BULLINGER:

Secondary Sources, Classic:

1) Kimedoncius:

Bullinger, Gualther, Musculus and others are cited, and the confessions of one or two Churches in Helvetia, out of whom and the like kind of sayings are diligently drawn: to wit, that “Christ, as much as is in him is a Saviour of all, and came to save all [Bulling. Ser. 2. de Nativit. Chri.]: that he pleased God by the sacrifice of all the sins of all times [The same on I. John. 1.] : that his passion ought to satisfy for the sins of all men, and that the whole world is quickened by the same [Catech. minore Eccl. Tigur.]: that the grace of remission of sins is appointed for all mortal men [Musc. in locis de remiss. p.q.2],” and such like.

Unto these, I answer, that howsoever, and in what sense soever those writers uttered these and like kind of speeches, it is certain that they were not of the adversaries opinion, that effectually and in very deed all, without exception of anyone, and without any difference of believers and unbelievers, are received into grace, and made partakers of remission of sins, righteousness and salvation in Christ. Of which thing we may not doubt at all in the Miscellanies of D. Jerome Zanchi of godly memory, there is the judgement extant of the church and school of Tigur, touching certain Theses of the said Zanchi, which at that time were hatefully pursued of certain that moved the same mischief that Huber does.  Jacob Kimedoncius, The Redemption of Mankind: Three Books: Wherein the Controversy of the Universality of the Redemption and Grace by Christ, and his Death for All Men, is Largely Handled, trans., by Hugh Ince, (London: Imprinted by Felix Kingston, 1598), 143-144.

2) Davenant:

So likewise Bullinger, on Rev. v. Serm. 28, The Lord died for all: but all are not partakers of this redemption, through their own fault. Otherwise the Lord excludes no one but him who excludes himself hy his own unbelieving and faithlessness. John Davenant, Dissertation on the Death of Christ, 337-338.

3) Augustine Marlorate:

For more material from Bullinger, see the Augustine Marlorate file.

Secondary Sources, Modern:

1) Clear statements of nonspeculative hypothetical universalism can be found (as Davenant recognized) in Heinrich Bullinger’s Decades and commentary on the Apocalypse, in Wolfgang Musculus’ Loci communes, in Ursinus’ catechetical lectures, and in Zanchi’s Tractatus de praedestinatione sanctorum, among other places. In addition, the Canons of Dort, in affirming the standard distinction of a sufficiency of Christ’s death for all and its efficiency for the elect, actually refrain from canonizing either the early form of hypothetical universalism or the assumption that Christ’s sufficiency serves only to leave the nonelect without excuse. Although Moore can cite statements from the York conference that Dort “either apertly or covertly denied the universality of man’s redemption” (156), it remains that various of the signatories of the Canons were hypothetical universalists–not only the English delegation (Carleton, Davenant, Ward, Goad, and Hall) but also the [sic] some of the delegates from Bremen and Nassau (Martinius, Crocius, and Alsted)–that Carleton and the other delegates continued to affirm the doctrinal points of Dort while distancing themselves from the church discipline of the Belgic Confession, and that in the course of seventeenth-century debate even the Amyraldians were able to argue that their teaching did not run contrary to the Canons. In other words, the nonspeculative, non-Amyraldian form of hypothetical universalism was new in neither the decades after Dort nor a “softening” of the tradition: The views of Davenant, Ussher, and Preston followed out a resident trajectory long recognized as orthodox among the Reformed.  “English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology,” by Jonathan D. Moore. Reviewed by Richard A Muller, Calvin Theological Journal, 43 (2008), 149-150.

2) “The Lord made to meet on him, as an expiatory sacrifice, not one or another or most sins of one or other man, but all the iniquities of all of us. Therefore I say, the sins of all men of the world of all ages have been expiated by his death.”  Bullinger, Isaiah, 266b, sermon 151; cited by G. Michael Thomas, The Extent of the Atonement: A dilemma for Reformed Theology from Calvin to the Consensus, 1536- 1675 (Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster, 1997), 75.

C.f., “The sins of every human in the world of every age are atoned for through Christ, by his death, and we have in him the most complete remission of every sin and eternal life.”  Bullinger, Isaias, fol. 266b, cited in J. Wayne Baker, “Heinrich Bullinger, the Covenant, and the Reformed Tradition in Retrospect,” in The Sixteenth Century Journal 29  (1998): 373.

3) The Storehouse. Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; Part 4; Part 5.

4) New Bullinger Blog of interest.

Primary Sources:

Confessional statements:

Second Helvetic Confession:

1) “Jesus Christ Is the Only Savior of the World,” and the True Awaited Messiah. For we teach and believe that Jesus Christ our Lord is the unique and eternal Savior of the human race, and thus of the whole world, in whom by faith are saved all who before the law, under the law, and under the Gospel were saved, and however many will be saved at the end of the world. For the Lord himself says in the Gospel: He who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber… I am the door of the sheep (John 10:1 and 7). And also in another place in the same Gospel he says: Abraham saw my day and was glad (ch. 8:56). The apostle Peter also says: There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. We therefore believe that we will be saved through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, as our fathers were (Acts 4:12; 10:43; 15:11). For Paul also says: All our fathers ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ (I Cor. 10:3 f.). And thus we read that John says: Christ was the Lamb which was slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8), and John the Baptist testified that Christ is that Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). Wherefore, we quite openly profess and preach that Jesus Christ is the sole Redeemer and Savior of the world, the King and High Priest, the true and awaited Messiah, that holy and blessed one whom all the types of the law and predictions of the prophets prefigured and promised; and that God appointed him beforehand and sent him to us, so that we are not now to look for any other. Now there only remains for all of us to give all glory to Christ, believe in him, rest in him alone, despising and rejecting all other aids in life. For however many seek salvation in any other than in Christ alone, have fallen from the grace of God and have rendered Christ null and void for themselves (Gal. 5:4). Bullinger, The Second Helvetic Confession – Chapter XI Of Jesus Christ, True God and Man, the Only Savior of the World

2) The Teaching of the Gospel Is Not New, but Most Ancient Doctrine. And although the teaching of the Gospel, compared with the teaching of the Pharisees concerning the law, seemed to be a new doctrine when first preached by Christ (which Jeremiah also prophesied concerning the New Testament), yet actually it not only was and still is an old doctrine (even if today it is called new by the Papists when compared with the teaching now received among them), but is the most ancient of all in the world. For God predestinated from eternity to save the world through Christ, and he has disclosed to the world through the Gospel this his predestination and eternal counsel (II Tim. 2:9f.). Hence it is evident that the religion and teaching of the Gospel among all who ever were, are and will be, is the most ancient of all. Wherefore we assert that all who say that the religion and teaching of the Gospel is a faith which has recently arisen, being scarcely thirty years old, err disgracefully and speak shamefully of the eternal counsel of God. To them applies the saying of Isaiah the prophet: Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! (Isa. 5:20). Bullinger, The Second Helvetic Confession – Chapter XIII Of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, of the Promises, and of the Spirit and Letter.

Read the rest of this entry »

a’ Brakel:

The Love of God Love is an essential attribute of God by which the Lord delights Himself in that which is good, it being well–pleasing to Him, and uniting Himself to it consistent with the nature of the object of His love. The love of God by definition is the loving God Himself, for which reason John states that “God is love” (1 John 4:s). When we view the love of God relative to its objects, however, several distinctions need to be made. We call this love natural when it refers to the manner in which God delights in Himself as the supreme manifestation of goodness. “For the Father loveth the Son” (John 5:20). We call this love volitional when it refers to the manner in which God delights in His creatures. And thus this love is either the love of benevolence or the love of His delight. The love of His benevolence is either general as it relates to the manner in which God delights in, desires to bless, maintains, and governs all His creatures by virtue of the fact that they are His creatures (Psa. 145:9), or it is special. This special love refers to God’s eternal designation of the elect to be the objects of His special love and benevolence. This finds expression in the following texts, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16); “As Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it” (Eph. 5:25). The love of God’s delight has the elect as its object as they are viewed in Christ, being clothed with His satisfaction and holiness perfect and complete in Him (Col. 2:lO); “According as he hath chosen us in Him… according to the good pleasure of His will… wherein He hath made us accepted in the Beloved” (Eph. 1:4-6).

This also applies to the believer in his present state, having the principle of holiness within him. “For the Father Himself loveth you, because ye have loved Me, and have believed that I came out from God” (John 16:27). This love of benevolence precedes all good works of man, whereas the love of God’s delight concerns itself with men who presently either are partakers of or perform that which is good.

a’ Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, 1:123-124.

Owen:

1) It does not hence follow that God loves any one naturally, or necessarily. His love is a free act of his will; and therefore, though it be like himself, such as becomes his nature, yet it is not necessarily determined on any object, nor limited as unto the nature, degrees, and effects of it. He loves whom he pleases, and as unto what end he pleases. Jacob he loved, and Esau he hated; and those effects which, from his love or out of it, he will communicate unto them, are various, according to the counsel of his will. Some he loves only as to temporal and common mercies, some as to spiritual grace and glory; for he has mercy on whom he will have mercy. Owen, Works, 2:345.

2) That God is good to all men, and bountiful, being a wise, powerful, liberal provider for the works of his hands, in and by innumerable dispensations and various communications of his goodness to them, and may in that regard be said to have a universal love for them all, is granted; but that God loves all and every man alike, with that eternal love which is the fountain of his giving Christ for them and to them, and all good things with him, is not in the least intimated by any of those places of Scripture where they are expressed for whom Christ died, as elsewhere hath been abundantly manitfested. Owen, Works, 12:552.

3) Love toward all mankind in general we acknowledge to be required of us, and we are debtors in the fruits of it to the whole creation of God: for he hath not only implanted the principles of it in that nature whereof we are in common partakers with the whole race and kind, whereunto all hatred and its effects were originally foreign, and introduced by the devil, nor only given us his command for it, enlarging on its grounds and reasons in the gospel; but in his design of recovering us out of our lapsed condition unto a conformity with himself, proposes in an especial manner the example of his own love and goodness, which are extended unto all, for our imitation, Matthew 5:44, 45. His philanthropy and communicative love, from his own infinite self-fullness, wherewith all creatures, in all places, times, and seasons, are filled and satisfied, as from an immeasurable ocean of goodness, are proposed unto us to direct the exercise of that drop from the divine nature wherewith we are entrusted. “Love your enemies,” saith our Savior, “bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendes rain on the just and on the unjust.” Owen Works, 15:70.

Ursinus:

1) Merciful. God’s mercy appears in this: 1. That he wills the salvation of all men. 2. That he defers punishment, and invites all to repentance. 3. That he accommodates himself to our infirmity. 4. That he redeems those who are called into his service. 5. That he gave and delivered up to death his only begotten Son. 6. That he promises and does all these things most freely out of his mercy. 7. That he confers benefits upon his enemies, and such as are unworthy of his regard. Obj. 1. But God seems to take pleasure in avenging himself upon the ungodly. Ans. Only in as far as it is the execution of his justice. Obj. 2. He refuses mercy to the ungodly. Ans. Only to such as do not repent. Obj. 3. He does not save all when he has the power. Ans. God acts thus that he may exhibit his justice with his mercy. Obj. 4. He does not exercise his mercy without a sufficient satisfaction. Ans. Yet he has most freely given his Son, that he might make satisfaction by his death.

Bountiful. God is said to be bountiful; I. Because he creates and preserves all thing. 2. Because he confers benefits upon all, even upon the wicked. 3. Because of the free and boundless love which he exercises towards his creatures, especially to man. 4. Because of the love which he cherished towards the church, and in giving eternal life and glory to his people. Obj. 1. But the Scriptures speak of God as cherishing anger. Ans. Be is angry with sin and depravity, but not with his creatures. Obj. 2. God often inflicts punishment upon his creatures. Ans. Only upon such as are impenitent.  Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 8, Q 25, p., 127.

2) Obj. He who rigorously exacts his right, shuts out every expectation of clemency. God rigorously exacts his right. Therefore with him there is no clemency. Or the objection may be thus stated: He who does not yield any thing in relation to his rights, is not merciful, but only just. God does not yield any thing as it respects his rights, because he punishes every sin with a punishment that corresponds with its just desert. Ana. We deny the minor proposition, because God, although he punishes sin with eternal punishment, does nevertheless yield much as it respects his right. He exhibits great clemency, for instance, towards the reprobate, for he defers the punishment which they deserve, and invites them to repentance by strong and powerful motives. And as to the punishment which he will inflict upon them in the world to come, it will be lighter than they deserved. So he also exercises great mercy towards the faithful, for he has, from his mercy alone, without being bound by any law or merit on our part, given his son, and subjected him to punishment for our sake. We also deny the major proposition, if applied either to him who is endowed with such wisdom that he can discover a method of exercising mercy without violating his justice, or when applied to him who, whilst he executes his justice, does not rejoice in the destruction of man, but would rather that he be saved [Lat. “sed mallet eu esse saluum“]. As a judge, when he passes the sentence upon a robber that he deserves to be put to the torture, and yet does not take pleasure in his punishment, exhibits great equity and clemency, even though he seems to exact the most rigorous demand of the law,so God is far more equitable and clement, although, in his just judgment, he punishes sin, for he does not delight in the destruction of the wicked, (Ez. 18:23; 33:11.) and has also shown his mercy and compassion towards us, by laying the punishment which we deserved upon his own Son.  Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 4, Question 11, pp., 69-70. [Note: on this last, the earliest English translation of Ursinus’ commentary has nearly identical wording, even down to, “but had rather he were saved.”  The Summe of the Christian Religion, Delivered by Zacharias Ursinus, trans., D. Henry Parry, (London: Printed by Robert Young, 1633), 102.]