'Shades of Opinion within a Generic Calvinism': The Particular Redemption Debate at the Westminster Assembly

BY LEE GATISS 

Cambridge

The debate between Protestant theologians over 'particular redemption' was one of the most fraught in the seventeenth century, and continues to be 'one of the most controversial teachings in Reformed soteriology.'[1] The purpose of this article is to examine a key public debate on this topic from that century. There was intense interest in the subject from the beginning of the century until near the end. The five-point Arminian Remonstrance and the subsequent Synod of Dort in 1618-1619 began several decades of passionate interchange. This arguably culminated in the Formula Consensus Helvetica of 1675, designed by its authors (including Fraucis Turretin) to exclude and condemn the Amyraldian 'middle way' between Arminianism and Calvinism. In between Dort and the Consensus comes the Westminster Assembly, a formative moment in Protestant creed-making which produced, according to Warfield, 'the most thoroughly thought out and most carefully guarded statement ever penned of the elements of evangelical religion.'[2] According to the surviving minutes of the Assembly, this august body of British divines discussed the issue of particular redemption in plenary session on at least one occasion whilst hammering out the wording of the Confession of Faith. That debate in the autumn of 1645 is the subject of our study here.

The debate began in the Jerusalem Chamber of Westminster Abbey on Wednesday morning, 22nd October 1645. Detailed work on the Confession had been ongoing for the Assembly of Divines since the summer of 1644, a year in the English Civil War which also saw crushing defeats for the Royalist armies at Nantwich and Marston Moor. As part of the discussion on 'God's eternal decree', Edward Reynolds' committee responsible for this section of the Confession brought a proposition for debate concerning 'Redemption of the elect only.'[3] The debate lasted for several days, possibly until 31st October, although only the first three days are well minuted.[4]

We will examine the debate here in two stages. First, we will see that far from being a black and white affair there were at least four different approaches at play in the discussion, which were brought out as the divines debated whether it was possible to dissent from the proposition without falling prey to Arminianism. Some have seen Amyraldianism as the main dissenting view, and we will examine this ultimately unsatisfactory analysis of the debate, underlining the differences between Dutch, French, and British hypothetical universalism. Secondly, we will examine how the debate moved on to look at God's intent in the atonement and the question of the universal offer of the gospel, noting the variety of exegetical approaches to this to show that at this stage there was no uniform defence against hypothetical universalism. In a separate article we will scrutinise the final product of the Assembly's deliberations to see how the Westminster Confession presents its teaching in the light of these discussions.

1. Is it Possible to Dissent from Particular Redemption without being an Arminian? 

Scene one of the Westminster Assembly's debate revolved around the question of whether it is possible to dissent from particular redemption without being an Arminian. In the opening exchanges it is the Arminian question which is at the forefront of the delegates' minds. Edmund Calamy opens by attempting to distance himself from the Arminian view. Clearly the proposition to be debated was asserting particular redemption (whether in the finally accepted form of words in WCF III. vi or not is uncertain), and he was immediately concerned to speak also against this. Yet he felt constrained to do so carefully: 'I am farre from universall Redemption in the Arminian sence', he began, 'but that that I hould is in the sence of our devines in the sinod of Dorf.'[5] The next four entries in the minutes from Palmer, Reynolds, Calamy and Seaman all revolve around the Remonstrant view. Reynolds' statement is especially pertinent. He says of Calamy's view that it 'cannot be asserted by any that can say he is not of the Remonstrants opinion.'[6] In other words, he accuses Calamy of only a pretended distance between himself and the Arminians, averring that it is not actually possible to dissent from the 'redemption of the elect only' position without falling into Arminianism.

The Synod of Dort & James Ussher 

The deliverances of Dort against the Dutch Arminian party were a key part of the immediate background to the Assembly's deliberations. The Arminians had asserted in their second of five articles, 'of universal redemption', that:

Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer.[7] 

The drawing up of the canons of Dort in response had been 'a complex and acrimonious affair.'[8] The rejection of Arminianism was a foregone conclusion since no Remonstrant delegates were permitted to vote. Though they did attend and were interviewed about their teaching, their defeat was 'predestined'.[9] Yet the Synod (like the Westminster Assembly) was far from monochrome, with various shades of opinion expressed, not least on the controversial second head of doctrine. Their final agreed text replied to the Arminians with eight articles on the atonement confirming the 'infinite price, and value' of the death of Christ which was 'abundantly sufficient to expiate the sinnes of the whole world', while also asserting that, 'God willed, that Christ by the blood of his crosse... should effectually redeeme out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, all them, and them onely, who from eternity were elected unto salvation, and given to him of the Father.'[10]

This left several loose ends and unanswered questions. For instance, as G. M. Thomas points out, 'an explicit link between infinite sufficiency and indiscriminate preaching is avoided... [and] no explanation is offered as to how the sufficiency of Christ's death relates to the nonelect... As a result of the biggest disagreement of the Synod, it was impossible to find an acceptable way of relating universal and particular aspects of the atonement in the final document.'[11] It is interesting then, back at Westminster, that Calamy alluded not only to the Synod but to the British delegation that had been sent to Dort. The British divines had submitted their views on the five controverted points in a document called The Collegiat Suffrage. On the issue of relating the universal and particular aspects of the atonement, this stated that:

Christ therefore so dyed for all, that all and everyone by the meanes of faith might obtaine remission of sins, and eternall life by virtue of that ransome paid once for all mankinde. But Christ so dyed for the elect, that by the merit of his death in speciall manner destinated unto them according to the eternall good pleasure of God, they might infallibly obtaine both faith and eternal life.[12] 

This is the same position taken by Calamy when he says in his opening statement that Christ 'did pay a price for all, absolute for the elect, conditionall for the reprobate, in case they doe believe.'[13] Hypothetically, then, all could be saved since provision had been made in the cross if only people would believe. Palmer also recognises this distinction, pointing out that the Arminians taught 'all equally redeemed', whereas others, presumably others holding a different form of 'universal' atonement, did not. Calamy was keen to distance his own view from that of the Remonstrants: 'The Arminians', he said, 'hold that Christ did pay a price for this intention only: that all men should be in an equall state of salvation.' Clearly he did not agree with them about this, and stressed that his version of 'universality' did not affect the doctrines of special election or special grace. That is, there was a further intention in the atonement: Christ died to actually save some. He would have agreed with Dort that special grace is reserved for only a part of mankind, that only the elect are effectually redeemed, although he would have been happy to say that all are redeemed in a different sense. The seventeenth century usage of the word 'redeemed/redemption' allowed for such distinctions.[14] What Calamy was saying is that Christ accomplished redemption for the elect and nonelect, but it was applied only to the elect. This position is not mere 'hypothetical universalism', which Clifford rightly says is 'a description more applicable to the Arminians; since it included an absolute redemption of the elect (which Arminianism did not).'[15] To distinguish it from the Dutch Arminian position, then, it might more accurately be called Calvinist hypothetical universalism.

It is vitally important to note that this hypothetically universalist view had something of a heritage in Britain, being privately held by no less a man than the influential Irish Archbishop, James Ussher. In a letter dated March 3rd 1617, unpublished until after his death but widely copied, circulated, and talked about, he made the following distinction: 'The satisfaction of Christ, onely makes the sinnes of mankind fit for pardon, .. The particular application makes the sins of those to whom that mercy is vouchsafed to be actually pardoned ... [B]y the vertue of this blessed Oblation, God is made placable unto our nature... but not actually appeased with any, until he hath received his son.'[16] He added that 'the universality of the satisfaction derogates nothing from the necessity of the speciall Grace in the application'[17] and that 'in one respect [Christ] may be said to have died for all, and in another respect not to have died for all.'[18]

It may therefore be noted that Calamy's approach to this issue is strikingly similar to Ussher's, and in fact Ussher is behind a great deal of the Calvinist hypothetical universalist case presented at Westminster. This can be seen with regards to the language of salvability used by Calamy and Seaman[19] which echoes Ussher's on placability/fit for pardon. It can also be seen in the distinction Thomas Young makes between pro natura Humana [for human nature] and electis [for the elect],[20] which I presume, in the absence of elaboration in the Minutes, regards the question of the object of Christ's work (was it for human nature, or the elect). This finds an echo in Ussher's language too when he writes that Christ '[I]ntended by giving sufficient satisfaction to Gods Justice, to make the nature of man, which he assumed, a fit subject for mercy', and that 'in respect of his mercy he may be counted a kind of universal cause of the restoring of our Nature.'[21]

Archbishop Ussher, however, was not one 'of our devines in the sinod of Dort' with whom Calamy claimed doctrinal solidarity. Yet a copy of Ussher's private letter concerning his judgement on the extent of the atonement had, the epistle 'To the reader' at the start of the 1658 edition informs us, been carried to the Synod of Dort by 'a Member of it.' This editorial preface also tells us that 'not onely in the forenamed subjects, but in the rest relating to the Remonstrants, the Primate concurred with Bishop Davenant, whose Lectures De morte Christi, & prcedestinatione & reprobatione, he caused to be published.' So the chain of influence is revealed, as Moore makes clear,

Without wanting to go into print with his concerns, [Ussher] counseled ministers through an extensive correspondence and sought through his immense personal influence quietly to win the next generation of theologians to a more balanced position. Davenant was Ussher's key convert.[22] 

As the leader of the British delegation at Dort, John Davenant (later Bishop of Salisbury) was compelled to take a public stance on the issue and thus became a key figure in the development of a stream of Calvinist hypothetical universalism in Britain.[23] At Westminster, Calamy explicitly claims to stand in this tradition. Davenant's most famous work on the subject, written in 1627, was not actually published until 1650, after his death and after the Assembly's debate.[24] Yet his influence was felt not just through the legacy of his work as Bishop of Salisbury, but through the publication of the Collegiat Suffrage (Latin: 1626/English: 1629) and through other works which taught his approach to these questions such as his 1641 book replying to Arminians Samuel Hoard and Henry Mason,[25] which Calamy's grandson called 'learned and peaceable... a book not valued according to its worth.'[26]

That Calamy's approach was the same as Davenant's can perhaps be seen in a small detail overlooked by other commentators on this debate. Palmer asks Calamy to clarify his position, regarding the conditional intention of the atonement for all 'in case they doe believe'. Palmer says, 'I desire to know whether he will understand it de omni homine' [of all people] to which Calamy replies, 'De adultis' [of adults].[27] This enigmatic exchange, on which further comment has not been preserved, could be explained by passages in Davenant's work on the atonement. In response to an objector, Davenant also 'refers to some difference to be observed in this matter between adults and infants' in terms of the conditional nature of universal grace.[28] It is 'foolish' he says, to assert that Christ died for all infants (in the universal sense) 'if they will believe', since 'they have not the use of reason and free will.' Yet the case is far different with adults, he concludes.[29] We can see, therefore, that at Westminster Calamy takes a Davenantian position regarding an objection previously put to the hypothetical universalist case.

English Hypothetical Universalism and Amyraldianism 

It should be noted that Calamy is not best labelled an Amyraldian, as many are in the habit of doing.[30] This may be understandable as a general label for Calvinist universalism, and Moise Amyraut quickly became the name attached to 'universal redemption.'[31] Yet it is also inaccurate in some important ways, not least of which is that Amyraut's position depended on other distinctive theological commitments which were not shared by all hypothetical universalists. For example, his ordering of the decrees and his view on original sin and moral and natural ability found him on trial at Alencon in 1637.[32] He also held a unique and distinctive view on the trinity which flowed from his understanding of redemption, but which was not shared by other universal redemptionists.[33] So while 'Amyraldian' (or 'near-Amyraldian')[34] would certainly be an inappropriate anachronism for Davenant who learned his hypothetical universalism well before Amyraut had even begun to study theology,[35] it could also be inadequate and potentially misleading more widely. Mitchell refers to Calamy, Arrowsmith, Vines, and Seaman as 'disciples of Davenant'[36] and this they more likely were first, prior to any acquaintance with the school of Saumur (that is, Amyraut and his tutor John Cameron). They certainly were not all devotees of Moise Amyraut.

Yet here we must look at two pieces of evidence which are usually adduced to argue for Amyraut's influence at the Assembly. First, a letter of Scottish delegate Robert Baillie on 24th October 1645 is quoted to show that Amyraut was being read and inwardly digested by the Westminster Divines:

Unhappilie Amiraut's Questions are brought in on our Assemblie. Many more loves these fancies here than I did expect. It falls out ill that Spanheim's book is so long acoming out, whileas Amiraut's treatise goes in the Assemblie from hand to hand.[37] 

Baillie laments the fact that Frederick Spanheim, who was known to be composing a great work 'destined to crush definitively Saumur[38] had not yet published his magnum opus.'[39] More pertinently, he laments the distribution of Amyraut's work during the debate on the redemption of the elect only, thus proving to some that Amyraut's influence was weighty. It is true that Amyraut's new book Dissertationes theologicae quatuor addressing the issues of universal and particular grace (as well as his doctrine of the trinity) rolled off the presses in 1645, the same year as this particular debate at Westminster.[40] Yet other books which made people aware of hypothetical universalism were also published around this time - in English, and without propagating either Arminian views or following the controversial Saumur ordo decretorum [order of the decrees] - including one by John Saltmarsh,[41] a troublesome London minister well-known to members of the Assembly.[42]

More acceptable to the Assemblywas Treatise of the Covenant of Grace by John Ball, who Baxter later claimed was universalist on the point of redemption.[43] Whether or not Baxter's claim is accurate (which is not straightforward to determine ),[44] Ball's book is certainly aware of a counter Remonstrant, hypothetically universal doctrine without the Trinitarian or decretal distinctives of Amyraut.[45] Ball was published posthumously by Simeon Ashe in 1645 and carried a laudatory 'To the reader' from notable divines including Edward Reynolds, Anthony Burgess, and Edmond Calamy (sic). They confessed, however, that 'our manifold imployments have not suffered us to peruse it, so exactly, as otherwise we should have done' so we should not infer from their willingness to give testimony to the author's piety and sound learning approbation of all he wrote. On the intent of the atonement, Calamy and Reynolds came out in the Assembly's debates on different sides, after all.[46] We may well ask, then, whether if these men were unable to read a book by a friend in English that they gave their own names to, how much more might they have struggled to find time for the scholarly Latin writings of a more distant Frenchman? Which might have influenced them more in years previously as they formed their opinions on the issue at hand is not so easily answered as some might think either.

The second piece of evidence usually adduced in favour of calling the 'loyal opposition' by the name of 'Amyraldians' is that Gillespie explicitly names Cameron and Amerauld (sic) in his first speech in the debate.[47] So, says Troxel, 'It seems odd [to] maintain the influence of English sources when in fact the Minutes themselves record Mr. Gillespie mentioning Cameron and Amyraut by name amidst the very debate in which this issue is discussed.'[48] Yet logically, of course, it does not follow that because one participant mentions certain theologians that other participants necessarily were in agreement with them or had even read them. Even if an equation was drawn between Calamy's position and the teachings of Amyraut (and it is not entirely clear from the Minutes that Gillespie was directly accusing Calamy of dependence), it is surely correct to ask whether such an equation is legitimate or would be accepted and acknowledged by Calamy himself. After all, raising the suspicion of guilt by association is an old tactic in theological debate.

It is interesting to note in this regard that Calamy's immediate response after Gillespie has cited the Salmurians is to protest that '[I]n the point of election I am for speciall election & for reprobation I am for massa corrupta.'[49] Thus he indicates that he believes, as Ussher did,[50] so that the object of predestination and reprobation is the sinful mass [massa corrupta] of mankind, ie. that he is an infralapsarian. This answers the point Gillespie was just making about the order of the decree in Amyraut, and shows that Calamy is in fact in perfect accord with the later Formula Consensus Helvetica (the formula anti-Amyraldensis) on this point: God elected some of fallen humanity but decreed to 'leave the rest in the corrupt mass' (alios vero in corrupta massa relinquere).[51] Amyraut, on the other hand, taught that God elected some out of the mass of redeemed humanity, the work of Christ to redeem all preceding the decree to save some and pass over others.[52] Calamy therefore does not appear to be an Amyraldian, and distances himself from Amyraut at this point.

All this is not to say that Amyraut had no followers at the Assembly. Seaman does appear to go down the French route when he says God has 'soe farre reconciled himselfe to the world that he would have mercy on whom he would have mercy' and later that 'every man [is] salvabilis [saveable] & God, if he please, may choose him, Justify him, sanctify him.'[53] God's choice, Seaman appears to be saying, is made out of the mass of humanity made salvable by the work of Christ. He spoke of salvability not 'quoad homines [with respect to people] but quoad Deum [with respect to God].'[54] Ussher would have agreed with this, since he himself had written that 'by Christs satisfaction to his Father he made the Nature of Man a fit subject for mercy, I mean thereby, that the former impediment arising on Gods part is taken away.'[55] Yet British hypothetical universalists such as Ussher, Davenant, and John Preston did not agree with the Amyraldian ordo decretorum [order of the decrees].[56] They thus differed fundamentally from Amyraldianism,[57] and even denied elements of Amyraldianism.[58] It is historically most accurate to conclude with Moore then, that,

hypothetical universalism is best seen as a relatively independent, earlier development, distinct from Amyraldianism and 'the Saumur theology' and worthy of its own place in the history of Christian doctrine .... If anything, its origins were neither Scottish (Cameron) nor French (Amyrant), but Irish (Ussher).[59] 

Hypothetical universalism, or Calvinistic universalism, was certainly 'a highly complex phenomenon with no one definitive formulation or uniformity of explanation.[60] But then, as we will see, the 'Calvinist' or particularist position was not defended in a uniform manner either, or with homogenous exegetical tactics. If the reader will forgive me it would, therefore, be a calumny against Calamy to call him an Amyraldian. That is not to say he had no interest in or links to Saumur: his close friend and fellow Assembly member Samuel Bolton (whose funeral sermon Calamywas to preach)[61] translated and attached a key work by Cameron to his famous (1645) book on Christian freedom.[62] So it appears likely that Calamy was familiar with at least the broad outlines of the French doctrine. Reid says 'his reading was very extensive.'[63] Yet despite having Hugenot ancestry,[64] he himself seems to have been an English hypothetical universalist in the Davenant-Preston mould, and not a French Salmurian.

So far then we have seen that there were four points of view on the table in the Westminster debate, which was more complex than some have given it credit for. First, the proposition to be debated itself most probably reflected a particularism reminiscent of William Perkins, the most influential exponent and epitome of late Elizabethan Calvinism, which was to be stoutly defended by Rutherford, Gillespie and others. Secondly, given its prominence in the opening salvos of the debate, the Arminian doctrine and the controversy this had provoked up to the Synod of Dort was obviously a factor in the minds of those seeking to frame the Confession. Thirdly, Calamy extolled the virtues of a third way, that of the hypothetical universalism espoused by Bishop Davenant and others at Dort. And fourthly, there was also the foreign version of hypothetical universalism advocated by Amyraut, whose views were known and discussed in the floor debate at Westminster. This last position was similar to that of Calamy, but by no means identical, and provided another viewpoint in the somewhat fluid and variegated history of Reformed thought on the atonement.

2. Did God Intend to Save and/or to Secure an Offer of Conditional Salvation? 

The second stage of the debate at the Westminster Assembly on particular redemption focused on the related issues of God's intent and the offer of the gospel. The proposition to be debated was narrowed part of the way through the first day's discussion: 'This proposition to be debated. That Christ did intend to Redeeme the elect only.'[65] Why the proposition was changed is not stated, although on day three (24th October) Robert Harris says, 'The best way to answer an erroneous opinion is well to state the question' and this may have played some part in the thinking of those who altered the focus of the debate.[66] The new subtly different proposition placed the emphasis on God's intent, design, and purpose in sending Christ to die, a suitably 'eternal' perspective for a debate on 'God's eternal decree' of course. Yet the two perspectives (eternal and historical, divine and human) could not be easily disentangled as the deputies quickly fell into a discussion of the universal offer of the gospel. Effectively, the question thereafter was did God intend to save his elect people, or to save them and also to offer a conditional salvation to anyone else who believes?

Calamy had said at the start that in sending Jesus to die God had a dual intent, 'absolute for the elect, conditionall for the reprobate, in case they doe beleive.'[67] That second, conditional intent, was now examined. Calamy began by arguing from Scripture, and the debate would return several times to the exegesis of the texts he cited in favour of his position - John 3:16 and Mark 16:15 (the latter of which, we should note, is not considered to beauthentic by modern critical scholarship).[68] Calamy argued that 'the world' which God is said to love in John 3:16 could not signify merely the elect 'because of that "whosoever beleiveth"',[69] or as Richard Vines put it 'the words doe not else run well.'[70] This was an argument which 'universalists' often leaned heavily upon, and which advocates of particular atonement would have to spend time and energy countering.[71] Calamy then turned to Mark 16:15-16, using it to link the universal proclamation of the gospel to universal redemption saying, 'if the covenant of grace be to be preached to all, then Christ redeemed, in some sence, all - both elect and reprobate ... universall Redemption be the ground of the universall promulgation ... else ther is noe verity in promulgation.' Stephen Marshall weighed in to the ensuing debate to reinforce the sense that for the Calvinist universalists, a key issue was 'that ther can noe falsum subesse to the offer of the gospell' that is, nothing false or deceptive behind it.[72] Ussher and the British delegation at Dort, who also cited Mark 16:15 as warrant for linking the universal offer with universal redemption[73] were equally concerned with the 'verity' and sincerity of the offer.[74]

The exegesis of these verses was key to the remainder of the debate as recorded. It is interesting to note that although several deputies spoke up to disagree with Calamy's handling of John 3: 16, they were not unanimous in their own interpretations. For instance, Gillespie questioned whether 'the world' must always in Scripture mean 'the whole world' and he could not understand how God could be said to love those he had reprobated, This was a common question well before this debate, having been discussed by Peter Lombard (c. 1100-1160) and Thomas Aqninas (c. 1225-1274) centuries before.[75] Calamy admitted, 'that it signifyes the elect sometimes' but he did not think it did here, and then he proceeded to make a distinction between God's special love for the elect and his general love for the reprobate.[76] Lightfoot found a third way, saying 'I understand the word "world" in a middle sense. It is only in opposition to the nation of the Jews',[77] or as Harris put it later, 'By "world" ther is meant the world of gentills as appears in the whole chap[ter].' The next day, Rutherford made a case that 'love' in John 3:16 must be speaking of 'the speciall, particular love of God commensurable with election', since parallel passages spoke of such a love (e.g. John 15:13). He concluded from his study of 'love' in Scripture that there was 'not one scripture in all the New Testament wher it can be expounded for the generall.' Indeed, he adduced several texts (Ephesians 5:21, Galatians 2:20, Romans 5:8) which spoke of a 'restricted speciall love.'[78]

Regarding Mark 16, there was even more variety in the responses to Calamy. Gillespie stated that the command to believe there 'doth not hold out Gods intentions' (note that key word), in the same way that his command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac was also not a measure of what he intended to actually take place. Thus he utilised the distinction between God's will of decree and his will of command (or as he put it voluntas/voluntis deereti & mandati).[79] Whatever the reason for them, he said, the 'general offers of the gospel are not grounded upon the secret decree' which was, after all, the subject of that part of the Confession under discussion.[80] Lightfoot saw another reason for a general offer to be made to the reprobate: 'For the universal offer, God intends as the salvation of the elect, so the inexcusableness of the wicked.' Price questioned the logic of using Mark 16 at all declaring, 'it doth not follow that Christ did dy intentionally for the redemption of all' and besides, 'to a congregation of Reprobates the reason of the promisc[u]ous offer is be[cause] we do not know who is elect and reprobate.'[81]

Harris summed up his concerns about the universalists' handling of the conditional language of Mark 16 and John 3 saying, 'I doubt whether ther be any such thing at all as conditionall decree.'[82] He was, like Reynolds on the first day, also puzzled by the idea of a condition being set in God's decree which the reprobate could not perform anyway and 'God never intends to give them[!]'.[83] Perhaps all of these reasons or some combination of them would have been held by Calamy's other opponents in this debate. It certainly seems that there was a diverse and wide-ranging response on this point, but whether the concerns of Calamy, Vines, and others would be ignored completely in the final text of the Confession is something we must look at more closely in another article.

To summarise then, Reformed theology as presented by the Westminster divines was far from monochrome. There was consensus that questions about the limitations of the atonement were important and needed addressing, but there were at least a handful of recognisably different opinions. The exegetical arguments about intentionality and the offer of the gospel reveal that there were also a variety of approaches to defending the more mainstream Reformed position against the minority position of the Calvinist hypothetical universalists in Britain. It appears then that there was a certain degree of flux in the debate at this formative stage of the 17th century and a diversity of recognisably Reformed views that were considered within the pale of orthodoxy. On this, as on other points, there were clearly some 'shades of opinion within a generic Calvinism.'[84]

Notes

1. R. A. Blacketer, 'Definite Atonement in Historical Perspective; in C. E. Hill and F. A.James III (eds.), The Glory of the Atonement: Biblical, Theological, and Practical Perspectives (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004), 304. 
2. B. B. Warfield, 'The Significance of the Westminster Standards as a Creed: Address before the Presbytery of New York, November 8th, 1897' (New York: Charles Scribner, 1898), Section III.
3. A. F. Mitchell &J. Struthers (eds.),Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster Assembly of Divines (London and Edinburgh: William Blackwood, 1874), liv. 
4. Mitchell & Struthers, 160.
5. C. B. Van Dixhoorn, 'Reforming the Reformation: Theological Debate at the Westminster Assembly 1642-1652' (Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 2004) Volume 6, 202. 
6. Van Dixhoorn, 203. 
7. P. Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom volume 3: The Evangelical Protestant Creeds (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996 [1876]), 546. Note the slightly different Latin and English given in P. Heylyn, Historia Quinquarticularis or, A DECLARATION of The Judgement of the Western Churches And more particularly Of the Church of ENGLAND in The Five Controverted Points Reproached in these Last times by the Name of ARMINIANISM (E.C. for Thomas Johnson at the Key in St. Paul's Churchyard, 1660), 50-51. 
8. A. Milton (ed.), The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) Church of England Record Society, volume 13 (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 2005), 295-296.
9. M. Dewar, 'The British Delegation at the Synod of Dort: Assembling and Assembled, Returning and Returned', in Churchman 106.2 (1992), 135.
10. The Judgement Of The SYNODE Holden at DORT (London: John Bill, 1619), 22-24 (articles 3 & 8).
11. G. M. Thomas, The Extent of the Atonement: A Dilemma for Reformed Theology from Calvin to the Consensus (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997), 133. 
12. G. Carleton et al, The Collegiat Suffrage of the Divines of Great Britaine, concerning the five articles controverted in the Low Countries (London: Robert Milbourne, 1629),47-48.
13. Van Dixhoorn, 203. The words in parentheses are interlined in the text of the Minutes. 
14. W. Cunningham, Historical Theology: A review of the principal doctrinal discussions in the Christian church since the apostolic age, Volume 2 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1960 [1862]), 327-328; A. A. Hodge, The Confession of Faith: A Handbook of Christian Doctrine Expounding the Westminster Confession (London: Banner of Truth, 1961 [1869]),73,154. 
15. A. C. Clifford, Atonement and Justification: English Evangelical Theology 1640- 1790 An Evaluation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 154. A. C. Troxel, Amyraut "at" the Assembly: The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Extent of the Atonement; Presbyterion 22/1 (1996), 46.
16. J. Ussher, The Judgement of the late Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland, 1. Of the extent of Christs death and satisfaction (London: for John Crook, 16S8), 4S. 
17. Ibid., 13. 
18. Ibid., IS.
19. Van Dixhoorn, 203, 204, 20S.
20. Ibid, 203-204. 
21. Ussher, The Judgement of the late Archbishop, 14-1S, 28.
22. J. D. Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2007), 212. 
23. Whether advocates of this position (ancient or modern) would revel in the acronym CHUB is a debateable point. 
24. J. Davenant, Dissertationes Dual Prima De Morte Christi... Altera De Pra;destinatione & Reprobatione (Cambridge: Rogeri Danielis, 16S0). See J. Davenant, A Dissertation on the Death of Christ with an introduction by Dr. Alan Clifford (Weston Rhyn: Quinta Press, 2006), x, and Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism, 187, n.70. 
25. J. Davenant, Animadversions... upon a Treatise intitled God's love to Mankind (Cambridge: Roger Daniel, 1641). 
26. Davenant, A Dissertation on the Death of Christ, xviii.
27. Van Dixhoorn, 203.
28. J. Davenant, A Dissertation on the Death of Christ, trans. Josiah Allport (London: Hamilton,Adams, and Co, 1832),446. 
29. M. Fuller (ed.), The Life, Letters, and Writings of John Davenant D.D. (London: Methuen & Co, 1897), 199; Davenant, A Dissertation on the Death of Christ (Allport translation), 567. 
30. E.g. David P. Field, Rigide Calvinisme in a softer dresse: The moderate presbyterianism of John Howe, 1630-1705 (Edinburgh: Rutberford House, 2004), 20; B. B. Warfield, The Westminster Assembly and Its Work (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003 [1932]),56, 142; Troxel, Amyraut "at" the Assembly; 49-50; D. Blunt, 'Debate on Redemption at the Westminster Assembly', British Reformed Journal l3 (Jan-Mar. 1996),2; strongly implied in R. T. Kendall, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997 [1979]), 184 n. 2 and Thomas, The Extent of the Atonement, 241. 
31. R. Baxter, Certain Disputations Of Right to Sacraments and the true nature of Visible Christianity (London: William Du Gard for Thomas Johnson, 1657), Preface.
32. B. G. Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy: Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in Seventeenth Century France (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 88-96. 
33. Ibid.,1n-177. 
34. Ibid., 99 n.l02. 
35. Contra H. C. Hanko, The History of the Free Offer (Grandville, Michigan: Theological School of the Protestant Reformed Churches, 1989) available at http://www.prca.org/current/Free%200ffer/chapter5.htm (accessed 22-12- 07), chapter 5. 
36. Mitchell & Struthers,lv. 
37. D. Laing (ed.), The Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie volume 2 (Edinburgh: Robert Ogle, 1841),324.
38. Laplanche, quoted in Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy, 105. 
39. F. Spanheim, Exercitationes de gratia universali (Leyden, 1646) in three volumes (c. 2600 pages). 
40. Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy,103,172. 
41. J. Saltmarsh, The Fountaine of Free Grace Opened By Questions and Answers proving the foundation of faith to consist only in Gods free love in giving Christ to dye for the sins of all, and objections to the contrary answered by the Congregation of Christ in London, constituted by Baptisme upon the profession of faith, falsly called Anabaptists, wherein they vindicate themselves from the scandalous aspersions of holding freewill, and denying a free election by grace (London, 1645), 1-24. An annotation on the Thomason copy reads 'Jan: 21 1644' with the 5 in the imprint date crossed out. This material is attributed to John Saltmarsh by Wing and DNB. 
42. C. Hill, Liberty Against the Law (London: Penguin, 1997), 217. W. Barker, Puritan Profiles: 54 influential Puritans atthe time when the Westminster Confession of Faith was written (Fearn, Ross-shire, Scotland: Mentor, 1996), 159, 243. 
43. Baxter, Certain Disputations, Preface. 
44. See the discussion in H. Boersma, A Hot Pepper Corn: Richard Baxter's Doctrine of Justification in Its Seventeenth-Century Context of Controversy (Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 2004 [1993]),206-209.
45. See J. Ball, Treatise of the Covenant of Grace (London: G. Miller for Edward Brewster, 1645), 204-264, esp. 205-206 which are quoted in Mitchell & Struthers, Ix. 
46. Contra Troxel, 'Amyraut "at" the Assembly', 49 n.17. 
47. Van Dixhoorn, 204.
48. Troxel, 'Amyraut "at" the Assembly', 50 n.22. Warfield, The Westminster Assembly, 142.
49. Van Dixhoorn, 204. 
50. Ussher, The Judgement of the late Archbishop, 41-42 for massa corrupta. 
51. Emphasis mine. For the Consensus in English see A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1972 [1878]),656-663 (657). For the Latin here quoted see P. Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, volume 1: The History of Creeds (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996 [1876]),478,487. 
52. Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism, 218; Thomas, The Extent of the Atonement, 189-191; A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, 231; R. L. Dabney, Systematic Theology (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1996 [1871]), 235-236,519- 520. 
53. Van Dixhoorn, 203, 205. 
54. Ibid., 203.
55. Ussher, The Judgement of the late Archbishop, 30. 
56. Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism, IS8, 161, 188. Contra Thomas, The Extent of the Atonement, IS 1. 
57. See Warfield, The Westminster Assembly, 144. 
58. Warfield, The Westminster Assembly, 139. 
59. Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism, 219. 
60. Ibid., 225. 
61. E. Calamy, The doctrine of the bodies fragility: with a divine project discovering how to make these vile bodies of ours glorious by getting gracious souls. Represented in a sermon preached at Martins Ludgate at the funerall of that worthy and reverend minister of Jesus Christ, Dr. Samuel Bolton, Master of Christ College in Cambridge, who died the 15 of Octob. 1654, and was buried the 19 day of the same month. By that painfull and pious minister of Gods Word Mr. Edmund Calamy, B.D. (London: Printed for ]oseph Moore, 1654). 
62. S. Bolton, The true bounds of Christian freedome or a treatise wherein the rights of the law are vindicated, the liberties of grace maintained, and the severalliate opinions against the law are examined and confuted. Whereunto is annexed a discourse of the learned John Camerons, touching the threefold covenant of God with man, faithfully translated; by Samuel Bolton minister of the word of God at Saviours Southwark (London:]. L. for Philemon Stephens, 1645), 353-401. 
63. J. Reid, Memoirs of the Westminster Divines (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1982 [1811]),167. 
64. Barker, Puritan Profiles, 208. 
65. Van Dixhoorn, 204.
66. Van Dixhoorn, 21l.
67.  Ibid., 203. 
68. B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: Second Edition (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 102-106. R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark NIGTC (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2002), 685-688. 
69. Van Dixhoorn, 205. 
70. Ibid., 207. 
71. J. Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ in W. H. Goold (ed.), The Works of John Owen: Volume 10 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1967 [1647]), 319-329.
72. Van Dixhoorn, 205. 
73. The Collegiat Suffrage, 48-49. 
74. Ussher, The Judgement of the late Archbishop, 3, 24. The Collegiat Suffrage, 46. 
75. See P. Lombard, The Sentences Book 3: On the Incarnation of the Word trans. G. Silano (Toronto: 'Pontifical institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2008), 134 (Distinction 32 Chapter 5) and T. Aquinas, Summa Theologica trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Volume 1 (New York: Benziger, 1948), 113- 116 (Book 1 Question 20).
76. Van Dixhoorn, 206. 
77. Van Dixhoorn, 207.
78. Ibid., 209. 
79. Ibid., 206.
80. Ibid., 207. 
81. Ibid. 
82. Ibid., 211. 
83. Van Dixhoorn, 203.
84. See Barker, Puritan Profiles, 176 for this phrase.