Davenant:

1) The Doctors of the Reformed Church also from the beginning spoke in such a manner on the death of Christ, that they afforded no occasion of reviving the contest. For they taught, That it was proposed and offered to all, but apprehended and applied to the obtaining of eternal life only by those that believe. At the same time, they judged it improper to mingle the hidden mystery of Election and Preterition with this doctrine of the Redemption of the human race through Christ, in such a manner as to exclude any one, before he should exclude himself by his own unbelief. Let us hear their own words. Philip Melancthon constantly admonishes that we should not unseasonably mix the speculation of predestination with the promises of the Gospel. In his Common-places, “On the promises of the Gospel, page 195, he writes thus: As it is necessary to know that the Gospel is a gratuitous promise, so it is necessary to know that the Gospel is an universal promise, that is, that reconciliation is offered and promised to all mankind. It is necessary to hold that this promise is universal, in opposition to any dangerous imaginations on predestination, lest we should reason that this promise pertains to a few others and to ourselves. But we declare, that the promise of the Gospel is universal. And to this are brought those universal expressions, which are used constantly in the Scriptures, such as, GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD, THAT HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, THAT WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH IN HIM SHOULD HOT PERISH, BUT RAVE EVERLASTING LIFE. And the reason why all do not obtain the promises of the Gospel, is because d do not believe it.” Calvin in many places gives his opinion in the same manner. On the same words, John iii. 16, God so loved the world, &c. he says, “He hath put an universal mark, both that he might invite all men promiscuously to the participation of life, and that he might leave the unbelieving without excuse. For this is the meaning of the word WORLD. For although there is nothing found in the world worthy of the Divine favor, yet he shows himself to be propitious to the whole world; since he calls all without exception to believe in Christ.” A little afterwards: “It appears that Christ is set before all, but God opens the eyes of the elect alone to seek him in faith. And on Rom. v. 18, He makes grace common to all, because it is set before all. not because it M actually extended to all. For although Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and through the goodness of God is offered to all indifferent, yet all do not apprehend him.”  John Davenant, “A Dissertation on the Death of Christ,” in An Exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians, (London: Hamilton, Adams, And Co. 1832), 336-337.

Read the rest of this entry »

Cotton:

In these words we have Jesus Christ described: -1. By his external function, as being an advocate and a propitiation for our sins. -2. By his inward qualification, as being righteous. We have studied his office of advocate; we come now to his second office. “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world.”

Doct. Jesus Christ is the propitiation for the sins not only of believing Jews, but likewise of believing Christians all the world over.

Some translations render it, “He is the reconciliation; but that does not express the full meaning. Propitiation includes three things.

-1. It requires that he should expiate our sins, that is, make satisfaction for them. A man may be a means of reconciliation without satisfaction, but he cannot be a propitiation without offering satisfaction for the wrong done. Now Christ did make satisfaction for our sins (Heb, 2:17); and to make satisfaction, he offered a satisfactory sacrifice for our sins (1 Pet. 2:24). Since he bore the sin and punishment due to it, it is as much as if we had done it.

-2. To be a propitiation it is required that he make peace and reconciliation; for though a man sometimes may recompense and satisfy a wrong, yet the party wronged will not be at peace with him. But Christ has taken it upon him to reconcile God to us, so that his wrath is turned from us and his favor restored (Col. 1:21). Now this reconciling implies three things: that once we were friends with God, that we fell out with God, and that, having fallen out, we are reconciled again and made at peace with him. Now this last is procured by Christ; whereas we were once friends with God in Paradise, and fell from him and his favor, Christ has come and made up that breach and reconciled us again.

Read the rest of this entry »

[Note: we are now in a position to properly appreciate Amyraut and Testard’s use of the language of conditional will, decree, and predestination: as we now can document precedent use of this same language, with the same intent, in Twisse, Davenant, Polanus, Bucer, Zanchi. It is not the case that Amyraut and Testard were introducing either novel doctrines or language.]

The Synod of Alancon (1637):

19. And as for the Conditional Decree, of which mention is made in the aforesaid Treatise of Predestination, the said Sieurs Testard and Amyraud declared, that they do not, nor ever did understand any other thing, than God’s Will revealed in his Word, to give Grace and Life unto Believers; and that they called this in none other Sense a Conditional Will than that of Anthropopeia, because God promises not the Effects thereof, but upon condition of Faith and Repentance. And they added farther, That although the Propositions resulting from the Manifestation of this will be conditional, and conceived under an if, or it may be; as, if thou believest thou shalt be saved; if a Man repent of his Sins, they shall be forgiven him; yet nevertheless this doth not suppose in God an Ignorance of the Event, not an Impotency as to the Execution, nor any Inconstancy as to his Will, which is always firmly accomplished, and ever unchangeable in itself, according to the Nature of God, in which there is no Variableness nor Shadow of turning.

20. And the said Sieur Amyraud did particularly protest, as he had formerly published unto the World, that he never gave the Name of Universal or Conditional Predestination unto this Will of God than by way of Concession, and accommodating it unto the Language of the Adversary: Yet forasmuch as many are offended at this Expression of his, he offered freely to raze it out of those places, where ever it did occur, promising also to abstain from it for the future: and both he and the Sieur Testard acknowledged, that to speak truly and accurately according to the Usage of sacred Scripture, there is none other Decree of Predestination of Men unto eternal Life and Salvation, than the unchangeable Purpose of God, by which according to the most free and good Pleasure of his Will, he hath out of mere Grace chosen in Jesus Christ unto Salvation before the Foundation of the World, a certain number of Men in themselves neither better nor more worthy than others, and that he hath decreed to give them unto Jesus Christ to be saved, and that he would call and draw them effectually to Communion with him by his Word and Spirit. And they did, in consequence of this Holy Doctrine, reject their Error, who held that Faith, and the Obedience of Faith, Holiness, Godliness and Perseverance, are not the Fruits and Effects of this unchangeable Decree unto Glory, but Conditions and Causes, without which Election could not be passed; which Conditions or Causes are antecedently requisite, and foreseen as if they were already accomplished in those who were fit to be elected, contrary to what is taught us by the sacred Scriptures, Acts 13.48. and elsewhere.

Read the rest of this entry »

Davenant:

I answer: They are called ungodly and workers of iniquity, who wilfully serve their ungodly lusts; but the regenerate are not called ungodly or workers of iniquity because thy have within them the latent remains of original sin. Nay, it is their perpetual effort to coerce and subdue this indwelling sin, lest it should again acquire dominion. They are therefore opposers, rather than workers, of iniquity. Nor does it follow that God hates the regenerate for their having in them some dregs of original sin. For the love of God towards the regenerate is not founded on their perfection or absolute purity, but on Christ the Mediator, who has transferred their sins to himself, and thus delivered them from the wrath and hatred of God. We readily admit then, that God hateth these remains of sin, and that he shows his hatred, by daily lessening, and at length eradicating them, by his grace and Spirit; but he does not hate the persons of those to whom they cleave, because Christ by his blood hath expiated their guilt. God therefore has willed to punish sin, which he hates, and hath punished it; but he punished it in Christ, who sustained its penalty instead of all the elect.

The sum of our answer comes to this: A two-fold hatred of sin may be considered in God; for he hates sin, either with a simple hatred, or a hatred which reverts upon the person. He hates the sins which cleave to the justified with this simple hatred, because their persons are reconciled to God; but he hates the sins of the ungodly, with that hatred which reverts upon, or is visited, on their persons, because they have not the ransom of Christ applied to them for the expiation of their sins.

John Davenant, A Treatise on Justification (London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co., 1844), 1:30-31.