Davenant:

1) THE gracious and saving will of God towards sinners is to be considered, as effectually applying to some persons, of his special mercy, the means of saving grace, according to that saying of the Apostle, “He hath mercy on whom he will;” or, as appointing sufficiently for all, of his common philanthropy, the means of saving grace, applicable to all for salvation, according to the tenor of the covenant of grace, as the Evangelist has said, God so loved the world, &c. Those whom the Divine will or good pleasure embraces under the first description, on them it always confers the means of saving grace in this life, and the end of grace, that is, life eternal, or glory, in the world to come (Rom.viii. 28,29, &c.; Eph. i. 3-5, &c. Those whom the Divine will embraces only under the latter description, on them it sometimes confers the means of saving grace, and sometimes does not; but it never confers the end of grace, that is, eternal life.

In this opinion, which is said to have been that of D. Cameron, the first member of the sentence is legitimately constructed, if he understands, that particular election, mere good pleasure, and effectual calling to grace and glory, depend in such a manner on the Divine will, that it does not separate this Divine will from the foreseen acts of the human will. For he who does this, falls into the error of the Semipelagians.

The second member of the sentence is involved and perplexed with so many ambiguous forms of speaking, that it is difficult to determine its truth or falsehood, without first dividing it into portions.

PART I.

Christ died for all men individually, with some general intention.

Christ is rightly said to have died for all men, inasmuch as on his death is founded a covenant of salvation, applicable to all men while they are in this world. Nor can he be improperly said to have died for each individually, inasmuch as his death may profit each for salvation, according to the tenor of the new covenant, none being excluded. On the other hand, it cannot profit any individual, contrary to the tenor of that covenant, although he should be of the elect. If Cain or Judas had believed and repented, he would be saved through the benefit and merit of the death of Christ. If David or Peter had not believed, nor repented, he would not be saved. In this sense the death of Christ may be understood to be set equally before all men individually.

What is added in the last place, concerning the general intention of God, by which he wills that all men individually should be saved through the death of his Son, needs explanation. It must be observed, therefore, that according to the custom of the Scriptures, the Divine will or intention sometimes denotes merely the appointment of means to an end, although there is no determinate will in God of producing that end by those means. And the Schoolmen refer this intention or will of God to the common order of Providence. In this sense he willed and intended the obedience and salvation of the angels who apostatized, inasmuch as he furnished them with gifts, fit in themselves and suitable, to perform obedience and obtain salvation. And in this sense God, with a general intention, wills life to all men, inasmuch as he willed the death of Christ to be the fountain and cause of life to all men individually, according to the tenor of the evangelical covenant. But we must observe, that the Scriptures mention another will or intention of God, and that properly so called, which never fails in producing the good intended, and which the Schoolmen refer to the order of special predestination. Of this intention or will of God, Augustine rightly says from the Psalmist, (Ench. cap. 97) “In heaven and in earth there are some things which God did not both will and performs; there are some things which he willed and did not perform, though he hath done all things whatsoever he would.” And Aquinas, (1. qu. 1[9], art. 6.) “Whatever God simply wills, he performs.” If, therefore, by this general intention of God to procure the salvation of all men by the death of Christ, they wish to exclude the special will, and special and effectual operation of God in effecting the salvation of the elect; or if they would infer from thence, That the benefit of the death of Christ, that is, the grace of God and eternal salvation of men (as far as relates to God) is intended for all men individually with the same kind of will, and is applied by the same mode of operation, really and actually to be had and obtained by each individual, according as he makes a good use of his own free-will; they bring forward Semipelagianism. But if by this general intention they mean nothing more than a general aptitude and sufficiency in the death of Christ to effect the salvation of all men individually in the mode of an universal cause, or a general appointment of God concerning the salvation of all men individually, who, through the grace of God, duly apply to themselves this universal cause; then there is no need to reject this form of speaking. John Davenant, “On the Controversy Among the French Divines of the Reformed Church,Concerning ‘The Gracious and Saving Will of God Towards Sinful men,'” published with, Dissertation on the Death of Christ, 563-565.

2) Lastly, I think that no Divine of the Reformed Church of sound judgment, will deny a general intention or appointment concerning the salvation of all men individually by the death of Christ, on this condition–If they should believe. For this intention or appointment of God is general, and is plainly revealed in the Holy Scriptures, although the absolute and not to be frustrated intention of God, concerning the gift of faith and eternal life to some persons, is special, and is limited to the elect alone. John Davenant, “On the Controversy Among the French Divines of the Reformed Church,Concerning ‘The Gracious and Saving Will of God Towards Sinful men,'” published with, Dissertation on the Death of Christ, 568-569.

[Note: What is interesting here is that the word “intention” became for many of the Protestant Scholastics a technical term denoting only the effective will of God. For them, Divine “intention” referred only to the decretive will. One can see this in men such as Owen and Turretin, et al. For others, the word could denote both aspects of God’s will, the decretal aspect, and the revealed aspect. What is also interesting is that from my reading of Calvin, Bullinger, Musculus, Zwingli, et al, the word is absent in their discussions on this subject. That is not to say they did not see the revealed will as active and in a sense purposefully seeking the salvation of all men (see Calvin on Matt 23:37, John 3:16, 12:47-48, for example). What is more, it may be, that the word “intention” replaced the idea of “conditional predestination” as used by Zanchi and Bucer, who said all men are conditionally predestined to salvation. And it may be that the word that replaced Musculus’s idea that all men were ‘appointed’ to life. Lastly, for Cameron and Amyraut, and many others, the revealed will (following Calvin) was not simply a passive complacency or desire that men comply with the commands of God, but also an active principle which inclines God to actively seek the salvation of all men (again this idea follows from Calvin, and which was recaptured by men like Howe and Dabney).]