elect? The merit of Christ under the pactum salutis? or the decree of predestination? Reformed theology argues that the effective application of Christ’s work is due to Christ’s meritorious accomplishment of the Father’s will. Under the terms of the eternal Covenant of Redemption (or pactum salutis), Christ became incarnate and accomplished his messianic mission (active and passive obedience) on behalf of the elect. This covenantal context is what makes possible the merit of Christ. The merit of Christ under the terms of the Covenant of Redemption secures the granting of the reward, which includes its own effective application to the elect. As Dort says, “It was God’s will that Christ through the blood of the cross … should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit’s other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death)” (CD 2.8).

By contrast, for Davenant, the meritorious accomplishment of Christ does not secure its own effective application but merely makes possible a universal remedy that gets applied when and if the condition is fulfilled. Christ purchased a universal potential benefit that is actually received only on condition of faith. Christ died for each and every person, including the non-elect, so that their sins can be forgiven if they meet the condition. But Christ did not purchase the meeting of the condition. That comes from the decree of predestination.

Davenant does not have a pactum salutis as the matrix for conceptualizing the merit of Christ, both its accomplishment and its certain application. Indeed, in one passage he says that Christ submitted to the good pleasure of the Father to freely distribute his merits to whom he wills, and denies that there was any agreement between the Father and the Son:

Christ, in offering himself in sacrifice to God the Father in order to expiate the sins of the world, nevertheless submitted to the good pleasure of the Father the free distribution and application of his merits, neither was any agreement entered into between the Father and the Son, by which God is bound to effect that this death of Christ, which, from the ordination of God, is applicable to all under condition of faith, should become applied to all by the gift of faith.⁷

The merit of Christ is affirmed by Davenant but conceived in a non-covenantal manner. The merit of Christ is simply “destinated” to the elect by the absolute will of God (the language of the British delegation at Dort). Whereas we would say the application of the merit of Christ to the elect is not due to God’s absolute will but is the reward for Christ’s obedience under the Father’s Covenant of Works with the Son. Merit is reward under a covenant of works.

Davenant holds that it is not the merit of Christ that secures the effectual application to the elect but the decree of predestination:

We confess that the death of Christ is infallibly to be applied to the elect alone, because the certainty of the application depends, as to the primary cause, on the secret and eternal act of God in predestinating, and not only on the act of Christ in offering up himself for men … The infallible application to one person rather than to another may be ascribed to predestination.⁸

Or to repeat the earlier quote from Davenant, Christ “submitted to the good pleasure of the Father the free distribution and application of his merits,” meaning that the application of Christ’s merit to the elect is not grounded in his fulfillment of the terms of the pactum salutis but in God’s good pleasure.⁹ According to Reformed theology, by contrast, Christ’s active and passive obedience constitutes such a perfect satisfaction of God’s justice that, by virtue of the satisfaction being made, the application of Christ’s merit to the elect is secured. Christ’s obedience is rewarded under the terms of the pactum salutis. In God’s time, part of Christ’s reward for his obedience is the effective application of his merit to the elect via effectual calling, which creates the faith by which they receive and come to conscious enjoyment of their justification. To put it more simply, Christ’s obedience under the pactum salutis acquires not only the justification of the elect, but the very faith by which they appropriate their justification.

Davenant cannot say that Christ acquired faith for the elect by his death. On his view, the gift of faith is not acquired by Christ’s merit per se but is a separate result of the decree of predestination, which applies the universal remedy to the elect. Christ paid the price for the sins of all, thus making the remedy available to all, but the application of the remedy to the elect (their actual pardon) happens, not because the price itself has been paid and secured their pardon, but because of the secret decree of predestination which works faith in the elect so that they can receive the pardon that was potentially secured for all. Christ’s death makes all men pardonable, but they do not receive the pardon until they believe and make the potential pardon actual. The gift of faith is grounded not in the pactum salutis but in the decree of predestination.

Revises Covenant Theology

Orthodox covenant theology involves three architectonic theological covenants: the Creator’s Covenant of Works with the First Adam, the Father’s Covenant of Works with the Son as the Second Adam (aka the Covenant of Redemption or pactum salutis), and the Covenant of Grace. I realize that this three-covenant structure of covenant theology comes to mature expression after Davenant, so it is perhaps a bit unfair to hold him to that standard. Nevertheless, I think it is illuminating to see how Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism implies a very different covenantal construction that differs from what we now call Federal Theology, that is, the two-Adams view that interprets the work of Christ in the context of the Adamic Covenant of Works.

The Covenant of Works is totally absent from Davenant’s Covenant Theology. It is true that he spoke of “a covenant of nature,” over against which he set “an evangelical covenant” in Christ’s blood. But he did not have a clear Covenant of Works with Adam as the background for the Father’s Covenant of Works with the Second Adam, and the two imputations that result: the immediate imputation of Adam’s sin to all his descendants, and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the elect.

If the Covenant of Works is absent, not surprisingly, so is the Covenant of Redemption. He has no concept of the idea of the merit of Christ under his covenant of works with the Father, with the application of salvation to his elect being part of Christ’s reward under the terms of the Covenant of Redemption. The application of Christ’s work to the elect is, for Davenant, not part of the Covenant of Redemption or any agreement between the Father and the Son. It is simply due to God’s good pleasure in applying the merit of Christ to whom he wills according to his secret decree.

This brings us then to Davenant’s view of the Covenant of Grace. Unlike the first two covenants, the Covenant of Grace is not completely absent in Davenant’s thought, but it has a very different character than the traditional Reformed view. For one thing, the Covenant of Grace is universal in Davenant. Furthermore, he has a new name for it: “the evangelical covenant,” i.e., the gospel offer of a universal remedy applicable to all on condition of faith. Davenant explicitly says that the evangelical covenant was established with the whole human race:

The death of Christ is the universal cause of the salvation of mankind, and Christ himself is acknowledged to have died for all men sufficiently, not by reason of the mere sufficiency or of the intrinsic value, according to which the death of God is a price more than sufficient for redeeming a thousand worlds; but by reason of the Evangelical covenant confirmed with the whole human race through the merit of this death … It must be acknowledged, That this evangelical covenant is universal from the ordination of God himself, and that it equally regards all men individually.¹⁰

The Covenant of Grace has traditionally been understood as the outworking in history of the Covenant of Redemption. The proper purpose of the Covenant of Grace is thus tied to the outworking and application of the Covenant of Redemption, which only has the elect in view. The administration of the Covenant of Grace may contain non-elect members for a time, within the visible church, but even then they are still distinguished from the world.

In this connection (Davenant’s view of the Covenant of Grace), I think it would repay further study to examine Davenant’s view of the sacraments. On the traditional view of the Covenant of Grace, the sacraments are signs and seals of the Covenant of Grace, made effectual for the salvation of the elect. But on Davenant’s view, the sacraments would presumably be signs and seals of the evangelical covenant with all men.

Reformed theology teaches that the Covenant of Grace is made with the visible church (professing believers and their children), not with the whole world. Lynch claims that although the Covenant of Grace is universal, “in its administration” it is restricted to the visible church, for that is where one finds the preaching of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments.¹¹ Lynch doesn’t cite any passage from Davenant expressly stating that, so one wonders whether that is actually true to Davenant’s thought. One has one’s doubts when one reads that Davenant also held that all baptized infants, even the non-elect, are absolved from original guilt through Christ’s blood, implying that the death of Christ can be said in some way to be applied to some non-elect individuals.¹²

Opens the Door to Neonomianism

It is well known that Baxter held to Hypothetical Universalism and used it as part of his Neonomian revision of the doctrine of justification. On Baxter’s scheme, the covenant of nature was too hard for man, so God made a new covenant of grace with all men, in which the conditions are easier – faith and repentance. Christ’s death removes the obstacle of God’s justice so that God in his grace can now make an easier evangelical covenant with mankind. I think the case can be made that Davenant opened the door to Baxter’s Neonomian view of justification by the easier works of faith and repentance.

One can see the seeds of Neonomianism in Davenant because of how faith is so strongly emphasized as a condition of pardon under the evangelical covenant. Faith is no longer described as the instrument by which we receive and rest upon Christ and his righteousness. Rather, faith is the condition based on which God pardons the elect. It is easy to see how this can lead to a denial of sola fide, and holding to the Neonomian idea that we are justified by obedient faith. This concern has been raised by other scholars critical of Hypothetical Universalism.¹³ I skimmed Davenant’s treatise on justification, and he does appear to have an orthodox view at first glance.¹⁴ Yet the seeds of Neonomianism are undeniably there. I cringed when I read at one point in De Morte Christi where he said the condition of pardon is obedience:

That none should be absolved or liberated except those only who should acknowledge the King’s Son for their Lord and serve him … The payment of the just price, and the enduring of the punishment was ordained to procure remission for every one under the condition of obedience, and not otherwise.¹⁵

Perhaps one could argue that it isn’t fair to Davenant to use this quote against him since he is here deploying his illustration of the king offering pardon to some of his rebellious subjects. Still, one wonders. It seems logical that if Christ’s death itself does not procure faith, and if faith is the “condition” for receiving the pardon, then faith will begin to take on characteristics of a work of obedience.

Is Hypothetical Universalism Confessional?

Some have suggested that Dort was a consensus document that intentionally permitted Hypothetical Universalism. However, I don’t think this is an accurate way of explaining what happened at Dort. The English delegation at Dort avoided having their view denounced as heretical.¹⁶ But note that the English delegation did not get their actual view affirmed anywhere in the Canons!

Not only that, but the Canons contain teaching that is out of accord with Hypothetical Universalism.

First, contrary to Hypothetical Universalism, the Canons explicitly affirm “mere sufficiency” as the ground for the indiscriminate offer of the gospel. Consider the sequence of the following paragraphs in the Canons. CD 2.3-4 affirms the infinite value of Christ’s work (“mere sufficiency”). Then, CD 2.5 immediately teaches the mandate to proclaim the gospel to all indiscriminately. Although the logical connection is not stated, the sequence strongly implies that mere sufficiency is the ground for the indiscriminate gospel offer—something Davenant strongly disagreed with.

Second, contrary to Hypothetical Universalism, the Canons clearly affirm the saving effectiveness of Christ’s death. They affirm that Christ by his satisfaction actually merited its application to the elect, including the acquisition of the gift of faith: “It was God’s will that Christ through the blood of the cross … should effectively redeem [the elect] … that he should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit’s other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death)” (CD 2.8).

Further reinforcing this view of the effectiveness of Christ’s work specifically in relation to faith, the Synod also rejects the error of those “who teach that Christ, by the satisfaction which he gave, did not certainly merit for anyone salvation itself and the faith by which this satisfaction of Christ is effectively applied to salvation” (CD 2.RE3). In other words, the Synod affirms that Christ, by means of his satisfaction, merited the faith by which his satisfaction is effectively applied to salvation. This runs counter to Davenant who attributes the gift of faith and the effective application of Christ’s satisfaction to the decree of predestination.

It is true that the British delegation was able to get some concessions at Dort. But whatever ambiguity remains, I would argue that Hypothetical Universalism, if not explicitly ruled out at Dort, was ruled out a generation later. French Hypothetical Universalism (Amyrauldianism) was ruled out-of-bounds by the Formula Consensus Helvetica (FCH) in 1675, and so, by analogy, is English Hypothetical Universalism. FCH Canon 16 explicitly disapproves of Hypothetical Universalism: “Since all these things are entirely so, we can hardly approve the opposite doctrine of those who affirm that of his own intention and counsel and that of the Father who sent him, Christ died for each and every one upon the condition, that they believe.”¹⁷

In a brief online article, Lynch admits there is no real difference between English Hypothetical Universalism and Amyrauldianism with respect to Christ’s satisfaction.¹⁸ Lynch points to ancillary issues, such as Amyraut’s notion of universal grace via general revelation, as the reason why Amyrauldianism has a bad name in Reformed churches.

The FCH rejects Amyraut’s “new covenant of grace with all men,” which is hardly different from Davenant’s “evangelical covenant with all men”: “We also cannot affirm the teaching that he obtained for all a salvation, which, nevertheless, is not applied to all, and by his death merited a salvation and faith for no one individually but only removed the obstacle of divine justice, and acquired for the Father the liberty of entering into a new covenant of grace with all men” (FCH 16).

Incidentally, the Formula Consensus Helvetica also expressed the concern that the defenders of Hypothetical Universalism, such as Amyraut, failed to affirm a clear doctrine of the Covenant of Works and the imputation of Adam’s sin (see FCH 7-10). It is probably not an accident that the doctrine of the Covenant of Works appears to be missing from Davenant’s theology as well.

I would not call Hypothetical Universalism “heresy,” but it is out of bounds in confessionally Reformed churches because it has a different understanding of the very nature of Christ’s satisfaction. On Hypothetical Universalism, Christ’s work is not really a satisfaction of divine justice that secures justification and reconciliation. Rather, it removes the obstacle to divine justice, making a universal remedy available to all men on condition that they accept it. Interestingly, this is not all that different from the widely preached evangelical Arminian view so common in America.

Hypothetical Universalism is clearly not the Reformed view of Christ’s satisfaction, even though a minority of voices (like Davenant) can be found in Reformed history who held it. It belongs in the category of other views with some precedent in the Reformed tradition but nonetheless regarded as serious errors, e.g., Placaeus’ mediate imputation.

Endnotes

It is important for this discussion to use the proper term “satisfaction” instead of the vague term “atonement.” Christ’s work, which is his whole obedience to the point of death, satisfied God’s justice on behalf of the elect. ↩
Michael J. Lynch, John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism: A Defense of Catholic and Reformed Orthodoxy, Oxford Studies in Historical Theology (Oxford University Press, 2021), 158. ↩
John Davenant, Dissertatio de Morte Christi, Appendix to Volume 2 of An Exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians, translated by Josiah Allport (London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co., 1832), 399. ↩
Davenant, 376-77. ↩
Davenant affirms that Christ “made satisfaction for the sins of the human race” on p. 364. Article 31 of the 39 Articles of Religion reads: “The offering of Christ once made is the 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” (quoted by Davenant, p. 349). ↩
Davenant acknowledges the double-payment objection (pp. 374-77), but his reply is weak, and he never addresses the implications of “satisfaction.” ↩
Davenant, 376. ↩
Davenant, 398. ↩
Davenant, 376. ↩
Davenant, 401, 422. ↩
Lynch, 140. ↩
Lynch, 33, 91, 125. Baptismal Regeneration and the Final Perseverance of the Saints: A Letter of the Right Rev. John Davenant to Dr. Samuel Ward, trans. J. Allport (London: William Macintosh, 1864). ↩
Lynch, 140-41, citing Jonathan Moore. ↩
Davenant, Disputatio de Justitia, transl. J. Allport (George Herbert, 1857). ↩
Davenant, De Morte Christi, 377; emphasis mine. ↩
See the editorial changes made at various stages of the drafting process, as reported by Lynch, 80-100. ↩
Martin I. Klauber, “The Helvetic Formula Consensus (1675): An Introduction and Translation,” Trinity Journal 11NS (1990): 103-123. ↩
Michael J. Lynch, “Amyraldianism and English Hypothetical Universalism: What’s the Difference?” Modern Reformation, Jan 17, 2022. https://www.modernreformation.org/resources/articles/amyraldianism-and-english-hypothetical-universalism-whats-the-difference ↩