Reformed Thought On The Extent Of The Atonement To 1618

By W. Robert Godfrey

Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia

This material is taken from chapter two of a Ph.D. dissertation, “Tensions Within International Calvinism: The Debate on the Atonement and the Synod of Dort, 1618–1619,” submitted to the History Department of Stanford University, 1974.

In 1618 Calvinists from all over Europe gathered together at Dordrecht (Dort), Holland to participate in judging the Arminian theology. All the delegates to the Synod agreed that the Arminian theses submitted to the Synod were unacceptable. But when the Synod came to formulate the orthodox position, significant differences emerged among the delegates. The sharpest disagreements revolved around the extent of the atonement. Neither the orthodox delegates nor later historians appreciated the wide variations on the extent of the atonement contained within Reformed thought. Calvinism in the early seventeenth century was not a rigid, monolithic movement. This article will examine the sources and nature of the differences among Reformed theologians on the extent of the atonement before 1618. Such an examination will analyze this doctrine from its biblical foundations through the history of Christian thought to the concern in the Reformed Church sparked by the Arminian controversy in the United Provinces. A selective overview of influential thinkers and documents will clarify the historical development of Reformed theology before Dort and provide the historical context for understanding the bitter debate at Dort on the extent of the atonement.

Before the Reformation

Augustine was the first great defender of the efficacy and particularism of God’s grace. Augustine linked the operation of this grace in the elect closely to the work of Christ: “Hi ergo Christo intelliguntur dari, qui ordinati sunt in vitam aeternam. Ipsi sunt illi praedestinati et secundum propositum vocati, quorum nullus perit.”[1] Augustine also stressed what Christ has done “pro nobis,” that is, for his own.[2]

We did not love him. He loved us, to the end that we might love him. “And he sent his Son to be the propitiator for our sins,”—propitiator, that is offerer of sacrifice. He offered sacrifice for our sins.[3]

While Augustine did not express clearly or discuss at length the doctrine of the definite or limited atonement, he did come very close to this doctrine: “Quia videbat eos ad sempiternum interitum praedestinatos, non ad vitam aeternam sui sanguinis praetio comparatos.”[4] He also interpreted one of the key passages of Scripture, I John 2:2, in a way that was adopted by those who later taught the limited atonement:

… but he [the Apostle] knew that there would be some [in this context Augustine is referring to the Donatists] who would set themselves apart, saying, “Lo, here is Christ, or lo, there! ” trying to show that he who purchased the whole is only in the part. Therefore he adds at once: “not only of our sins, but of the sins of the whole world.” … Think, brethren, what that means. Surely we are pointed to the Church in all nations, the Church throughout the whole World.[5]

Augustine argued that the sense of this verse in I John was not that Christ died indiscriminately for every individual in the world but for the Church in all times throughout the world.

The ideas on the death of Christ implicit in Augustine were made explicit by Prosper of Aquitaine. Prosper, a young contemporary of Augustine and his champion in the struggle against the Semi-Pelagians, stoutly defended the doctrine of predestination. He saw the implication of that doctrine for the discussion. of the death of Christ. One interpreter of Prosper said: “Prosper … in fact gave no other answer than that of Augustine: after his master he interpreted the salvific will in the sense of a restricted universality.”[6] In two of his writings Prosper particularly reflected on the sense in which the death of Christ was for all men and the sense in which it was restricted. In his Pro Augustino responsiones ad capitula obiectionum Gallorum calumniantium, Prosper stated:

Article 9. Objection: The Saviour was not crucified for the redemption of the entire world. 

… Accordingly, though it is right to say that the Saviour was crucified for the redemption of the entire world, because He truly took our human nature and because all men were lost in the first man, yet it may also be said that He was crucified only for those who were to profit by His death.[7]

In Pro Augustino responsiones ad capitula obiectionum Vincentianarum Prosper declared:

Article 1. Objection: Our Lord Jesus Christ did not suffer for the salvation and redemption of all men.... 

Considering, then, on the one hand the greatness and value of the price paid for us, and on the other hand the common lot of the whole human race, one must say that the blood of Christ is the redemption of the entire world. But they who pass through this world without coming to the faith and without having been reborn in baptism, remain untouched by the redemption. Accordingly, since our Lord in very truth took upon Himself the one nature and condition which is common to all men, it is right to say that all have been redeemed, and that nevertheless not all are actually liberated from the slavery of sin.[8]

Prosper was quite concerned to avoid the charge that he was limiting the universality of Christ’s death. He strove to state his position very carefully, arguing that Christ’s death clearly did not have the same effect on the saved as on the damned. He only hinted at the key question that was to trouble the Synod of Dort, namely what Christ’s intention was in offering himself

“He was crucified only for those who were to profit by his death.”[9] ‘Those who were to profit’ must be the elect in Prosper’s theology, and therefore for him, Christ’s intention was particularly for the elect. Prosper was the most definitive spokesman for this point of view in the early period of the Church.

The next significant historical figure who reflected on the extent of the atonement was Peter Lombard. Lombard was important because he made an observation that remained the fundamental distinction on the question of the death of Christ throughout the Middle Ages and into the Reformation period. In his Sentences Lombard proclaimed:

Christus ergo est sacerdos, idemque et hostia pretium nostrae reconciliationis; qui se in ara curcis non diabolo, sed Trinitati obtulit pro omnibus, quantum ad pretii sufficientiam; sed pro electis tantum quantum ad efficaciam, quia praedestinatis tantum salutem effecit.[10]

The distinction made between the sufficiency of the sacrifice made for all and the efficacy of the sacrifice made for the elect remained a touchstone for the Reformed debate on this question and took on great significance at the Synod of Dort.

Developments from Calvin to Arminius

Although many medieval theologians commented on Lombard’s Sentences and on his distinction,[11] the next outstanding thinker who wrote on the subject was John Calvin. Scholars have debated exactly what Calvin did teach on the death of Christ. In part the debate had reflected differing attitudes on Calvin’s relation to later Calvinism. Some scholars have seen a continuity and natural development between Calvin and Calvinism, while others have seen Calvinist orthodoxy as a distortion of and a deviation from Calvin’s thought.

Roger Nicole[12] and Brian Armstrong[13] who have both written on the Amyraldian controversy, represent opposite sides in the debate over Calvin and Calvinism. Nicole sees a basic harmony between Calvin and later orthodox Calvinism, while Armstrong argues that orthodox Calvinism deviated significantly from Calvin’s breadth of vision. On the question of the extent of the atonement each is able to cite references from Calvin that seem to support his position, but as Nicole noted, the matter is difficult because, “Calvin does not discuss [this question], at least not in the terms to which we may have grown accustomed ….”[14] Calvin did not seem to use the distinction between the sufficiency and efficiency of Christ’s death, nor did he speak explicitly of a definite or limited atonement.

However anachronistic it may be to try to force an answer from Calvin, Nicole’s arguments generally are more persuasive than Armstrong’s. Armstrong’s citations from Calvin seem to fall under one of two categories: either Calvin is using the words of Scripture themselves (e.g., II Timothy 2:19) or he is referring to what Nicole calls “Calvin’s frequent emphasis upon the indiscriminate call of the Gospel [which] may well account for the universal expression found under his pen ….”[15] Certainly the pervasive particularism of Calvin’s concept of the workings of grace seem to confirm Nicole’s interpretation:

How can Christ’s saying [“Everyone who has heard … from the Father comes to me”] be understood in any other way than that the grace of God is efficacious of itself …. The Lord does not indiscriminately deem everyone worthy of this grace …. It is obviously the privilege of the elect that, regenerated through the Spirit of God, they are moved and governed by his leading.[16]

Calvin also spoke clearly of Christ’s death as a substitutionary, legal transaction:

It was superfluous, even absurd, for Christ to be burdened with a curse, unless it was to acquire righteousness for others by paying what they owed.... For unless Christ had made satisfaction for our sins, it would not have been said that he appeased God by taking upon himself the penalty to which we were subject.[17]

Calvin also demonstrated his particularism in relation to the work of Christ in his discussion of perseverance:

Christ proclaims aloud that he has taken under his protection all whom the Father wishes to be saved. Therefore, if we desire to know whether God cares for our salvation, let us inquire whether he has entrusted us to Christ, whom he has established as the sole Savior of all his people.[18]

Although Calvin did not express himself as clearly as later Reformed theologians did, Nicole’s conclusion still seems accurate: “… that definite atonement fits better than universal grace into the total pattern of Calvin’s teaching.”[19]

Calvin’s friend and successor, Theodore Beza, occupied a critical position among those who formulated the theory of the atonement before the Synod of Dort. One scholar has pointed to him as the source of the notion of the limited atonement in Reformed theology[20] and many who stress the discontinuity between Calvin and Calvinism have emphasized the far-reaching impact of Beza’s formulations on the development of Reformed theology. Jill Raitt has neatly summarized the dominant point of view:

Scholars are asking how direct is the line from the doctrine of Calvin to the Synod of Dort in 1619. From H. E. Weber through Ernst Bizer and Basil Hall to Walter Kickel and B. G. Armstrong an accusing finger is pointed at Beza as the father of Reformed scholasticism and of changes in ecclesiastical discipline and doctrine.[21]

Other scholars, including Raitt[22] and John Bray[23] feel that this consensus needs to be modified significantly.

While it is beyond the scope of this study to trace definitively the development of Beza’s doctrine of the extent of the atonement, an analysis of the key elements of his thought is sufficient to evaluate accurately his influence on his contemporaries and to assess the degree to which his formulations were accepted by the delegates at the Synod of Dort.

Before the critical year 1586, Beza expressed himself in clear but brief terms on the limited extent of the atonement. In A Briefe Declaration of the Chief Poyntes of Christian Religion set forth in a Table, the fourth chapter on “by what order God proceedeth to declare and after a sorte to execute his Election” Beza stated:

Forasmuch therefore as he is merciful, and yet could not forget his justice, before all other things it was necessarie that a mediator should be appointed: by whom man might be perfectly restored and that this should be done by ye free mercy of grace which doth appear in ye free salvation of his elect.... and finally with one only offering and sacrifice of himself should sanctifie all the elect…[24]

Beza expressed the same idea in his Con fessio Christianae Fidei, et eiusdem collatio cum Papisticis Haeresibus, in chapter three, “De Iesu Christo Unico Dei Filio”: “Is unus est quern Pater ab aeterno naturae humanae participem facere statuit, ut per eum suos Electos conservaret…:[25]

Beza expanded his ideas on the atonement as a result of his participation in the Colloquy of Montbéliard (Moempelgard) in 1586. In 1585 French refugees in Montbéliard, a French-speaking province ruled by a German prince, had written to the Company of Pastors in Geneva asking whether it was right for them as Reformed Christians to take part in the Lutheran Eucharist. The Company proposed a colloquy between Beza and Jacob Andreae to discuss the subject and settle the problem.[26]

The colloquy was held at Montbéliard in March, 1586, and the discussions were not limited to the Lord’s Supper, but they extended to the person of Christ, Baptism, the use of images, and predestination.[27] This colloquy like most of those between the Reformed and the Lutherans was not a success and seemed to increase rather than diminish the distance between the two confessions. Geisendorf makes a characteristically French evaluation of the nature of the debate: “Bze un vrai gentilhomme français, ‘avec courtoisie et charité,’ Andreae un vrai th6ologien allemand, avec invectives et rabies theologica.”[28] At the conclusion of the colloquy Beza offered Andreae the hand of brotherhood which Andreae refused to accept.[29]

The colloquy had not ended on a good note, and problems multiplied after the colloquy. A Calvinist, Eusebius Schonbergius, published a tract attacking the Lutheran position as it had been expressed at Montbéliard.[30] The Lutherans responded in 1587 by publishing their Acta Colloquii Mortis Belligartensis. This document was slanted toward presenting only the Lutheran arguments,[31] and in the same year Beza felt constrained to respond and correct the record. In Ad Acta Colloquia Montisbelgardensis Tubingae Edita, Theodori Bezae Responsio, Beza presented a clear and detailed statement of his thought on the atonement.

Several fundamental points emerged from Beza’s discussions with Andreae on the extent of the atonement. The first was that Beza distinguished between the role of Christ as the eternal second person of the Trinity and the role of Christ as the fulfillment of the decree of predestination: “Aliter igitur Christus considerandus est ut causa praedestinationis efficiens cum Patrem et Spiritu Sancto: Aliter ut primum ipsius Praedestinationis, de servandis per misericordiam in ipso electis effectum.”[32] A recurrent charge against the doctrine of the limited atonement was that it reduced Christ from being the foundation of election to being only the executor of election. Beza indicated that Christ was the foundation of election as he participated in the eternal counsel of the Trinity, but Christ was the executor of the decree in his incarnate life.

Beza succinctly stated his own conviction about the atonement in the words, “propitiationis beneficium necessario ad solos electos, et, quia electi sunt, credentes pertinere.”[33] The benefit of the atonement properly belongs to the elect alone. Beza’s concern was to stress the efficacious nature of the atonement. Salvation was not made possible in Christ; it was made actual for the elect of God.

This basic Reformed contention was bitterly attacked by Andreae: “absurda, horrenda, et manifeste impia quae Beza docet de morte Christi, negans illum [vel patris decreto vel effectu] pro omnibus [id est singulis nullo prorsus excepto] peccatis et peccatoribus mortuum.”[34]

Beza pressed the point that the atonement was limited by arguing that Christ did not die for the damned: “Num vero Christus totius mundi peccata sustulit, ut vos de singulis hominibus interpretamini? Et certe nobis intolerabilis vox vestra visa est, Christum esse mortum pro damnatis, et homines non damnari propter peccata.”[35] Andreae responded to this argument:

Sufficienter pro singulorum hominum peccatis satisfecit, ut nova aut alia victima non opus esset, si mille mundi, ut sic loquar, restarent Deo reconciliandi, pro quibus una gutta sanguinis Filii Dei sufficeret. Quia vero maxima pars hominum hanc contemnit: ideo illis nihil prodest, et eo gravius damnatur.[36]

The introduction of the concept of sufficiency by Andreae evoked one of the most interesting and illuminating of Beza’s statements. “Illum enim, ‘Christus mortuus est pro omnium hominum peccatis Sufficienter, sed non Efficienter,’ etsi recto sensu verum est, dure tamen admodum et ambigue non minus quam barbare.”[37] Beza granted that if rightly understood the classical formulation of Lombard’s Sentences was acceptable, but he indicated that it was probably better for theological clarity to abandon the distinction. Beza was concerned about the ambiguity of the statement and felt that the particularity of God’s saving intention in Christ could be better stated without this distinction. Christ died for all men only in the sense that his death was of infinite value. His death was not for all men individually either with respect to the intention of the Father in sending his Son to die or with respect to the actual effect of the death. Beza’s contention at this point was his unique contribution to this discussion. In assessing Beza’s influence on the Reformed tradition it is important to investigate the degree to which successive theologians listened to Beza or used the distinction between sufficiency and efficiency.

Although Beza’s dissatisfaction with the classical formulation on the extent of the atonement may have been unique, he was eager to assert that the doctrine of the limited atonement was not an idea unique to him, nor indeed to the Reformed churches.

When he interpreted the passages in the Scripture which speak of Christ’s death for all as referring to all sorts of men rather than to all men individually, he maintained that such an interpretation was “ex orthodoxo adversus Pelagianos Ecclesiae consensu.”[38]

The importance of Beza’s conclusions in his Responsio was heightened by an attack leveled from a new direction. In 1588 Samuel Huberus, a theologian in Bern, attacked another Bernese theologian, Abraham Musculus. Huberus charged that Musculus had accompanied Beza to Montbéliard and had joined in formulating positions which were completely unacceptable to Huberus. Huberus condemned Musculus for teaching that “ ‘Christus Jesus seye nitt gestorben fuer die suenden aller menschen.’”[39]

Musculus defended himself by accusing Huberus of following Andreae. Musculus had chosen a clever debating point because Andreae and the Lutheran cause were very unpopular in Bern.[40] Musculus also defended himself theologically by appealing to the old distinction between the sufficiency and efficiency of the death of Christ.[41] Here he was obviously not maintaining the strict position that Beza had argued at Montbéliard, but Musculus brought out the more moderate Reformed position based upon Lombard’s distinction. Indeed, he claimed repeatedly that the position he was espousing represented the “consensus universali”[42] of the Reformed churches.

The situation in Bern because of these charges and countercharges became so serious that in April 1588 the Bernese government sent to Geneva for help. Several theologians, including Beza, traveled to Bern to aid in resolving the disputes. The Bern Colloquy ended in a decisive victory for Musculus and Beza. Huberus left the city and went to Tübingen to teach under Lutheran auspices there. In the Reformed community his name became synonymous with deviation on the doctrine of the atonement right up to the time of the Synod of Dort thirty years later.

Gottfried Adam has concluded that “Dies Ergebnis des Berner Kolloquiums markiert—theologiegeschichtlich betrachtet — auesserlich den ‘Anchluss’ auch der Berner Kirche an die calvinistische Orthodoxie.”[43] It is certainly true that Bern had joined Geneva as Musculus had joined Beza to reject the universalism of Andreae and Huberus. This observation should not, however, be allowed to obscure the fact that Beza and Musculus had expressed themselves rather differently on this matter. With the doctrine of the atonement, as with supralapsarianism, Beza’s opinion was important and influential, but Bezan orthodoxy did not rule unchallenged in the Reformed world. Indeed Beza’s strict formulation, rejecting the traditional distinction between sufficiency and efficiency, was not accepted by the majority of the Reformed theologians.

Reformed concern with the question of the atonement was not caused solely by Reformed systematizing tendencies or their confrontations with Lutheran theologians, but it was also aroused by the new theology proposed by Faustus Socinus (1539–1604). Socinus is often thought of first in connection with his attack on the Trinity, but his system included other points as well:

The third and perhaps the most important point at issue between Socinus and the Catholic scheme of dogma lay in his radical criticism of the theory of atonement. This, even more than its rationalizing tendency, has always been, from the orthodox angle, the damnosissima heresia of Socinianism.[44]

Socinus treated the subject of the atonement at length in his work De Jesu Christo Servatore. He also provided a brief summary of his position in his work, Justificationis Nostrae per Christum Synopsis ubi potissimum de ipsius Christi mortis vi, et effectis agitur:

Hinc apparere potest [Ut de quibusdam ex praedictis et similibus scripturae loquendi modi aliquanto apertius agamus] pro nobis mortuum esse Christum, non id significare, quod multi fortasse crediderunt, eum scilicet vice seu loco nostrum mortuum esse. Quemadmodum, pro peccatis nostris Christum mortuum fuisse, non significat vice seu loco peccatorum nostrorum eum mortem oppedisse. Id quod etiam abunde ex eo constat, quod tantum abest, ut Christus moriendo vicem nostram obiert, ut nos ad eius exemplum mori parati esse debeamus, alioquin eius regni participes non futuri, sicut apertissime pluribus in locis Sacrae Litterae testantur. Ut igitur, pro peccatis nostris mortuum esse Christum, aliud nihil significat, quam nostrorum peccatorum caussa eum Occisum fuisse, sic, Pro nobis Christum mortuum esse, nihil praeterea declarat, quam illum propter nos violentam mortem subiisse. 

Cum autem scriptum invenimus, sanguinem Christi nos expurgare ab omni peccato, non utique intelligendum est, vim quandam occultam Christi sanguini inesse, ad expurganda peccata nostra, sed eam, quam nos ipsi perspicue agnoscere possimus …. Quocirca rectissime atque ex Sacrae Scripturae more scriptum fuisset, sanguinem Christi nos expurgare ab omni peccato, etiaxnsi Christi sanguis aliud nihil efficeret, quam declararet nos ab omni peccato expurgatos esse; quod certe efficit. Naxnque eo Deus, tanquaxn sigillo quodam remissionem peccatorum nobis ultro oblatam obsignavit, et novum atque aeternum foedus nobiscum sanxit. Nimirum enim sanguine Christi interveniente factum est, ut simul vitam aeternam, quae vera peccatorum nostrorum expurgatio est, nobis partam esse agnoverimus.[45]

Socinus introduced his reduction of Christ’s death to an example of the love of God in the context of his discussion of justification. For Socinus the death of Christ and justification were intimately related. Justification resulted from man’s moral actions and so the death of Christ was merely an inspiration for moral action.

For orthodox Calvinists the death of Christ and justification were also intimately related, but the emphasis was all on the mercy and action of God. For the Calvinists the theology of Socinus was the ultimate attack on the glory of God, and Socinus was the chief heresiarch of the age. His theology was a call to opposition, and the Calvinists attempted to vanquish his thought wherever it appeared.[46]

Beza’s Reformed contemporaries generally accepted the doctrine of the limited or definite atonement, though they spent less time discussing it than did Beza in his writings. Two influential Italian Reformed theologians, Peter Martyr Vermigli and Hieronymus Zanchius, referred to the doctrine of the atonement in their writings. In his Common. Places Vermigli observed:

… we will acknowledge, that he choosing this meanes of our salvation, did exceedinglie detest the nature of sinne, when he decreed to give his owne sonne unto death, and that unto a shamefull death: to the end he might rid his elect from sinne.[47]

In his commentary on I John, Zanchius said:

Est autem illud primum membrum, nempe pro peccatis nostris: ad peccata tum Apostolorum, tum reliquorum, tam ex gentibus quam ex Iudaeis Electorum, et fidelium, qui tum, cum hanc scriberet Epistolam Iohannes, superstites erant, referendum: Alterum vero nempe, pro peccatis totius Mundi: ad peccata omnium Electorum qui unquam vel a condito Mundo fuerant, vel usque ad finem Mundi futuri erant: Nomine enim Mundi συνεκδοχικως venit pars mundi, et quidem nobilior pars, nempe Electi omnes. Cum igitur ait, Christum esse ἱλασμὸν pro peccatis totius Mundi, id est, omnium Electorum Mundi, duo docet. Unum, Christum proprie, secundum propositum et efficaciter, pro ipsis tantum Electis, sui corporis sacrificium Patri obtulisse: Alterum: proinde consequenter ipsorum peccata esse reipsa coram Deo expiata, Deum reipsa et vere illis placatum: et quicquid ab se perunt, praestare illis paratum: ipsorum igitur salutem esse certissimam.[48]

He reinforced these ideas with a similar statement in De Religione Christiana, Fides:

Unicam enim agnoscimus Redemtorem Iesum Christum, extra quem, sicut nullus est verus Deus, sic nulla vera salus, et unicum sacrificium, cuius oblatione semel facta, non solum peccata omnia electorum fuerunt in persona Christi semel expiata, sed etiam quotidie in finem usque mundi iam expiata condonantur credentibus.[49]

Among English Reformed theologians, only William Perkins treated the subject of the atonement at any length. He expressed himself clearly and forcefully on the subject, and like Vermigh and Zanchius, he approached the subject as if it were not a matter of controversy. In his most famous work, A Golden Chain, he said:

Christ’s office is threefold—priestly, prophetical, regal. Christ’s priesthood is an office of his wherein he performed all those things to God whereby is obtained eternal life. His priesthood consisteth of two parts, satisfaction and intercession. Satisfaction is that whereby Christ is a full propitiation to his Father for the elect.... Thus we have heard of Christ’s marvellous passion whereby he hath abolished both our first and second death, due unto our sins; the which (as we may further observe) is a perfect ransom for the sins of all and every one of the elect.... Christ maketh intercession according to both natures. First, according to his humanity, partly by appearing before his Father in heaven, partly by desiring the salvation of the elect. Secondly, according to his deity, partly by applying the merit of his death, partly by making request by his Holy Spirit in the hearts of the elect with sighs unspeakable …. Christ’s regal office is that whereby he distributeth his gifts and disposeth all things for the benefit of the elect.[50]

Perkins reiterated his position in The Order of Predestination:

The exhibiting of the Mediator is that whereby the Sonne of God being born a man in the fulnesse of time, doth pay the price of redemption to God for the sinnes of men. The vertue and efficacy of this price being paid, in respect of merit and operation is infinite; but yet it must be distinguished for it is either potentiall or actuall. The potentiall efficacy is, whereby the price is in itself sufficient to redeeme every one without exception from his sins, albeit there were a thousand worlds of men. But if we consider that actuall efficacy, the price is payd in the counsell of God, and as touching the event, onely for those which are elected and predestinated. For the Sonne doth not sacrifice, for those, for whom he doth not pray: because to make intercession and to sacrifice are conjoyned: but he prayeth onely for the elect and for beleevers…[51]

Perkins made significant use of Lombard’s distinction between sufficiency and efficacy as did the German Reformed theologians: Caspar Olevianus, Zacharius Ursinus, and David Pareus. Olevianus and Ursinus were the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism, which became one of the doctrinal standards of the Dutch Church. Pareus, who was Ursinus’ student, completed Ursinus’ commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism and lived to correspond with the Synod of Dort on the issue of the atonement.

Olevianus expressed his belief in the limited atonement simply:

God out of the whole of fallen mankind chose those whom He had eternally decreed to receive in Christ as His children. For their sake He sent His Son into the world, so that for the sake of their blessedness He took flesh ….[52]

The section from Ursinus’ Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism is also enlightening to a discussion of the atonement. Unfortunately this section was not written by Ursinus himself, but was part of the work Pareus completed after his death. It seems likely, however, that Pareus faithfully represented his teacher’s views on this matter.[53] The Commentary contains a lengthy statement on the extent of the atonement, but this statement, unlike Perkins’ thesis, recognized that the question of the limited atonement might rouse some controversy. The Commentary, however, labels those who would raise questions as mere troublemakers and not serious orthodox theologians:

III. Did Christ Die For All ? … we must make a distinction, so as to harmonise those passages of Scriptures which seem to teach contradictory doctrines.... There are some who interpret these general declarations [of the Scriptures] of the whole number of the faithful …. Others reconcile these seemingly contradictory passages of Scripture by making a distinction between the sufficiency, and efficacy of the death of Christ. For there are certain contentious persons, who deny that these declarations which speak in a general way, are to be restricted to the faithful alone [As he died sufficiently for all and efficaciously for the faithful alone], so also he willed to die for all in general, as touching the sufficiency of his merit, that is, he willed to merit by his death, grace, righteousness, and life in the most abundant manner for all; because he would not that any thing should be wanting as far as he and his merits are concerned, so that all the wicked who perish may be without excuse. But he willed to die for the elect alone as touching the efficacy of his death, that is, he would not only sufficiently merit grace and life for them alone, but also effectually confers these upon them, grants faith, and the Holy Spirit, and brings it to pass that they apply to themselves, by faith, the benefits of his death, and so obtain for themselves the efficacy of his merits.[54]

Pareus shared this view in his work, Aphorismes of the Orthodoxall Doctrine of the Reformed Churches, written in 1593. He expressed the sufficiency of Christ’s work in broad terms: “We believe also that this death of Christ alone, is a perfect and sufficient ransome, to expiate and abolish all the sins of the whole world ….”[55] He also declared a more limited efficacy to the sacrifice of Christ: “Although then this most divine Panace or Catholicke remedie is proposed to all in the Gospell, yet we belieeve that no efficacy of it can be transfused, except there be an applying of this by faith in the Son of God ….”[56] Pareus’ statement on the efficacy of Christ’s death was not so clearly framed as that of Beza or Perkins, namely that the intention of God and of Christ was that the death of Christ be efficacious only for the elect. The Remonstrants would probably have been willing to accept Pareus’ broad formulation. In 1593, however, Pareus was not concerned with the Remonstrant, but rather with the challenges of Huberus and Franciscus Puccius[57] to the Reformed consensus:

We therefore, with all our heart, reject the Epicurean blasphemies of the late Pelagians; namely, Huberus, Puccius, and such like: by which the foundation of Christian faith is utterly overthrowne …. One Egge is not liker to another, then Huberus is to Puccius: they both build upon one foundation, to wit, upon the generall redemption, pardon, and salvation by Christ’s death, without any particular faith; from which notwithstanding Infidels fall away: here is only the difference, that what is covertly and sophistically spoken by Huberus, is roundly professed by Puccius; to wit, Pelagianisme…[58]

When the Remonstrant doctrines, which were a much more subtle deviation from the Reformed consensus than that of Huberus and Puccius, became well-known, Pareus stated his doctrine of the efficacy of the death of Christ with more precision.[59] He continued to use the distinction between sufficiency and efficiency in terms of Christ’s intention for the elect alone. In this survey of the period before the Arminian controversies came to the fore, it is evident that there was a general Reformed consensus on the death of Christ. There were differences and ambiguities of expression to be sure, but the issue was not a matter of controversy within the Reformed community. Most theologians wrote sparingly on the subject and few followed Beza in rejecting the traditional distinction between sufficiency and efficiency.

Before examining the doctrine of Arminius and his followers on the death of Christ, it is helpful to examine the two confessional standards of the Dutch Reformed Church—the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism. Neither of these standards explicitly taught the limited or definite atonement. Both tended to discuss the work of Christ in terms of what he did “for us,” i.e., for believers. Such expressions provided an implicit support for the doctrine of the definite atonement.

In the Belgic Confession Articles Twenty and Twenty-one discussed primarily the work of Christ.” Article Twenty declared:

God therefore manifested His justice against His Son when He laid our iniquities upon Him, and poured forth His mercy and goodness on us, who were guilty and worthy of damnation, out of qmere and perfect love, giving His Son unto death for us, and raising Him for our justification, that through Him we might obtain immortality and life eternal.

Article Twenty-One states:

We believe … that He [Christ] has presented Himself in our behalf before the Father, to appease His wrath by His full satisfaction, by offering Himself on the tree of the cross, and pouring out His precious blood to purge away our sins ….

The close link drawn in Article Twenty between the death of Christ “for us” and the gift of justification and eternal life “to us” tended to imply a definite atonement.

The Heidelberg Catechism generally expressed the same line of thought with the exception of Question and Answer Thirty seven:

Question. What does it mean that He suffered? 

Answer: That all the time He lived on earth, but especially at the end of His life, He bore, in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race, in order that by His passion, as the only atoning sacrifice, He might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, and obtain for us the grace of God, righteousness, and eternal life.[60]

This answer may well have been read as an endorsement of a universal and indiscriminate doctrine of the atonement. Despite this possibility the Arminians did not appeal frequently to this section of the Catechism, either because they did not believe it was an effective defense of their position or because they did not want to increase the authority of the Catechism by appealing to it. Strict Calvinists offered their own interpretations of this question. Nicole has summarized what he considered the strongest of the Calvinist explanations:

G. Voetius, in his crystal clear Catechisatie, advances two possible explanations of the phrase under scrutiny. The second one-in the author’s judgment the less plausible-is that “the whole human race” here means “people of all sorts, conditions and nations out of the whole human race.[61] (ed. Kuyper. Rotterdam: Hage, 1891. I, 440.) His first suggestion is that the words “against the sin of the whole human race” refer to the range of the wrath of God, not to the range of the substitutionary sin bearing of Christ.[62]

The controversy in the Netherlands over the extent of the atonement arose within the context of a wider theological battle. Arminius, after his appointment as professor of theology at Leiden in 1603, became the center of the controversy. He considered himself a part of the Reformed community, but he believed that Reformed theology needed reworking. His efforts centered on the doctrine of predestination, and while it would be too monumental a task to provide a full exposition of his theology, by examining one of his writings it is possible to glean the direction of his thought. In his Modest Examination of a Pamphlet, Which That Very Learned Divine, Dr. William Perkins, Published Some Years Ago, on the Mode and Order of Predestination, and on the Amplitude of Divine Grace (written 1602), the major issues Arminius raised in the debate in the Netherlands emerged.

Arminius suggested a fundamental redefinition of election: “Wherefore the definition may be put in this shape: ‘Election is the decree of God by which He from eternity has determined to justify believers in Christ, and to receive them to life eternal, to the praise of His glorious grace.’”[63] In his discussion of election Arminius recognized how much election was bound up with the question of the atonement. Whereas in traditional Reformed theology the decree of election preceded the decree to send Christ to make atonement for sin, Arminius reversed this order:

Wrongly, therefore, and in inverse order is it expressed, when Christ is said to have “died only for the elect and predestinated.” For predestination rests not merely on the death, but also on the merit of the death of Christ: and therefore Christ has not died for the predestinated, but those are predestinated for whom Christ has died, though not all. For the universality of the death of Christ extends more widely than the object of predestination. And what else is predestination but the preparation of the grace gotten and obtained for us by the death of Christ? and the preparation belonging to the application, not to the acquisition itself of grace not yet existing.[64]

Arminius supported this ordering of the divine decrees by two arguments that evoked dissension in the Netherlands and became significant at the Synod of Dort. Arminius’ first contention was that this order of decrees properly showed that Christ was not just the executor of the decree of election, but the foundation of it:

For, if Christ be the foundation of the execution of election only, then election itself has already been made, in the decree of God preceding its real execution, without respect to Christ. … But the Scripture puts Christ as the foundation, not of the execution only, but also of the making of election itself.[65]

The second argument was that the death of Christ and the intercession of Christ had to be seen as separate works of Christ, not as one unified work:

For the sacrificing is prior to the intercession; … the sacrificing belongs to the merit, the intercession to the application of the merit …. He acquired merit by sacrifice; for the application He intercedes: He does both as a Priest, but actually accomplishes the same application as King and Head of His Church.[66]

For the strict Calvinists in the Netherlands all of this tended to shift attention away from God’s work and focus it on man’s and to center salvation, not in Christ but in faith. Arminius was certainly aware that the strict Calvinists regarded his doctrine as a serious deviation from orthodoxy. He tried to distinguish clearly between his doctrine of grace and that of the Pelagians:

I know, indeed, that Augustine, writing against the Pelagians, often says, that “they who make grace common to all, deny grace itself”; but that is not universally true; though it is of force against the Pelagians and all those who at that time made grace universal. For they interpreted grace to be a gift bestowed equally upon all in their first nature by creation. I confess, indeed, that from the universality of grace certain consequences may be deduced, which will show the universality of grace to be indirectly opposed to the grace itself by which the elect are saved. But it must be known that all those consequences will not bear careful examination… [67]

The strict Calvinists were in no way satisfied by such disclaimers and tried repeatedly to have Arminius disciplined. As early as 1605 grave concern resulted from rumors of serious disagreements among the professors of theology at Leiden. That year the Synods of North and South Holland each appointed deputies to investigate what was being taught at Leiden. On November 8, 1605 these deputies submitted nine questions to the curators which they requested each of the professors of theology to answer so that the church could be sure of their orthodoxy.[68] The third question reflected the concern that the strict Calvinists already felt about Arminius’ teaching on the atonement: “3. An peccatum originale hominem per se aeternae mortis reum facit, etiam nullo accedente peccato actuali. Et an eius reatus Christi Mediatoris beneficio ab omnibus et singulis hominibus sublatus est.”[69] The curators refused to submit these questions to the theological faculty claiming that particular synods had no right to investigate the university. Arminius’ powerful friends among these curators and in the States of Holland consistently protected him until his death.

By the time Arminius died in 1609 he had attracted a powerful minority among the Dutch clergy. They were determined that their theological convictions should be recognized and tolerated. Forty-three Arminian ministers, led by Uytenbogaert, met in early 1610 at Gouda where they framed a very careful, moderate statement of their convictions, their “Remonstrance,” which they submitted to Oldenbarnevelt and the States of Holland. They hoped to have the government rule that they were to be tolerated in the churches.

Arminius’ followers stated their Remonstrance in five propositions. The second proposition treated the subject of the extent of the atonement. From this article of the Remonstrance the controversy over the atonement became known as the controversy over the Second Article. The Second Article read:

That in agreement with this Jesus Christ the Savior of the world died for all men and for every man, so that he merited reconciliation and forgiveness of sins for all through the death of the cross; yet so that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer—also, according to the word of the gospel of John 3:16, “God so loved the world that he gave his only—begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” And in the first epistle of John 2:2, “He is the propitiation for our sins; and not only for ours, but also for the sins of the whole world.”[70]

The central Arminian or Remonstrant concerns are expressed here: that Christ died with a saving intention for all and that there is a sharp separation of the reconciliation accomplished on the cross and the application of that reconciliation, which is conditional on a response of faith.

Reformed Reactions to Arminianism

In December 1610 Festus Hommius called on the States of Holland to convene a synod which could judge the orthodoxy of this Remonstrance. The States were unwilling to take such action, but realizing the seriousness of the issue they did call for a Collatio or conference to be held in the presence of its deputies that was charged with finding a means of mutual toleration or at least to determine the nature and seriousness of the differences between the two parties.

In preparation for the Collatio the strict Calvinists drew up a Contra-Remonstrance which answered the points made in the Remonstrance of 1610, and Festus Hommius was probably the author of the Contra-Remonstrance.[71] The fourth point of this document was on the extent of the atonement:

That to this end [the Father’s desire to save those whom He would] He has first of all presented and given to them His only-begotten Son Jesus Christ, whom He delivered up to the death of the cross in order to save His elect, so that, although the suffering of Christ as that of the only-begotten and unique Son of God is sufficient unto the atonement of the sins of all men, nevertheless the same, according to the counsel and decree of God, has its efficacy unto reconciliation and forgiveness of sins only in the elect and true believer.[72]

The Collatio met at The Hague in 1611 in two sessions, the first from March 10 to March 25 and the second from May 11 to May 20. Uytenbogaert, Andrianus Borrius, Nicolaus Grevinchovius, Eduardus Poppius, Ioannes Arnoldus, and Simon Episcopius represented the Remonstrant cause. The Contra-Remonstrants were represented by Ruardus Acronius, Iohannes Bogardus, Libertus Fraxinus, Iohannes Becius, Petrus Plancius, and Festus Hommius. The Collatio discussed the whole range of doctrinal differences between the two groups, but for this investigation only the debate on the Second Article is relevant.

In their introductory statements the Remonstrants reiterated their position from the Second Article.[73] They appealed for aid to the civil authorities as those to whom was given “supreme cura, et summum imperium in Ecclesiastica et Politica sub Deo” and claimed that their only aim was to seek for the Dutch Church “ad veram Harmoniam et concordiam cum reformatis Ecclesiis in Europa observandam.”[74] They concluded with a citation from Ursinus’ Admonitio Christiana de Libro Concordiae, in which Ursinus argued that Confessions are not infallible and that they should not be used to determine orthodoxy or heterodoxy.[75]

The Contra-Remonstrants replied in their opening statement that no one claimed that the Confession was inerrant, but they asserted that the Confession was an agreement on what the Word of God taught. The Confession, they said, was necessary because sectarians also appealed to the Scriptures.[76] They maintained that the obvious answer was for a synod, either provincial, national or universal, to hear the objections of the Remonstrants to the Confessions and to rule on them.[77] Unless such a judgment was made, the Contra-Remonstrants feared that the Dutch church would be divided and cut off from the Reformed community:

Hoc enim certo nobis persuademus, vestras Nobiles Potestates nolle huc aliam doctrinam introduci, quam in reliquo foederato Beligo publice docetur, nedum nostrates Ecclesias Hollandiae et Frisiae Occidentalis ab universali reformata Ecclesia totius Christianismi segregari, ad quarum judicium nos provocamus…[78]

In the meantime the Remonstrants should not be tolerated as they requested because their opinions were not private, but had caused discord and schism in the church.[79] A detailed and lengthy debate on each of the articles followed these introductory remarks. Eighty-five pages were written on the debate over the Second Article alone.

The Remonstrants, arguing along the lines of Arminius, stated that the Second Article of their remonstrance was designed to make three key points against the Contra-Remonstrant position:

1. Christum non pro solis electis (ut fratres solent loqui) aut pro its solis, qui servabuntur, mortuum esse, atque ita reconciliationem obtinuisse, sed et pro aliis hominibus.
2. Eum esse mortuum pro omnibus hominibus.
3. Idque utrunque juxta Patris sui consilium et decretum.[80]

The theological undergirding for these three points rested primarily on the twofold love of God towards mankind—one kind of love was an antecedent to salvation and the other was subsequent to it:

Scriptura loquitur de duplici Dei et Domini nostri Jesu Christi erga nos dilectionem, nempe altera, quae nostram conversionem, fidem, et dilectionem erga Deum precedit, et nobis exhibita est, cum adhuc essemus inimici: altera subsequente, quae nobis a Deo et Christo exhibetur, postquam conversi sumus, et eum diligimus.[81]

This duality of God’s intention was also manifest in the priestly intercession of Christ: “intercessionem esse duplicem, alteram universalem, quae est totius mundi, alteram particularem, quae est tantum fidelium.”[82]

The twofold love of God in turn rested on the order of the divine decrees. The Remonstrants claimed that they did not deny particular election, but viewed it as the means of applying the work of Christ. Therefore according to their construction the decree of the death of Christ preceded the decree of election, and so the death of Christ must be for all.[83]

The Remonstrant ordering of God’s decrees also raised the question of whether Christ was rightly seen as the executor or foundation of election:

Si Iesus Christus in decreto Praedestinationis fidelium ad vitam, et infidelium ad mortem consideratur non modo ut exequutor, sed et ut eius fundamentum, et ut qui salutem promeruit, ita ut illud decretum ordine praeceda t (quod Remonstantes sentiunt:) ille ergo est mortuus, et impetravit salutem non tantum parti alicui, sed omnibus hominibus, ut illam morte sua impetratam salutem fidelibus applicet ….[84]

The Remonstrants concluded that the only real point of controversy with the Contra-Remonstrants on the Second Article was over the question: “An infideles in infidelitate manentes et morientes reconciliationem cum Deo impetrarint ….” This question, the Remonstrants said, was too minor a disagreement over which to disturb the Church.[85]

The Remonstrants not only presented their ideas within the context of a theological argument, but they also appealed to the history and practice of the Protestant community. Their first argument was that their opinions were not novel:

Haec nostra sententia non est recens nota, sed confirmatur explicatione praecipuorum doctorum reformatarum Ecclesiarum. Videatur Lutherus sermone de festo Philippi, Calvinus in hunc locum, Zanch. Miscellan. pag. 282. Bulling. et Musc. in hunc locum, Rudolphus Gualt. in I Epist. Ioann. Hom. 5.[86]

Their second argument was that despite the differences within the Dutch Church, Christian friendship should still be possible. They cited several historical examples of Christian friendships despite disagreements: Calvin’s friendship with Melanchthon, Beza offering “manum Christianae fraternitatis et unionis” to the Lutherans at Montbéliard, the Genevans’ restraint toward Nicolaus Hemmingius, who wrote a treatise on universal grace, and the fact that Whitaker of Cambridge and Baro of Oxford could both worship as part of the Church of England.[87]

The Contra-Remonstrants were not moved by these arguments, however. As they analyzed the Second Article of the Remonstrants, they could agree with the Remonstrants that no one enjoyed reconciliation with God except the faithful. They denied, however, that Christ died for all, except in the sense that his death was sufficient for all men. The Scriptures did show that “virtus passionis Christi est dupliciter consideranda,” that is “sufficiens et efficax.”[88] The Contra-Remonstrants then proceeded to show the significance of this distinction and its biblical foundations, arguing that only the faithful or the elect derived anything efficacious from the death of Christ.[89]

Throughout this conference the Contra-Remonstrants tended to speak of the death of Christ in moderate terms—“pro solis fidelibus” rather than “pro solis electis.”[90] Such moderation was absent at the Synod of Dort. Whether the terminology at the Collatio reflected a less rigid or polarized stage in the controversy or whether it reflected a desire to use the most conciliatory language before the civil authorities who were known to have Remonstrant sympathies is uncertain.

To trace in greater detail the theological arguments presented by the Contra-Remonstrants at this Collatio is unnecessary.

The skeleton of their thoughts as indicated received flesh and sinew in the details inferred later from references in the works of William Ames and from the discussions at the Synod itself. The aim is not to minimize the importance of this earlier debate, but rather to spare repetition, for as Wijminga observed about the Collatio: “hier toch werden eigenlijk reels de lijnen getrokken, waarlangs de Dordtsche Synode zich bij de vaststelling harer Canones bewogen heeft.”[91]

The way in which the Contra-Remonstrants answered the Remonstrant appeals to the consensus of the Reformed churches and to the Lutherans, however, was quite interesting. First they stressed that the discussion must center on the Confession and Catechism which were binding on the Dutch Churches, not other Confessions and certainly not what contemporary “defective” Lutherans thought:

Quoad confessiones aliarum Ecclesiarum Reformatarum, illas nolumus impraesentiarum examinare, nam non quaeritur, an nobis in omnibus conveniat cum confessionibus aliarum Ecclesiarum, sed an nobis et Remonstrantibus in omnibus doctrinae capitibus conveniat cum nostra Confessione et Catechesi, quae sunt formulae consensus in Ecclesiis nostris observandi. Suscepimus probare has theses pugnare cum nostra Confessione et Catechesi. His limitibus volumus nos continere, quamvis nobis facile esset plane ostendere fratum sententiam aeque cum Harmonia Confessionum pugnare, atque cum unanimi sententia omnium verarum Reformatarum Ecclesiarum, et omnium fidelium ac celeberrimorum Doctorum: Remonstrantes hanc suam sententiam et omnia argumenta manfeste hausisse ex scriptis novorum defectorum Lutheranorum, qui se ab uniformitate verarum Reformatarum Ecclesiarum segregarunt, et hanc thesin adversus illas etiamnum contentiose propugnant.[92]

The Contra-Remonstrants pursued their argument by expressing their willingness to submit the matter in dispute to the Reformed community of Europe and to let the international community judge which group in the Netherlands had deviated from the Reformed consensus:

Si fratres nihil habent adversus Reformatarum Ecclesiarum doctrinam, sed aliquid tantum adversus sententiam quorundam privatorum Doctorum in illis, ut semper contestantur, quid est quod sibi et suae causae metuant, quum se judicio Reformatarum Ecclesiarum subjicient …. si fratribus praedictis hoc persuaderi non potest, ut articuli controversi scripto utrinque mandati in Latinum sermonem translati mitrantur vel ad omnes vel ad aliquas celeberrimas Ecclesiarum Reformatarum Academias Germaniae, magnae Britanniae, Galliae, et Helvetiae, ut habeamus earum judicium, utram sententiam judicent Dei verbo, et communi Reformatarum Ecclesiarum doctrinae consentaneam: 

Sumus parati et illarum Academiarum judicio aquiescere, si etiam fratres idem recipiunt, brevi fortietur hoc negotium finem bonum, et ad bonam pacem redibit.[93]

In certain respects this challenge foreshadowed the international character of the Synod of Dort.

The final point the Contra-Remonstrants made was that the debate concerned important matters that needed to be settled by a synod, not by the practice of mutual toleration. Indeed, they argued that the matter was settled, the civil authorities should forbid anyone to teach or write anything contrary to the Confession and Catechism.[94] The Contra-Remonstrants said that the issues at controversy were vital because they touched on “de perfecta satisfactione Iesu Christi pro peccatis nostris: de justificatione hominis coram Deo, de salutifera fide: de peccato Originali, de certitudine salutis, de perfectione hominis in hac vita ….”[95]

Although another conference was held at Delft in 1613 to continue the debate on these issues, nothing really new was added either to the theological arguments or to a pragmatic solution to the tensions within the Dutch Church.

The concern of the international Reformed community grew as the breach in the Dutch church widened. Theologians in Germany, England, and France expressed grave concern particularly on the subject of the Second Article.

One such theologian was Johann Piscator, a German theologian who taught with distinction at the Academy of Herborn from 1584 until his death in 1625. His interest in Dutch Church matters crystallized in 1610 when the dispute arose over the appointment of Vorstius to the chair of theology at Leiden. Vorstius had been one of Piscator’s prize students, and Piscator was very distressed to see his gifted pupil drift further and further from his teacher’s strict Calvinism. His concern with the Vorstius affair continued until the Synod of Dort removed Vorstius from office.[96]

Piscator’s interest in the question of the atonement antedated his concern with Vorstius and the Remonstrants. In 1595 he had written Disputatio theologica de praedestinatione opposita disfiutationi Andreae Schaafmanni. One of Schaafmann’s theses that Piscator rejected, was that Christ had died for every man.[97] In 1614 he spoke against the universal atonement again in a treatise against Hemmingius’ Tractatus de gratia Dei universali. Piscator wrote again on the subject in 1614 when he published Responsio ad Apologeticum Petri Bertii, in quo orthodoxa de diving praedestinatione doctrina a sophismatis illius vindicatur et asseritur against the Dutch Remonstrant.

Piscator’s treatises were interesting because their discussion of the death of Christ revealed some theological similarities with Beza’s doctrine. Piscator, like Beza, found the distinction between sufficiency and efficiency confusing:

Distinctio illa, quo Christus dicitur mortuus esse pro omnibus quidem sufficienter, pro quibus tantum efficienter, vana est: quia contradictionem implicat. Nam si mortuus est pro omnibus, ideo mortuus est ut omnium salutem efficeret …. Non est hic de illa quaestio per se, an scilicet sit generalis: i.e. an Christi mors tam preciosa sit ut sufhceret ad omnium hominum peccata expianda: hoc enim non nego: sed quaestio est, an Christus sufficienter pro omnibus mortuus sit.[98]

He recognized the infinite value of the death of Christ, but maintained that the crucial question was Christ’s intention in offering himself on the cross. This intention, Piscator maintained, was strictly limited to the elect.

Another foreign theologian who took an active interest in the Dutch religious problems was William Ames. From 1594 to 1610 Ames had been a student and fellow at Cambridge where he studied under William Perkins.[99] He emerged as one of the most articulate and respected Puritan theologians. The authorities of the Church of England, however, thought he was too radical, and they in 1610 stripped him of his ecclesiastical and academic positions. His efforts to get other employment were blocked, and he left England for the Netherlands where he served from 1611 to 1619 in The Hague as the chaplain to Sir Horace Vere, the commander of the English forces in the Netherlands.[100]

From 1613 to 1618 Ames published four polemical books on Arminianism,[101] three as part of a debate with Nicholas Grevinchovius and the fourth as a final word on the issues that were debated at the Collatio Hagiensis. Ames’ first work was De Arminii Sententia qua electionem omnem particularem, fidei praevisae docet inniti, Disceptatio Scholastica inter Nicolaum Grevinchovium Roterodamum, et Guilielmum Amesium Anglum (1613). The first question raised in this work was: “An mors Christi omnibus intendatur,”[102] showing the centrality of this question for Ames in the confrontation between Calvinism and Arminianism. Ames answered this question by a syllogism,

Quibus intenditur, its applicatur.
Sed non omnibus applicatur.
Ergo nec omnibus intenditur.[103]

This syllogism set the framework of the entire discussion. For Ames the issue between the Calvinists and the Arminians on the death of Christ was how the intention of the Father, the accomplishment of the Son, and the application of salvation to man were related to one another. Ames strictly defended the complete harmony between intention, accomplishment and application. In this discussion he revealed theological concerns similar to those of Beza. He did not mention or use the distinction between sufficiency and efficiency in the statement and defense of his position.

Ames argued in basically the same way in his other work against Grevinchovius: Rescriptio Scholastica et brevis ad Nic. Grevinchovii Respondum illud prolixum, quod opposuit Dissertationi De Redemptione generali, et Electione ex fide praevisa (1615). The first five chapters of this work discussed the work of Christ and maintained that the central errors of the Arminians were in separating the death and intercession of Christ and in separating the accomplishment and the application of the merits of Christ’s death.[104] Again Ames made no reference to the distinction between sufficiency and efficiency.

While the third work against Grevinchovius, Rescriptio Contracts printed in 1617 was actually only an abridged edition of the 1615 work,[105] the last of Ames’ works was a comprehensive statement against the Arminian position before the Synod of Dort. This work was entitled Coronis ad Collationem Hagiensem, Qua Argumenta Pastorum Hollandia Adversus Remonstrantium Quinque Articulos De Divina Praedestinatione, et capitibus ei adnexis, products, ab horum exceptionibus Vindicantur (1618).[106] In this work Ames discussed the distinction between sufficiency and efficiency, but only because that distinction had been so much used at the Collatio itself. He did not actually say, as Beza had, that the distinction should be abandoned in the discussion of the death of Christ. He did, however, define his terms with a precision that Beza would have appreciated.

For Ames the sufficiency of the death of Christ meant only one thing: “Sufficientia enim est intrinseca potentia et aptitudo rei non fluit ab extrinseco ordinantis vel dirigentis actu.”[107] The sufficiency of the death of Christ rested solely in the infinite value of the death of the Son of God. The intention of the Father and the Son and the application of the benefits derived from Christ’s death belonged to the category of the efficient.[108] When Ames expressed his own sentiments in response to the Remonstrants he did not use the distinction:

Nos. 1. mortem, resurrectionem, ascensionem, sessionem, et intercessionem aeque conjungendas esse dicimus in fine ac intentione, ac in Christi persona conjungebantur de facto. 2. Fontem applicationis in aeterno decreto Patris consistere credimus, pro quibus Christum offerre voluit. Deinde in voluntate Mediatoris obedientis illi decreto. 3. Non omnes et singulos in isto decreto et intentione spectari, sed electos quosdam. 4. In ipsa redemptione firmissimani fuisse applicationem coram Deo: et in electfis ipsis certissime fieri, dum illius virtute, Evangelii doctrina cum efficacia ad eos mittitur, ut Spiritus operatione, et propria fide, reconciliatione praeparata iam actu fruantur.[109]

Ames’ opinions that paralleled the strict position of Beza were well-known in the Netherlands,[110] and Ames was in a position to be influential at the Synod of Dort where he served as a private secretary to the president of the Synod.

Another English theologian who took an active interest in the theological controversies in the Netherlands was Robert Abbot, Bishop of Salisbury. Although Abbot was not so prominent a theologian as many others discussed previously, he was significant because his brother was George Abbot, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Robert Abbot’s views were cited at the Synod of Dort in an effort to influence the Archbishop toward the strict Calvinist position.

In 1618 Abbot’s De Gratia et perseverantia sanctorum…[111] was published posthumously. This work contained four lectures delivered at Oxford from 1613–1615 as well as a refutation of the Arminian views of an exiled Englishman, Richard Thomson. In this work Abbot showed a knowledge of the works of Arminius and the Arminians Petrus Bertius and Johannes Corvinus[112] as well as an acquaintance with the Collatio Hagiensis.[113] He revealed his strong antipathy toward the Arminians, referring to the Socinians, Vorstians, and Arminians all as great enemies of the Church.[114] He asserted that the Papists and the Arminians agreed on the doctrine of grace.[115] He leveled several of the common Reformed charges against the Arminians. He stated that they made salvation only possible and not actual,[116] and that they misused Augustine.[117]

Abbot also was familiar with the distinction between sufficiency and efficiency in speaking of the death of Christ: “Ergo gratia universalis dici non potest, et falsum est quod ponit Arminius; Deum omnibus, et singularis media ad salutem necessaria sufficienter et efficaciter administrare.”[118] He did not, however, use this distinction explicitly in developing his own formulation on the extent of the atonement. He did distinguish, as did all the strict Calvinists, between the infinite value of the death of Christ and the specific intention of Christ: “… nimirum pro omnibus satisfacere voluisse dignitate pretii, voluntate propositi tantum pro electis, hoc est pro Ecclesia impetrare voluisse.”[119] Abbot did grant an indefinite love of God for the world,[120] but he asserted that such love was clearly not saving love.

aliquot habitae in Academia Oxoniensi, authore Roberto Sarisburiensi Episcopo, Thelogiae tune in eadem Academia Professore Regio, Quibus accessit eiusdem in Richardi Thomsoni Anglo-Belgici Diatribam De amissione et intercisione Justificationis, et Gratiae, animadversio brevis (London, 1618). There was also a Dutch translation of this work prepared by Daniel Gysius published at Leiden in 1618.

Abbot made an interesting comment on the distinction between the universal and the particular significance of the death of Christ. He spoke not in terms of the decrees of God, but in terms of the natures of Christ:

Certe qui duas in Christo naturas agnoscimus, duas quoque in Christo voluntates, et duas quasi mentes cogimur confiteri, aliud ut sit quod ab homine Christo, aliud quod a Deo sive conjunctum a toto profectum est. Fuit in Christo quo pro omnibus omnino hominibus, fuit quo nonnisi pro electis mortuus credendus sit. Quo affectu de Iudaeorum duro corde condoluit, quo super Hierosolymam fleuit, quo dixit, Transeat a me calix iste, quo de Iuda ipso proditore contristatus atque trubatus est, eodem affectu universim pro omnibus mortuus non negatur.[121]

Abbot was a strict Calvinist, yet he expressed himself with a sensitivity to the universal claims of the Gospel and with some originality of thought.

The differences within Calvinism are sharply focused by a comparison of the views of Piscator and Abbot with those of another Englishman, James Ussher. In 1617, before he was a bishop, Ussher wrote on the extent of the atonement.[122] He seemed acquainted with the Arminian controversy and stated that the church needed to avoid two extremes: the one that proclaimed that all men were absolutely reconciled to God by Christ and the other that said that none but the elect have any interest in the death of Christ. Ussher sought a middle course between these two extremes:

For the finding out this middle course, we must, in the matter of our redemption, carefully put a distinction betwixt the satisfaction of Christ absolutely considered, and the application thereof to every one in particular: the former was once done for all, the other is still in doing: the former brings with it sufficiency, abundant to discharge the whole debt; the other adds to it efficacy.[123]

While Ussher utilized the distinction between sufficiency and efficiency, he couched the distinction in terms that would have been entirely acceptable to a Remonstrant. He also distinguished between the satisfaction and intercession of Christ in a way that would have appealed to many Remonstrants:

Indeed, Christ our Saviour saith, ‘I pray not for the world, but for them that thou hast given me:’ but the consequence hereby referred may well be excepted against, viz. he prayed not for the world, therefore he prayed not for the world; because the latter is an act of his satisfaction, the former of his intercession; which, being divers parts of his priesthood, are distinguishable one from another by sundry differences. This his satisfaction doth properly give contentment to God’s justice, in such sort as formerly hath been declared; his intercession doth solicit God’s mercy.... And therefore we may safely conclude out of all these premisses, that ‘the Lamb of God, offering himself a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world,’ intended by giving sufficient satisfaction to God’s justice, to make the nature of man, which he assumed, a fit subject for mercy and to prepare a medicine for the sins of the whole world, which would be denied to none that intended to take the benefit of it.... [124]

Ussher distinguished his position from that of the Arminians, however, by his firm statement on the divine initiative in the application of the benefits of Christ: “For the universality of the satisfaction derogates nothing from the necessity of the special grace in the application ….”[125]

Although Ussher felt that his position was a “middle course,” apparently some Calvinists did not, and he soon found an explanation of his Judgment necessary.[126] He expressed shock that his views had been called Papist and Arminian.[127] He maintained his general agreement with “Aimes” (William Ames) in his dispute with Grevinchovius, although he felt that Ames had gone to extremes in the heat of controversy.[128] He insisted that the Arminians’ chief error was that of the Semi-Pelagians:

The main error of the Arminians and of the patrons of universal grace is this, that God offereth unto every man those means that are necessary unto salvation, both sufficiently and effectually; and, that it resteth in the free will of every one to receive, or reject the same… [129]

Ussher continued to refuse to say that Christ died only for the elect,[130] however, and summed up his position with these words:

Now the general satisfaction of Christ, which was the first act of his priestly office, prepares the way for God’s mercy, by making the sins of all mankind pardonable, the interposition of any bar from God’s justice notwithstanding, and so puts the sons of men only in a possibility of being justified, a thing denied to the nature of fallen angels, which the Son was not pleased to assume; but the special application of this satisfaction vouchsafed by Christ unto those persons only whom his father hath given him out of the world, which is an appendant, or appertaineth to the second act of his priesthood, viz. his intercession, produced this potentia in “tum, that is, procureth an actual discharge from God’s anger; and maketh justification, which before was a part of our possibility, to be a part of our present possession.[131]

Although Ussher stated his position in terms of the order of the acts of Christ’s priesthood, rather than in terms of the order of God’s decrees, his formulation was very similar to that of Moise Amyraut (Amyraldus). Although the term is anachronistic, Ussher’s views on the atonement as expressed in this document must be called Amyraldian.

Ussher also proposed two other significant ideas. First he asserted that Christ properly died for all as well as for some:

And therefore it may be well concluded, that Christ in a special manner died for these (i.e., the elect); but to infer from hence, that in no manner of respect he died for any others, is but a very weak collection… [132]

Secondly he stated that to speak of sufficiency only in terms of the infinite value of the death of Christ was inadequate:

… for he is much deceived that thinks a preaching of a bare sufficiency is able to yield sufficient ground of comfort to a distressed soul, without giving a further way to it, and opening a further passage.[133]

These two statements foreshadowed opinions expressed by John Davenant at the Synod of Dort. Apparently Davenant and Ussher did not know each other before the Synod, and certainly Davenant’s ideas were not identical to those of Ussher. Clearly some common concerns, however, motivated both of them as they thought about the atonement.[134]

As Reformed theologians gathered in the Netherlands for the Synod of Dort, they were aware that one of the issues facing them was the question of the extent of the atonement. They were all part of the Reformed consensus which held that Christ had died with a particular intention for the elect. They were convinced that there was nothing novel or strange about this doctrine, but that it was an important clarification of the doctrine of the work of Christ. They knew that it had been taught by the fathers of Reformed Christianity and was to be found implicitly or explicitly in the writings of Christians throughout the centuries. They were agreed that the Arminians who rejected this doctrine tended toward the quicksand of Popery, Pelagianism, and Socinianism.

These Reformed theologians were probably not so clearly aware of two problems that would emerge for them out of their own theological history. One was that despite general agreement the Reformed fathers bad expressed themselves rather differently on the doctrine of the atonement. Most had used the traditional distinction between sufficiency and efficiency in writing about this doctrine; while some, like Beza, Piscator, and Ames had felt that greater theological clarity and precision was possible without it. This discrepancy would have to be faced by the Synod and resolved.

The other problem was that most of the careful definition of this doctrine had emerged within the context of polemics: Beza’s confrontation with Andreae and Huberus and the Calvinists’ response to Arminianism had produced the only lengthy statements on this doctrine. The theologians at Dort would find that they would have to decide whether the decisions of the Synod would be an impassioned expression of polemical theology against the Arminians or a more irenic, balanced and general statement of the Reformed position.

The magnitude of these two problems was intensified precisely because the delegates that gathered were largely unaware of them. The struggle to solve these problems severely tested the Synod and threatened to stall its progress. Out of the Synod’s debate, however, emerged a balanced compromise statement of the Reformed doctrine of the extent of the atonement which accommodated the considerable varieties of thought on that subject within the international Reformed community.

Notes

1. Augustine, “De Correptione et Gratia,” IX, 21, in Patrologiae cursus completus, series Latina, edited by J. P. Migne, Vol. 44, column 928.
2. Very often in theology the work of Christ is discussed in terms of what it means “pro nobis.” This leaves an ambiguity as to what a theologian may think the work of Christ means for those who are not his own.
3. Augustine, “Ten Homilies on the First Epistle General of John,” Homily VII, 9 (on I John 4:4–12) in Library of Christian Classics, Vol. VIII, Augustine: Later Works, edited by John Burnaby (Philadelphia, 1955), p. 316.
4. Augustine, “Tractatus in Joannis Evangelium,” Lxviii, 4, in Patrologide … ,—Migne, Vol. 35, column 1742.
5. Augustine, “Ten Homilies … ,” Homily I, 8 (on I John 1:1–2:11) in Library …, Vol. VIII, pp. 265–266.
6. Prosper, Prosper of Aquitaine: Defense of St. Augustine, translated and annotated by P. DeLetter, S.J., in Ancient Christian Writers, Vol. 32 (London, 1963), p.16.
7. Ibid., pp. 149-150.
8. Ibid., p. 164.
9. Ibid., p.150.
10. Peter Lombard, Libri quatuor seutentiarum, Liber Tertius: De Incarnatione Verbi, Distinctio XX: Quod alio modo potuit liberare hominem, et quare potius isto, 3. De traditione Christi Quae facta dicitur a Patre et a Filio, a Juda et a Judaeis, in Patrologiae …, Migne, Vol. 192, column 799. Although most of what Lombard writes in his Sentences is based on the work of Augustine, this particular distinction between sufficiency and efficiency does not seem to be. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, “La grâce efhcace et la grâce suisante selon Saint Augustin,” Angelicum, XXXI (1954), pp. 243-251, shows that this distinction is implicit in Augustine: “La grâce efficace est appelée par Saint Augustin adiutorum quo volumus et facamus, et la grâce suffisante est appelée par lui adiutorum sine quo non possumus agere,” p. 246. There is no evidence, however, that Augustine used this distinction in reference to the work of Christ.
11. See John Davenant, “A Dissertation on the Death of Christ,” passim, in John Davenant, An Exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians, translated by Josiah Allport (London, 1831), Vol. II, pp. 317-558, for many references.
12. Roger Nicole, Moyse Amyraut (1596–1664) and the Controversy on Universal Grace, First Phase (1634–1637), Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 1966.
13. Brian Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy, Madison, 1969.
14. Nicole, op. cit., pp. 15-16.
15. Ibid., p.20
16. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, II, 3, 10, in Library of Christian Classics, Volume XX, edited by John T. McNeill (Philadelphia, 1960).
17. Ibid, 11, 17, 4.
18. Ibid., 111, 24, 6.
19. Nicole, op. cit., p. 21.
20. Armstrong, op. cit., pp. 41-42.
21. Jill Raitt, The Eucharistic Theology of Theodore Bezm; Development of the Reformed Doctrine in Aar Studies in Religion, Number Four (Chambersburg, Pa., 1972), p. vii.
22. Ibid., p. 71.
23. John Stanley Bray, Theodore Beza’s Doctrine of Predestination, Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University, 1971, pp. 216, 238, 240.
24. Theodore Beza, A Briefe Declaration of the Chief Poyntes of Christian Religion set forth in a Table (London, 1575), chapter four.
25. Theodore Beza, Confessio Christianae Fidei, et eiusdem collatio cum Papisticis Haeresibus (London, 1575), chapter three, p. 4.
26. Paul-F. Geisendorf, Théodore de Bze (Geneve, 1967), p. 351.
27. Armand Lods, “Les Actes du Colloque de Montbéliard (1586): Une Polemiqué entre Théodore de Bze et Jacques Andreae,” Société de l’’Histoire du Protestantisme Français: Bulletin Historique et Littéraire, Vol. 46 (1897), 198.
28. Geisendorf, op. cit., p. 352.
29. Ibid.
30. Lods, loc. cit., p. 200.
31. Ibid, p. 207.
32. Theodore Beza, Ad Acta Colloquli Montisbelgardensis Tubingae Edita, Theodori Bezae Responsionis, Pars Altera, Editio Prima (Genevae, 1588), p. 200.
33. Ibid., p. 215.
34. Ibid., p. 220.
35. Ibid., p. 215.
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid., p. 217.
38. Ibid, p. 249.
39. Gottfried Adam, Der Streit um die Praedestination im ausgehenden 16. Jahrhundert. Eine Untersuchung zu den Entwuerfen von Samuel Huber and Aegidius Hunnius (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1970), p. 58. This work of Adam is very useful and valuable although its evaluation of Beza is excessively negative.
40. Ibid.; p. 67.
41. Ibid.: p. 69.
42. Ibid, p. 72.
43. Ibid., p. 78. This same point is made by Geisendorf, op. cit., p. 359.
44. H. John McLachlan, Socinianism in Seventeenth Century England (London, 1951), p. 14.
45. Fausti Socini Senensis, Operum Tomus Alter, Continens eiusdem Scripta Polemsca (Irenopoli, 1656), p. 247.
46. The association of Arminianism with Socinianism damned Arminianism in the eyes of the orthodox Calvinists. Historians have noted the apparent similarities between the two movements: “Together with this attack upon the doctrine of the vicarious atonement went Socinus’ rejection of predestination and his assertion of free will. Here he was again at issue with the Reformers and became the precursor of Arminius,” McLachlan, op. cit., p. 15.
47. Peter Martyr Vermigli, The Common Places of the most famous and renowned Divine Doctor Peter Martyr (London, 1583), p. 607.
48. Hieronymus Zanchius, Operum Theologicorum D. Hieronymi Zanchii, Tomus Sextus Tripertitus, Sumptibus Samuelis Crispini (1617), column 71.
49. Hieronymous Zanchius, De Religione Christiana, Fides (London, 1605), p. 124.
50. William Perkins, The Works of William Perkins, edited by Ian Breward (Appleford, England, 1970), pp. 204-208.
51. William Perkins, The Works of that Famous and Worthy Minister of Christ in the University of Cambridge, M. William Perkins (London, 1631), Vol. II, p. 609.
52. Quoted by Roger Nicole, “The Doctrine of the Definite Atonement in the Heidelberg Catechism,” The Gordon Review, Vol. VII (1964), p. 143, from Wesen des Genadeverbonds (Overborgt: Brill, 1862), II/iv, p. 208.
53. Ibid., p.144.
54. Zacharias Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, translated by G. W. Williard (Grand 1tapids, Michigan, 1954), pp. 221-223.
55. Zacharias Ursinus, The Summe of Christian Religion … First Englished by D. Henry Parry…. To this Work of Ursinus are now at last annexed the Theologicall Miscellanies of D. David Pareus … (London, 1645), p. 694.
56. Ibid.
57. Dictionary of National Biography, Vol. XLVI (London, 1896), “Francesco Pucci (1540–1593?),” pp. 442-443. His theology was described as “an extreme form of Pelagianism” (p. 442). He published at Gouda in 1592 De Christi Servatoris Eficacitate in omnibus et singulis hominibus …. Assertio Catholica …. (p. 443).
58. Ursinus, The Summe … , p. 697.
59. Pareus’ latter formulations were presented in a letter to the Synod of Dort.
60. Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (New York, 1919), Vol. III, The Belgic Confession, Articles 20 and 21, pp.. 405–406.
61. Ibid, The Heidelberg Catechism, Question and Answer 37, p. 319.
62. Nicole, loc. cit, p. 142.
63. James Arminius, Works, translated by J. Nichols (Auburn, 1853), III, pp. 294-295.
64. Ibid., p. 325.
65. Ibid., p. 326.
66. Ibid., p. 303.
67. Ibid., pp. 337-338.
68. P. J. Wijminga, Festus Hommius, Leiden, 1889, p. 43.
69. Ibid, p. 44.
70. Peter Y. DeJong, Crisis in the Reformed Churches: Essays in commemoration of the great Synod of Dort, 1618 1619, Grand Rapids, 1968, p. 208.
71. Wijminga, op. cit., p. 108.
72. DeJong, op. cit., pp. 211 212.
73. Collatio Scripto Habita Hagae comitis anno ab incarnato Domino 1611. inter quosdam Ecclesiastas de divine Praedestinatione, et eius appendicibus …. Ex sermone vernaculo Latina facta interprete Henrico Brandio …, Zirizaeae,1615, p. 9.
74. Ibid., p. 11.
75. Ibid., pp.14-15.
76. Ibid., p.18.
77. Ibid., pp. 19, 30.
78. Ibid., pp. 34-35.
79. Ibid., p. 32.
80. Ibid., p.139.
81. Ibid., p.193.
82. Ibid, p. 198.
83. Ibid., p. 201.
84. Ibid., pp. 495-496
85. Ibid., p. 499.
86. Ibid., pp. 208-209.
87. Ibid., pp. 517-518.
88. Ibid., pp. 130-131.
89. Ibid., pp. 131-137.
90. Ibid., p. 163 and passim.
91. Wijminga, op. cit., p. 122.
92. Collatio … Hagae… , p. 169.
93. Ibid., p. 482.
94. Ibid., p. 483.
95. Ibid., p. 480.
96. F. L. Bos, Johann Piscator: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Reformierten Theologie (Kampen, 1932), pp. 211-217.
97. Bos, op. cit., pp. 206–207.
98. Ibid., p. 202, quoting from Piscator, Ad Vorstii Parasceven responsio apologetica (1613), pp. 94, 101.
99. Keith L. Sprunger, The Learned Doctor William Ames: Dutch Backgrounds of English and American Puritanism (Chicago, 1972), pp. 10-15.
100. Ibid., p. 30.
101. Ibid., p. 46.
102. William Ames, De Arminii Sententia qua electionem omnem particularem, fidei praevisae docet inniti, Disceptatio Scholastica inter Nicolaum Grevinchovium Roterdamum, et Guilielmum Amesium Anglum (Amsterdam, 1613), p. 1.
103. Ibid.
104. William Ames, Rescriptio Scholastica et brevis ad Nic. Grevinchovii Respondum illud prolixum, quod opposuit Dissertations De Redemptione generali, et Electione ex fide praevisa, Editio altera (Lugduni Batavorum, 1615), p. 46.
105. Sprunge., op. cit, p. 47.
106. William Ames, Coronis ad Collationem Hagiensem, Qua Argumenta Pastorum Hollandia Adversus Remonstrantium Quinque Articulos De Divina Praedestinatione, et capitibus ei adnexis, products, ab horum exceptionibus vindicantur, Editio Sexta (London, 1632). Sprunger, op. cit., p. 49, observed, “.In classical times the ‘coronis’ was a stroke or flourish of the scribe’s pen marking the end of a chapter or book; Ames with his Coronis promised to give the final work on the Hague conference of 1611, where Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants debated the five great points of the Remonstrance.”
107. Ames, Coronis …, p. 132.
108. Ibid, pp. 130-131.
109. Ibid., p. 129.
110. Sprunger, op. cit., pp. 49-50.
111. Robert Abbot, De Gratia ef perseverantia sanctorum, exercitationes
112. Ibid., Introduction, p. 12.
113. Ibid., second lecture, p. 27.
114. Ibid., Introduction, p. 2.
115. Ibid., second lecture, p. 27.
116. Ibid., Diatribe, pp. 92ff.
117. Ibid., Diatribe, pp. 94ff.
118. Ibid., second lecture, p. 29.
119. Ibid., second lecture, p. 35.
120. Ibid., second lecture, p. 37.
121. Ibid., second lecture, p. 36.
122. James Ussher, Works, edited by Elrington in 17 volumes (Dublin, 1864), “The judgment of the late Archbishop of Armagh, and Primate of Ireland, on the True Intent and Extent of Christ’s Death and Satisfaction upon the Cross” (1617), Vol. 12, pp. 551-560.
123. Ibid., Vol. 12, p. 554.
124. Ibid., Vol. 12, p. 559.
125. Ibid., Vol. 12, p. 558.
126. Ibid, Vol. 12, “An Answer of the Archbishop of Armagh, to Some Exceptions taken against his aforesaid Letter,” pp. 561-571.
127. Ibid., Vol. 12, p. 563.
128. Ibid., Vol. 12, p. 564.
129. Ibid., Vol. 12, pp. 564-565.
130. Ibid., Vol. 12, p. 565.
131. Ibid., Vol. 12, p. 569.
132. Ibid., Vol. 12, p. 567.
133. Ibid., Vol. 12, p. 568.
134. “Davenant’s views at the Synod of Dort, prior to his acquaintance with Usher … ,” from Josiah Allport, “Life of Bishop Davenant,” p. xlviii, in Davenant, op. cit., Vol. I.