Samuel Langley (d.1694) on the Death of Christ and the Lord’s Supper

It must be acknowledged, that these words [“Take, eat, this is the Body of Christ which is broken for you,” or “And this Cup is the New Testament in Christ’s blood which is shed for you”] considered absolutely and in themselves, may be interpreted more generally either, 1. of Christ’s being sacrificed for the redemption of all the world of mankind, the genus humanum; and that not only sufficienter (for that which is paid for the redemption of persons, is not strictly a price, because it is sufficient in its own nature to be a worthy and valuable consideration to redeem them) but conditionally by way of Christ’s intention also to redeem mankind, that is, upon the condition of believing: So that this Gospel may be preached to every human creature (not so to any lapsed Angel) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. God so loved the world, &c. Or, 2. (if this please not, the fuller explication whereof may be seen in learned Camero, and the larger disquisition of it in the acute Amyraldus) Christ died for all, in that he bought all, to be Lord and Ruler over them, as Mediator in the Kingdom he hath received by dispensation from the Father to be Lord of all. Or, 3. as he procured some common benefits for all. But I conceive it’s manifest, these words of administration considered as words of administration in the Sacrament, and so with special relation to the Sacrament, cannot be understood in so large a sense, q. d. Christ died for thee if thou wilt believe, or on condition of they faith; or Christ died for thee, or was broken for thee, that he might have power of thee as Lord and Judge, or to purchase some common benefits for thee, as he died for all mankind. For so they might be applied to heathens, yea to the most wicked of heathens, and such as are visibly in the most notorious opposition of, and apostasy from the very name of Christianity; and so this should be no more an application of comfort to the visibly most worthy receiver, then is applicable to the vilest Mahumetan on the face of the earth.

Samuel Langley, Suspension Reviewed, Stated, Cleared and Settled Upon Plain Scripture-Proof (London: Printed by J. Hayes for Thomas Underhil at the Anchor and Bible in Pauls Church-yard, 1658), 65.

Benjamin Woodbridge’s (1622–1684) View of the Extent and Effects of the Death of Christ

Harvard College’s first ever graduate said:

…I am altogether proselyted to renowned Bp. Davenant’s judgement, concerning the extent and effects of the death of Christ, (if that be Arminianisme) especially since I read Daylee’s [Daille’s] late Vindication of Amyrauld against Spanhemius. And the chief reason that inclines me to it, besides the evidence of truth, is the advantage I have thereby to give a clear and smooth answer to all the Scriptures, which the Arminians are wont to use in defense of their cause.

Benjamin Woodbridge, The Method of Grace in the Justification of Sinners (London: Printed by T. R. and E. M. for Edmund Paxton in Pauls-Chain, right over against the Castle Tavern, near Doctors Commons, 1656), A5^r.

Bio:

Wiki
DNB

Biographical Sketches

Woodbridge, in the words of Cotton Mather, was “the Leader of this whole Company [of Graduates of Harvard College], and . . . a Star of the first Magnitude in his Constellation.” Calamy speaks of him as “a great Man every way; … the first Graduate of the College; … the lasting Glory as well as the first Fruits of that Academy.”

John Langdon Sibley, Biographical Sketches of Graduates of Harvard University, in Cambridge Massachusetts. Volume 1. 1642–1658. (Cambridge: Charles William Sever, 1873), 20.

Richard Muller on Moïse Amyraut (1596–1664) and Confessional Boundaries: Part 3

Amyraut’s doctrine, although hardly a reprise of Calvin, arguably fell within confessional boundaries set by the Canons of Dort: it was never formally condemned as a heresy.

Richard Muller, “Beyond Hypothetical Universalism: Moïse Amyraut (1596–1664) on Faith, Reason, and Ethics,” in The Theology of the French Reformed Churches: From Henri IV to the Revocations of the Edict of Nantes, ed. Martin I. Klauber (Reformed Historical-Theological Studies, eds. Joel R. Beeke and Jay T. Collier; Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014), 198.

Nearly all the older scholarship went astray from the actual evidence in its assumptions that hypothetical universalism per se ran counter to the Reformed confessions—notably, the Canons of Dort—and that Amyraut’s form of hypothetical universalism, derived from the theology of his teacher, Cameron, was representative of hypothetical universalism in general.

Ibid., 205. [Note: Warfield is an example of the misguided older scholarship that involves mischaracterization and historical lumping. See B. B. Warfield, The Westminister Assembly and its Work (1959 repr.; Edmonton, AB, Canada: Still Waters Revival Books, 1991), 56, 144n94; The Plan of Salvation (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publications, 1915), 118.]

Given that Amyraut’s hypothetical universalism did not arise out of a significantly different outlook on theology or rest on a different method from that of his Reformed orthodox contemporaries, his theology ought not to be read out of the context of that orthodoxy and its Scholastic methods—nor, indeed, ought Amyraldian or Salmurian theology to be interpreted as a heresy and set outside of the bounds of the orthodoxy of the era. Certainly, Amyraut’s detractors accused him of heresy, but there is no synodical decision or confessional document that confirmed the accusation. In short, Amyraldianism was a form of Reformed orthodoxy that other orthodox Reformed writers pointedly opposed and censured, but it remained within the confessional boundaries and partook of the same Scholastic method Amyraut’s opponents employed. 

Ibid., 208.

For more by Muller on the same, see here (part 1) and here (part 2).

Bio:
Wiki
CTS

Henry Hickman’s (d.1692) Reply to Peter Heylin (1599–1662) on John Hooper (c.1495/1500–1555), Hugh Latimer (c.1487–1555), John Calvin (1509–1564), and Reprobation

I have all this while said nothing of Bishop Hooper and Bishop Latimer, out of whose Writings the Doctor hath transcribed so much. And truly the things transcribed out of them are so impertinent that it would be no hazard to my Reader if I should wholly pass them over in silence. Yet I will not; but first shall say something of the men, secondly of their writings. Latimer was once a very hot Papist, as himself acknowledgeth against himself. Being converted from Popery, he was as zealous for the Reformed Religion; boldly reproving the sins of all, whether Rulers or Ruled. In his Sermons he used a style, which perhaps was then accounted elegant; but would now be judged ridiculous, at least unbeseeming the Pulpit. Hooper I look upon as one that feared the Lord from his youth; for he chose from his youth to leave Oxford, that he might not ensnare his conscience. Beyond the Seas he fell into acquiantance with the learned Henry Bullinger; and returned not into England till the Reign of King Edward: when he gained more love from the Laicks, than Clergy, being a stiff Non-conformist. Hand in drawing up the Articles of Religion he had none, one of them being diametrically opposite to his declared judgment; yet because he was very great, both for piety and learning, as his writings evidently show, therefore his judgment is not to be sleighted. And if Dr. Heylin have proved, or any one else can prove, that he and Latimer held the opinions afterwards called Arminian; I will grant that those opinions were not by the Protestant Church in King Edward’s time adjudged intolerable. Whether they held them or no? must be considered. First, I yield that they both asserted Universal Redemption. This being granted, the Doctor dare say, that

Dr. H[eylin]. Part 2. page 50.

He, (Mr. Hickman he means,) will not be confident in affirming, there can be any room for such an absolute Decree of Reprobation, antecedaneous and precedent to the death of Christ, as his great Masters in the School of Calvin have been pleased to teach him.

Ans. Mr. Hickman’s mind is best known to himself, so are his great Masters in the School of Calvin, if he ever had any such; but this I am confident of, that Calvin’s Decree of Reprobation may be maintained, and yet Universal Redemption not denied. Monsieur Amyrald [Amyraut], as great a Scholar as this last age hath afforded, hath in a whole Book defended Calvin’s absolute Decree against Mr. Hoard; yet the same Amyrald most strenuously defends Universal Redemption. Two Dissertations also of Bishop Davenant are published by careful and faithful hands: in the first, he sets himself to assert Universal Redemption by Christ; in the second, to assert Personal, both Election and Reprobation.

Let us see now what the Doctor can find in Latimer and Hooper.

Dr. H. Part 2. pag. 37.

Latimer in his Sermon on Septuages. rebukes those vain Fellows who abuse Election and Reprobation to carnal Liberty, or Presumption.

Answ. Why so doth Calvin, so doth Ursin[us], so do our Divines at the Synod of Dort.

Dr. H. page 38.

Hooper in his Preface to the ten Commandments, saith, “We must not extenuate Original Sin, nor make God the Author of Evil; nor yet say, that God hath written fatal Laws, with the Stoicks, and in the necessity of destiny violently pulleth one by the hair into Heaven, and thrusteth the other headlong into Hell.”

Answ. All this is just according to Calvin’s method. No Calvinists say, that God’s Decree offereth violence to Man’s Will, or pulleth a man into Heaven. Only they say, that Electing love makes men willing, and that Holiness is an effect of Election. As for Sin, that, they say, is not an effect of Reprobation, but only a Consequent. I, but

Dr. H. page 39.

Bishop Latimer teacheth us, that we are to enquire no further after our Election, than as it is to be found in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Answ. Why so teach the Calvinists too, that our Election is not to be known, but by our knowledge of our interest in Christ. But the Anticalvinist will not say with Latimer, If thou findest thy self in Christ, then art thou sure of eternal life: He saith, A man may be in Christ, and be a Reprobate; a man may be in Christ to day, and in Hell to morrow.

Perhaps the Doctor will find more against Calvinistical Reprobation; or if he do not, he must be concluded to have beaten the Air. First we must hear what he makes Calvinistical Reprobation to be. ‘Tis that, he saith,

Dr. H. Part 2. pag. 47.

By which the far greater part of mankind are pre-ordained, and consequently pre-condemned to the the pit of torments, without any respect had unto their sins and incredulities. This is generally, he saith, maintained and taught in the Schools of Calvin.

Ans. If it be so, then I am sure I never was in any School of Calvin; for I never heard or read of any such Reprobation: nay, I never read of any person whatsoever, that asserted such a Reprobation. Sundry famous Schoolmen, quoted by Dr. Rivet in his fifth Disputation de Reprobatione, were of opinion, that if God had decreed even innocent creatures to eternal damnation, he had decreed nothing unworthy of himself; and they seem to have but too much countenance for this bold and audacious Tenent from a passage of St. Austin’s, in his 16. cap. de Praedestinatione & Gratia: But the Calvinists (as many as I have met with) say, that as God never actually damned any man but for sin, so he never decreed to damn any but for sin. All that they say is but this, that Whereas Judas and Peter were both alike corrupted by the fall, and both alike apt by nature to abuse and reject grace, the reason why God determined effectually to cure the corruption of Peter and not of Judas, was the mere good pleasure of his will. The Calvinists are not engaged to say, that God reprobates any man who was not worthy to be reprobated. All that their opinion obligeth them to, is but this, Not to make sin the cause of preterition or non-election, comparatively considered. And against such preterition there is nothing in the Prayers of our Church, nothing in Latimer, nothing in Hooper, nothing in Cranmer, nothing in the whole Tenth Chapter of the Doctor’s second Part. And it is a wonder, that so ancient a Divine should trouble himself in so many pages to do execution upon a mere Chimæra: and yet this employment was so pleasing and acceptable to him, that he falls to it again in his Eleventh Chapter; In which, page 64, he makes the main Controversie in the Point of man’s Conversion to move upon this hinge, Whether the influences of God’s grace be so strong and powerful, that withall they are absolutely irresistible, so that it is not possible for the will of man not to consent unto the same? But they that have either read the determinations of the Synod of Dort, or Calvin’s own Institutions, know, that the Controversie moves upon no such hinge: but this is the Question, Whether when converting Grace hath produced the whole effect God designed it unto, man still remains unconverted, and indifferent either to turn himself or not turn himself unto God? If converting Grace do leave a man thus indifferent, they say, that Conversion is rather to be ascribed to man than God; and that Paul made himself to differ from other Persecutors, and not God. But they never say, that God forceth or offereth violence unto the natural faculty of the will, or destroyeth any liberty that is essential to it. If any violence be offered, it is only unto corrupt lusts, and sinful inclinations; in which, I hope, I may have fair liberty to say, that the freedom of man’s will doth not consist. Let but any one fairly and impartially state this Question, by drawing Propositions concerning it out of the Writings before mentioned, and he will find nothing in Hooper or Latimer contradictory. The tenth Article of King Edward’s he will find perfectly to express the mind of the Calvinists. And so I might dismiss this matter, had not the Doctor thought meet page 67, as also in another Writing, to smite at us with a Dilemma, or something like a Dilemma, grounded upon the omitting of this Article in Queen Elizabeth’s time. Either this Article did favour Calvinism, or it did not: If it did not, why do the Calvinists alledge it? If it did, why is it in our latter Editions of the Articles left out? We have learnt from Logick, that such Dilemmas are not to be used, which may be inverted or retorted upon those that make them; and such is the present Dilemma, apparently, notoriously such. For thus I argue, Either this Article is Anti-calvinistical, or it is not: If it be not, why doth the Doctor produce it as such? If it be, why did our Reformers in Queen Elizabeth’s time (who were, as he would fain persuade us, Anticalvinistical) leave it out? He must either answer for himself, or not expect that we should answer for our selves: which yet we could easily do, did any Law of Disputation require it of us; for this might be the reason of the omission, because there was nothing in King Edward’s tenth Article, but what doth naturally and lineally descend from our present seventeenth Article.

Henry Hickman, Historia Quinq-Articularis Exarticulata; Or, Animadversions on Doctor Heylin’s Quinquarticular History (London: Printed for Robert Boulter at the Turks-head in Cornhil over against the Royal Exchange, 1674), 179–183.

Bio:  
Wiki
DNB

Note: William Lorimer, Richard Baxter and Andrew Fuller, in addition to Hickman above, all claimed that John Hooper and Hugh Latimer taught universal redemption, in the sense that Christ satisfied for the sins of all men.

Michael J. Lynch on “Early Modern Hypothetical Universalism: Reflections on the Status Quaestionis and Modern Scholarship”

The Junius Blog has posted the following:

Earlier this year [2014] Michael Lynch, a PhD student at Calvin Theological Seminary, presented at a Junius Institute Colloquium on the topic, “Early Modern Hypothetical Universalism: Reflections on the Status Quaestionis and Modern Scholarship.

Here is the audio on YouTube:


Lynch also recently spoke at the 66th Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society held on November 19-21, 2014, in San Diego, CA. His subject was "In Mediis Tutissime Ibis": An Examination of Robert Lewis Dabney's View of the Extent of Christ's Satisfaction (click for audio). He blogs here (click). Regarding his thesis, Lynch wrote:

Robert Lewis Dabney is generally regarded as the preeminent Southern Presbyterian theologian of the nineteenth century. His published writings extend to all sorts of subjects including politics, philosophy, biography, and, of course, theology. His most controversial writings from a contemporary point-of-view are those where he defended southern slavery, but in his own time he also caused quite a stir vis-à-vis the nature of imputation and Christ’s satisfaction.

At the 1863 General Assembly of the Old School (OS) Southern Church, a committee including Dabney was formed to discuss the prospect of reunion with the New School (NS) Southern Church. The OS concern against this proposed reunion was the supposed lack of doctrinal fidelity in the NS Church to Westminsterian orthodoxy. During the reunion debates, OS theologians Benjamin Palmer and A. A. Porter charged Dabney with denying confessional orthodoxy by teaching an indefinite atonement. At one point Dabney responded to Porter, “he demands that we shall say Christ was only the elect’s substitute, and bore the guilt only of the elect’s sins. We reply, show us the place where either the Bible or Confession of Faith says so.” Dabney’s writings on the nature and extent of the satisfaction demonstrate substantial disagreement with traditional OS opinion. This essay will argue that Dabney taught a middle-way position on the extent of the atonement occupying an area between that of limited satisfaction on the one hand, and the Wesleyan doctrine of universal redemption on the other.

In defense of this thesis, I will analyze Dabney’s magnum opus, Lectures on Systematic Theology, as well as his more occasional writings touching on the atonement. Chief among these occasional writings is Dabney’s argument for the plan of union between the OS and NS South—especially his defense of the plan’s doctrinal declaration in an OS newspaper, The Southern Presbyterian.

Here is Lynch’s discussion of “The Reformed Doctrine of the Atonement: What is Hypothetical Universalism?” with Javier Perdomo:



Also, here is Lynch discussing “John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism” with Edwin Báñez on Scholasticism Reformed:

Some Important Moderate Calvinist Writings

First there is James Ussher. One should first read his The True Intent and Extent of Christ’s Death and Satisfaction Upon the Cross, and then his An Answer of the Archbishop of Armagh to Some Exceptions Taken Against His Aforesaid Letter. The student would do well to start here.

Then there is John Davenant’s very important work A Dissertation on the Death of Christ, As To Its Extent and Special Benefits. It’s contained in volume 2 of his exposition on the book of Colossians. See also Michael Lynch’s excellent and improved translation of this work (John Davenant, On the Death of Christ and Other Atonement Writings, trans. Michael J. Lynch [Landrum, SC: Davenant Institute, 2024]) and his important doctoral dissertation on John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism: A Defense of Catholic and Reformed Orthodoxy.

Edward Polhill’s Essay on the Extent of the Death of Christ (extracted from his treatise on The Divine Will Considered in It’s Eternal Decrees, and Holy Execution of Them [2]) is also important reading. It counts as both a reaction against Owenism and against Arminianism.

Richard Baxter’s work on the Universal Redemption of Mankind by the Lord Jesus Christ (or here for a recent edition) should be read as well. His work does have some problems, though, and it’s not organized very well. It doesn’t surprise me that it has not been reprinted. Nevertheless, it is important, even as a response to John Owen’s Death of Death from a moderate Calvinistic perspective. In addition to his above work, one could also read this brief extract from his Catholick Theologie on “Of Universal Redemption.” For more from a Baxterian perspective, these extracts from John Humfrey’s Peace at Pinners-Hall Wish’d and Attempted in a Pacifick Paper Touching The Universality of Redemption, the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace, and our Freedom from the Law of Works and The Middle-Way in One Paper of Election & Redemption, as well as from his Free Thoughts are worthwhile. William Lorimer is an example of another Baxterian.

Note: The above writings by Ussher, Davenant, Polhill, and Baxter should not be considered “Amyraldism,” as they did not depend upon Amyraut, though there are definite conceptual similarities and shared historical reliance on earlier thinkers (i.e., early church fathers and early Reformers). Modern Reformed historiography, such as in Richard Muller’s recent lectures and writings (as well as Jonathan Moore’s work on John Preston), has shown that the moderate English variety of so-called Hypothetical Universalism (originally a pejorative label) is distinct from the Saumur variety, and existed prior to Amyraut, even going back to early Reformers such as Musculus, Bullinger, Ursinus, and others. With that said, if one wants to learn about the Amyraldian variety of moderate Calvinism, see the writings listed here (click).

One can consult sections from books that can be found here:

http://theologicalmeditations.blogspot.com/p/the-atonement.html

And here:

http://calvinandcalvinism.com/?page_id=8466

If one wants a modern book written from a classic-moderate perspective on the extent of the atonement, then I would recommend the following:

Norman F. Douty, Did Christ Die Only for the Elect? A Treatise on the Extent of Christ’s Atonement (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1998). 

Donald Davis Grohman on the Doctrinal Differences Between the Saumur Theologians and Francis Turretin

Also, it should be pointed out again that the doctrinal difference between the Saumur theologians and Turretin do not involve any of the fundamental tenets of the Reformed faith. Turretin himself mentions this fact in a letter to Jean Claude which we shall consider later in this thesis. As we have seen various times in this chapter, Turretin refers to the Salmurians as fellow Reformed pastors and theologians, and the Salmurians certainly view themselves as being within the Reformed tradition. In fact, Amyraut goes to great lengths in attempting to prove that the orthodox Reformed theologians are in agreement with him. Thus, even though this controversy was a serious and lengthy one, nevertheless it was entirely an internal dispute within the Reformed churches concerning nonfundamental matters.

It might seem that in a sense the doctrinal differences between the Salmurians and the orthodox theologians are only theoretical. The “universalism” of the Saumur theologians is merely hypothetical, and in the final analysis, the Salmurians accept the particularism of the Reformed doctrine of predestination: namely, that only the elect are granted faith and salvation. In fact, since hypothetical universalism was basically intended to be a new way of presenting the doctrine of predestination so as to make it seem less objectionable, it was often called a new method rather than a new doctrine. However, if one examines the arguments on both sides, it becomes apparent that there are certain real differences between the two positions.

Donald Davis Grohman, The Genevan Reactions to the Saumur Doctrines of Hypothetical Universalism: 1635–1685 (Th.D. thesis, Knox College, Toronto School of Theology, 1971), 120–21.

These statements about the differences being intramural concur with Richard Muller’s perspective as seen here and here.

John Stalham (d. 1681) on Paul Testard’s (1594–1650) Atonement Views

John Stalham (d. 1681) was a high Calvinist and he described the moderate views of Paul Testard as follows:

I had thought here to have taken breath, espying no enemy in the field; but presently there meets me a Champion Authour, one who is for peace and sweet harmony of truth, and hath happily cleared it in many particulars; yet in this controversie of universall Redemption, his musick jars, and he holds up the weapons of an unhappy warre, and thinks to carry all before him, because he is not point blanke of Arminius’ judgment, in the stating of the Question: For he maintaineth that Christ died for all, and every singular, but he will not assert, that he died æque or alike for every one; Christ died (he saith) for all, to prepare an apt and sufficient remedy, and for the elect, to apply to them, what he had prepared for all. Nor did he die only that God might enter a Covenant with mankinde upon any condition, but that he might most surely covenant with Christ the Surety, under the condition of (the Elects) uniting and growing up, by faith in him; nor that salvation might only be possible for all, but certain for some; a seed to whom Christ’s bloud should be applied; so as all are redeemed, but not alike redeemed: Christ died pro omnibus & singulis, that every one might be redeemed from the necessity of perishing, for the infringed legall-covenant of nature (in Adam) and the want of satisfaction, &c. And that some certain ones, beloved, in God's good pleasure, above the rest, might be actually freed, &c. still for more, then for the sheep of Christ, he would have Christ to die, out of a more general intention; which he endeavours to prove, from the generall expression [World] Joh. 3.16. from the Parable of the Feast, Math. 22. from 1 Tim. 2.6. & 2 Pet. 2.1. & 1 Joh. 2.2. to all which places alleadged and improved by Samuel Oates, we have given our answer long before Paulus Testardus came to our view; what he writes in this case, and how much wiser and more soundly he hath improved those Scriptures; and what greater strength there is in his Arguments, I shall leave to the full examen and censure of able judgments, and learned Pens: But may I pass my vote, without offence of the weak or strong, it is this, Amicus Testardus, in his pursuit of peace and truth, and in many excellent notions and harmonicall notes of free effectual grace, &c. but in this plea, Magis amica veritas, for while he pleadeth that Christ's death is for all, and every singular, he doth, as I understand the Scripture and him, nec sibi, nec Scripturæ constare, neither agree with himself, nor the Scripture.

John Stalham, Vindiciæ Redemptionis (London: Printed by A. M. for Christopher Meredith, at the Sign of the Crane in Pauls Church-yard, 1647), 52–53.

Donald Grohman on Francis Turretin, Conditional Decrees and the Saumur Theologians as Reformed Brethren

...Turretin states that he is in opposition to the Arminians and the Salmurians. He explains first that those who hold to the idea of universal mercy must necessarily understand the order of the decrees to be different from the order normally accepted by the Reformed theologians.⁴ Moreover, Turretin says again that although some of the Saumur theologians would not admit that they hold to a "conditional decree," since this terminology had been condemned by the Gallic Synod, nevertheless it is obvious that they do hold to this idea.¹ The chief writers among them—and here Turretin names Amyraut, Testard, De la Place, and Cappel—frequently use the term "conditional decree," and Turretin argues further that their theological position requires a conditional decree. He says that "since no act of proper and intrinsic will in God concerning the event of anything can be granted, which does not imply a decree, whoever recognizes a conditional will in God, must necessarily admit a conditional decree in him."²

At this point, Turretin feels it is necessary to comment on the opinion of those who argue that the whole matter is not worthy of being seriously debated, because what is involved is just a difference in the method of instruction, not a difference in doctrine. Turretin rejects this idea, arguing that questions involving mercy, redemption, and universal calling cannot be confined simply to method.³

Nevertheless, even Turretin goes on to admit that the doctrine will remain sound just as long as both parties are willing to accept the following points: (1) that all men are corrupt and unable to overcome their sin without the grace of God; (2) that God elects some to salvation and passes over many whom he leaves in their misery by a just judgment; (3) that efficacious grace, without which salvation is impossible, is a gift given by God only to the elect; and (4) that the only way of creating faith within us is for the Spirit to present the Gospel to us. All of thse points, Turretin says, are held in common against the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians.¹ It is presumably because the Saumur theologians accepted these points that Turretin continually refers to them as his brethren of the Reformed faith. Although he strongly disagrees with their position, it is interesting to note that he does not feel that the issue at stake concerns the fundamentals of the faith.
_______________
4. Ibid., IV, xvii, 2-4. See infra, pp. 92–104.

1. The use of this term was one of the issues raised against Amyraut and Testard at the Synod of Alençon in 1637 (Armstrong, pp. 91-94). See supra, pp. 15, 62.

2. Turretin, IV, xvii, 9.

3. Ibid., IV, xvii, 11.

1. Ibid., IV, xvii, 12.

Donald Davis Grohman, The Genevan Reactions to the Saumur Doctrines of Hypothetical Universalism: 1635–1685 (Th.D. thesis, Knox College, Toronto School of Theology, 1971), 73–74.

[Note: Grohman interprets Turretin like Richard Muller. For Muller, see here and here. Muller says, "Turretin, similarly, indicates his disagreement with the Saumur theologians on various issues, but consistently identifies them as Reformed and as "our ministers." Owen and Baxter acknowledged each other's theologies as belonging to the same confessional tradition." See Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 1:79–80.]

One of Francis Turretin’s (1623–1687) Misrepresentations of Salmurian Theology

Grohman writes:

There is a significant difference between the orthodox and the Salmurians concerning what the object of election is. For the orthodox, the object of election is salvation. God the Father elects some certain people to be saved, and then these same people are given faith.[3] For the Salmurians, however, as Laplanche correctly points out, the object of election is the gift of faith, not salvation itself.[4] The Holy Spirit elects some certain people to receive the gift of faith, and then these same people receive salvation.[5] Both sides in this argument would agree that election is the cause of faith, or to put it the other way around, that faith is the effect of election. However, as we shall see in the next chapter, Turretin accuses the Salmurians of saying that foreseen faith, rather than God's good pleasure, is the cause of election.[6] If the Salmurians understood the object of election to be salvation, as Turretin does, then Turretin's accusation would be a valid one; however, by maintaining that the object of election is faith itself, the Salmurians apparently are not guilty of that particular charge.
_______________
3. See Turretin's presentation of the Reformed order of the decrees, infra, p. 95.
4. Laplanche, p. 258.
5. Armstrong, pp. 218–220.
6 See infra, pp. 66–71.

Donald Davis Grohman, The Genevan Reactions to the Saumur Doctrines of Hypothetical Universalism: 1635–1685 (Th.D. thesis, Knox College, Toronto School of Theology, 1971), 47–48.

[Note that regarding the "orthodox" term, Grohman says, "We are using the term "orthodox" in this thesis to refer to the more conservative theologians who were in opposition to Amyraldianism. The term is used in this way by the seventeenth-century theologians themselves and by many modern writers in dealing with this period. We do not mean to imply by this term that all these "orthodox" theologians were in complete agreement among themselves on all issues." Ibid., 2, n.1.]

Grohman also says:

Turretin sees this issue [i.e. Is Foreseen Faith the Cause of Election?] as being a central one. He says that the whole Pelagian controversy, including the revival of Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism, hinges upon this question.¹ He says that on this matter he is also in opposition to the Papists and the Arminians.² In addition, he names two Saumur theologians, Testard and Cappel, with whom he disagrees.³

Turretin explains that Testard and Cappel believe that God decreed to give faith to man before electing him to life. Thus, they hold that predestination to life is the result of faith, which God foresees as a necessary condition to be met in those who are elected. Turretin makes clear his opposition to these two theologians by quoting each of them. He disagrees with Testard's statement that "no one would have deemed election to justification and glorification, if they had distinctly considered it to be from foreseen faith...."⁴ Turretin also objects to Cappel's statement that "destination to eternal life and glory, or the will of God concerning the glorification of man, is founded upon the condition of faith and repentance, but this condition God himself works in us."¹ Turretin rejects these statements as being too "crude" and "dangerous," and as being a departure from the Reformed position.²
_______________
1. Ibid., IV, xi, 1.
2. Ibid., IV, xi, 5–7.
3. Ibid., IV, xi, 8.
4. Testard, as qouted in ibid. Cf. Testard, Eirenikon..., thesis 289, p. 248. Turretin is actually quoting Testard out of context here. As we pointed out in Chapter I, Testard draws a distinction between election to salvation or justification and election to faith. He admits that election to justification is based upon foreseen faith (and this admission is what Turretin quotes), but he goes on to say that he believes that the proper understanding of election—that is, election to faith—is not based upon foreseen faith (see supra, pp. 47–48). Turretin is undoubtedly aware of the distinction which Testard makes concerning the object of election, since this distinction is rejected by the Helvetic Consensus Formula (which was written shortly before Turretin wrote his Institutio) (see Canon VI of the Consensus, Appendix III, infra, pp. 433–434). Apparently, Turretin considers Testard's distinction to be invalid and simply disregards it. Nicole, also citing thesis 289 of the Eirenikon, makes the same accusation as Turretin does (Nicole, p. 34, n. 56).

1. Louis Cappel, as quoted in Turretin, IV, xi, 8. Cf. Cappel in "Thesis theologicae de electione et reprobatione," pars posterior, Syntagma thesium theologicarum.... II, p. 113, par. 13.
2. Turretin, IV, xi, 8.

Donald Davis Grohman, The Genevan Reactions to the Saumur Doctrines of Hypothetical Universalism: 1635–1685 (Th.D. thesis, Knox College, Toronto School of Theology, 1971), 67–68.

Update on 8-27-14: Richard Muller, in one of his lectures at Mid-America Reformed Seminary, said that William Twisse believed election to faith was unconditional, but election to salvation was conditional. If Turretin wants to shoot arrows at Saumur theologians for teaching that, his arrows will also hit Twisse (and possibly Zanchi and Bucer) on the same point. For William Twisse's distinctions between an unconditional or absolute predestination to faith and a conditional predestination to salvation, see his The Riches of Gods Love unto the Vessells of Mercy, Consistent With His Absolute Hatred or Reprobation of the Vessells of Wrath (Oxford: Printed by L. L. and H. H. Printers to the University, for Tho. Robinson, 1553), 1:174–178.

Update on 9-13-14: Here is one passage in Turretin that Grohman refers to above:

VIII. By the unanimous consent of the church, the Reformed maintain election to be purely gratuitous and that no foresight can be granted of faith or of works and merit—neither of congruity (meritum de congruo), nor  condignity (meritum de condigno). Nor is it an objection that some appear to think differently. While holding that election to salvation (according our manner of conceiving) is posterior to election to faith, they think God first decreed to give faith to man before destinating him to life. Thus they hold that predestionation to glory and life is of faith as the condition foreseen by God in him who is elected (as Testard expresses it, "No one would have denied election to justification and glorification, if they had distinctly considered it to be from foreseen faith, and its object to be man believing, inasmuch believing"—Erinekon, Th. 289* [1631], p. 248). Capellus says, "Destination to eternal life and glory, or the will of God concerning the glorification of man, is founded upon the condition of faith, and repentance, but this condition God himself works in us" (Thesis 13, "Thesis theologicae de electione et reprobatione," in Syntagma thesim [1664], p. 113). For although this opinion on the subject of faith differs from those of the Arminians, yet because on others they approach nearer it and depart from the opinion thus far received in our churches (which have constantly contended for a purely gratuitous election without any foresight of faith or works), it is deservedly rejected as too crude and dangerous.

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, 3 vols. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992), 1:357.

Some Important Historical and Theological Distinctions in Theophilus Gale’s (1628–1678) The Court of the Gentiles

But while we are thus characterising the Authors of this new Method, we must also do such Calvinists, who incline to them in some points, that justice, as to free them from all imputation or suspicion of Arminianism: It’s well known, that some of great worth and truly orthodox in point of Grace, have yet somewhat inclined towards the new Method in point of universal objective Grace, as pious and learned Usher, Davenant, and others both in our and the French Churches, who hold, Christ’s death to be an universal remedy applicable to all, but yet are far from asserting an universal subjective Grace, or any velleitie in God of saving all men, which Amyraldus and others assert. As for those who hold absolute and particular Election and Reprobation, Original sin in its full extent, mens natural impotence and being dead in sin, efficacious Grace in the conversion of sinners, with God’s absolute, efficacious, immediate, total and predeterminative concurse to all natural as well as supernatural actions, as Davenant, and some others, who incline to an objective universal Grace, do, I have no controversy with them, but can own them as friends of Grace, albeit in some modes of explicating it, they differ from us.

Theophilus Gale, The Court of the Gentiles. Part IV. Of Reformed Philosophie. Book III. Of Divine Predetermination (London: Printed for John Hill at the Black Lyon in Fleet-street, and Samuel Tidmarsh at the Kings-Head in Cornhill, 1678), 150; III.iv.150. Some spelling has been updated.

Bio:   
DNB
Wiki

Observe the following points made by Gale above:

1) There are some Calvinists who have points that seem to incline them to Arminianism.
2) Gale wants to free them from all imputation or suspicion of Arminianism.
3) Examples of such "truly orthodox" Calvinists of "great worth" are James Ussher and John Davenant.
4) They view Christ's death to be an universal remedy applicable to all.
5) Gale distinguishes these men from the views of Amyraut.
6) These men hold to:
     a) absolute and particular election and reprobation,
     b) original sin,
     c) men's natural impotence,
     d) efficacious grace in conversion,
     e) and God's sovereignty over all things, both natural and supernatural.
7) Davenant, again, is an example of this position, and Gale not only has "no controversy" with them [although he has some differences with them], but owns them as "friends of grace."

The observations of this Puritan are also reflected in the recent scholarship of Dr. Richard Muller. Theophilus Gale's book The True Idea of Jansenism has a preface by John Owen.

Menzeis, a high Calvinist like Gale, said:

The [Popish] Pamphleter might have known that Protestants do not exclude from the Reformed Churches, the learned Camero, Amyrald, Capellus, Dallaeus who with many others especially in the French Church assert universal redemption.

John Menzeis, Roma Mendax (London: Printed for Abel Roper, at the sign of the Sun over against St. Dunstanes Church in Fleet-street, 1675), 190. Also in John Menzeis, The Church of England Vindicated against Her Chief Adversaries of the Church of Rome: Wherein the most Material Points are fairly Debated, and Briefly and Fully Answered (London: Printed for C. Wilkinson, T. Dring, and C. Harper, and are to be Sold at their Shops in Fleetstreet, 1680), 190.

Sources for Amyraut (1596-1664) Studies

Since I just sent this information to someone in an email, I decided that it might be good to make some of it public as well, in case anyone else is engaging in Amyraut studies.

Primary works in French, Latin, and German:

Post-Reformation Digital Library listings for Moïse Amyraut

Primary works in English:

1) Richard Lum's translation of A Brief Treatise on Predestination by Moyse Amyraut. This was done in partial fulfillment for his doctoral degree at Dallas Theological Seminary in June, 1985. Dr. Curt Daniel sells copies of this, but I don't know if he will be in the bookselling business for much longer.

2) Matthew Scott Harding's translation of Amyraut's A Brief Treatise on Predestination is also available to purchase at Amazon.

3) Moyses Amyraldus, A Treatise Concerning Religions, in Refutation of the Opinion Which Accounts all Indifferent; Wherein is Also Evinc'd the Necessity of a Particular Revelation, and the Verity and Preeminence of the Christian Religion Above the Pagan, Mahometan, and Jewish Rationally Demonstrated (London: Printed by M. Simmons for Will. Nealand bookseller in Cambridge and are to be sold there and at the sign of the Crown in Duck-lane, 1660). This can be obtained online at the following links:

HERE

HERE

HERE

4) Moses Amyraldus, A Discourse Concerning the Divine Dreams Mentioned in Scripture, trans. Ja. Lowde (London, Printed by A.C. for Walter Kettilby, at the Bishops-head in St. Paul's Church-Yard, 1676). This work is available on Early English Books Online.

5) Moses Amyraldus, The Evidence of Things not Seen, or Diverse Scriptural, and Philosophical Discourses; Concerning the State of Good and Holy Men After Death (London, Printed for Tho. Cockrill at the Sign of the Three Legs, in the Poultry, 1700). This work is available on Early English Books Online.

6) Matthew Paul Harmon, Moyse Amyraut’s Six Sermons: Directions for Amyrauldian Studies (Th.M. thesis, Westminster Theological Seminary, 2008). Dr. Daniel sells copies. Check WorldCat for nearby libraries that may have it.

Important Secondary works:

1) John Quick, Synodicon in Gallia Reformata (London: Printed for T. Parkhurst and J. Robinson, 1692). Good editions of this work are available on Early English Books Online, as well as at the Post-Reformation Digital Library. Dr. Curt Daniel also sells copies of this, but I have read that some of the print is poor in his editions. I'm not sure.

2) Brian G. Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy: Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in the Seventeenth-Century France (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2004). This should still be in print. This is a revised copy of his dissertation entitled The Calvinism of Moise Amyraut: The Warfare of Protestant Scholasticism and French Humanism (Ph.D. diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 1967). UMI ProQuest sells copies of the dissertation HERE.

3) Frans Pieter Van Stam, The Controversy Over the Theology of Saumur, 1635-1650 (APA-Holland University Press, 1988). Dallas Theological Seminary has a copy of this dissertation (possibly obtained through Dr. Curt Daniel). I don't know where else one might get this very important and excellent work. One might check WorldCat for libraries nearby that may have it.

4) Lawrence Proctor, The Theology of Moïse Amyraut Considered as a Reaction Against Seventeenth-Century Calvinism (Ph.D. diss., University of Leeds, 1952). Dr. Curt Daniel sells copies of it. Check WorldCat for libraries nearby that may have it.

5) Donald Davis Grohman, The Genevan Reactions to the Saumur Doctrine of Hypothetical Universalism, 1635-1685 (Ph.D. diss., Knox College, Toronto, 1971). Dr. Curt Daniel sells copies of it. Check WorldCat for nearby libraries that may have it.

6) Roger Nicole, Moyse Amyraut (1596-1664) and The Controversy on Universal Grace: First Phase (1634-1637) (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1966). Dr. Curt Daniel sells copies of this dissertation. Otherwise, it is hard to obtain dissertations done at Harvard. Check WorldCat for nearby libraries that may have it.

7) Matthew Paul Harmon, Moyse Amyraut’s Six Sermons: Directions for Amyrauldian Studies (Th.M. thesis, Westminster Theological Seminary, 2008). Dr. Daniel sells copies of this. Check WorldCat for nearby libraries that may have it.

Other sources for information:

Lectures by the Amyraldian Association at Norwich Reformed Church can be obtained HERE.

Dr. A. C. Clifford's contact information is HERE.

Dr. Curt Daniel can be contacted HERE, though he may no longer be selling old books.

Dr. Curt Daniel's church website is HERE.

Frans Pieter Van Stam on the Origin of the Pejorative Label “Les Hypothetiques”

Another sign of the hardening of the conflict is the rise, a half year after the national synod of Charenton, of a designation for the adherents of Saumur that was intended to be unfavorable. The expression in question is "les hypothetiques," the "hypotheticals." In the later history of dogma the theology of Saumur would be known as "hypothetical universalism,"[72] a phrase in which the pejorative element occurs as adjective. The Reformed in France adopted the concept "les hypothetiques" as a fixed designation for the theologians of Saumur while the Swiss Reformed before 1650 described them as "universalists."[73] The term "les hypothetiques" was a reference to the problem in Amyraut's theology that on the one hand it declared that God willed to save all and on the other hand it acknowledged that this is not realized in all. Amyraut's intent was to make plain that whoever believes may rest assured that God will save him or her and has in fact elected that person. But his opponents objected that he made God's will to save all people "frustratoire." It was a reduction to absurdity of a small part of Amyraut's total point of view and the expression "hypothetical universalism" is therefore ill-suited to serve as a summary of the core of Amyraut's theology.

The term "les hypothetiques" surfaced in the available documents for the first time in a letter written by Guillaume Rivet in July 1645. He wrote his brother that he had learned from Vincent that "our hypotheticals" were unhappy with the national synod's condemnation of De la Place's ideas.[74] A few weeks later he again used the expression.[75] It occurs in three more letters from Guillaume Rivet to his brother.[76] It is probable that Guillaume Rivet was the first to employ the term as a label for the theologians of Saumur. Four months after G. Rivet had begun to use the term in the documents left us it also occurred, in a somewhat altered form, in a letter from Vincent.[77] At the end of that year it also surfaced in the Dutch Republic. Anna Maria van Schurmann employed it in a letter to André Rivet.[78] In the case of André Rivet himself the expression first occurred in a letter to Spanheim dated in May, 1646.[79] Thus the term proves to have become popular among the opponents of Saumur, enabling them to show their aversion for certain fellow believers without having to argue their case any more.
_________________
72. See for example A. Adam, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, II, Mittelalter und Reformation, Gütersloh 1968, p. 398 and R. Seeberg, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, IV, 2. Tl., Die Fortbildung der reformatorischen Lehre und die gegenrefomatorische Lehre, 5Leipzig 1959 (Nachdruck der 3. Auflage), pp. 704ff. Seeberg distances himself from this term: "fördert das Verständnis der Absicht Amyrauts nicht," p. 704.
73. In the next chapter this will become even more evident.
74. "Vincent m’escrit aussi du mescontentement de nos hypothetiques touchant l’article de l’imputation du peché d’ Adam," see his letter dated July 9, 1645, at Leyden UB, BPL 287, II, 84f.
75. "les hypothetiques," see his letter to A. Rivet dated July 23, 1645, ibid., 86.
76. See his letters to A. Rivet dated Aug. 6, Oct. 1, and Oct. 15, 1645, ibid., 87f., 91, 92. Later, too, the expression returns in his writing, see, e.g., his letter to A. Rivet dated July 9, 1646, ibid., 112.
77. "Nous attendons l’ouvrage de Monsieur Spanheim, qui tient fort nos Hypothesites," see his letter to A. Rivet dated Nov. 4, 1645, at Leyden UB, BPL 274, 35f.
78. "Quod autem scribis Gallicanas ecclesias inter se etiamnum digladiari, et Hypotheticos conari omnem in te invidiam derivare, hinc facile collingimus diabolum nihil adeo moliri quam ut nostros inter se committat," see her letter dated Dec. 25, 1645, to A. Rivet in The Hague, KB, 133 B8, n. 46. About A. M. van Schurman, see B. L. G. N. P., part 2, Kampen 1983, pp. 396-399.
79. "Monsieur Sarrau ne me dit un seul mot de nos hypothetiques," see his letter dated May 19, 1646, at Munich Bayer. Staatsbibl., lat. 10,383, 46.

Frans Pieter Van Stam, The Controversy Over the Theology of Saumur, 1635–1650 (APA-Holland:  University Press, 1988), 277–278.

Note: This is historically quite typical. The modern label "hypothetical universalism" is not one that the Saumur theologians adopted for themselves. Rather, it was a biased label that Amyraut's staunch opponents used to describe his views. It's yet another scarecrow. As Van Stam documents, Guillaume Rivet and André Rivet (brothers) were very hostile to Amyraut, and they were constantly at work behind the scenes attempting (unsuccessfully) to manipulate the decisions of the Synod of Alençon and the Synod of Charenton so as to condemn Saumur theology. One can clearly see from the letters that their behavior was despicable, and that their claims were inconsistent. Both of these national synods exonerated Amyraut.

Frans Pieter Van Stam on the Synod of Alençon and Amyraut’s “Conditional Decree”

In a following article the synod [of Alençon] declared that, though Amyraut and Testard had referred to a “conditional decree” of God, both viewed this expression as an anthropomorphic way of speaking: faith and repentance are demanded of man in order that the promise of God’s decree may be realized. It was definitely not the intent of Amyraut and Testard to ascribe to God “ignorance about the outcome, or powerlessness in the execution, or lack of firmness in his will. For the will of God always remains firm and unchangeable in itself, in accord with the nature of God in which there is neither change nor shadow of turning.” The synod therefore took explicit steps to protect Amyraut and Testard from the criticism of Pierre Moulin. At the same time, and in the same article, there is the insistence that from now on the expression “the conditional, defeasible or revocable decree” should no longer be used, but the term “will” be employed rather, since they were dealing with the revealed will of God.

Frans Pieter Van Stam, The Controversy Over the Theology of Saumur, 1635–1650 (APA-Holland University Press, 1988), 132.

Earlier Van Stam wrote:

Sometimes Arminians also referred to the “conditional decrees of God.” When Amyraut was later criticized for his use of some such expression, he admitted he also had his reservations about it but had used it in his discussions with Arminians.

Ibid., 55n108.

Jean Daillé (1594–1670) on Amyraut's Theses

It is interesting to note that Daillé defended Amyraut in a letter which he wrote, presumably around the middle of the year 1635, to one of Amyraut's students at the academy of Saumur. This student had apparently become unsure of things as a result of the criticism directed against Amyraut. At the very beginning of his letter to the student Daillé asserted: "As regards the theses and the book of Amyraut [Brief traitté de la prestination]: it is foolish for people to be suspicious of his teaching and to find fault with it, for in my opinion it is neither false, nor dangerous, nor new." At the end of this rather extensive letter Daillé called upon the student to defend the good name of his teacher "against the loose talk of those who do not know him." Daillé also showed astonishment over the fact that what was now being held against Amyraut had earlier been permitted to pass in the case of Cameron.

Frans Pieter Van Stam, The Controversy Over the Theology of Saumur, 1635-1650 (Amsterdam: APA-Holland University Press, 1988), 38.

Dating the Saumur Controversy

In September, 1634, Moyse Amyraut published his Brief traitté de la prestination, a little volume that was destined in the years following to stir up a lot of dust. In view of the date of this publication the beginning of the controversy could therefore be pinpointed in the month of September, 1634.

It is more correct, however, to date it in 1635, for it was in the course of that year that the first criticisms of Amyraut's book came out. It needs to be mentioned here that as early as the beginning of 1633 serious objections were raised against a book of Paul Testard, a preacher in the French city of Blois. This volume contained the same ideas advanced in Amyraut's book. However, criticism of Testard's book was too incidental a phenomenon to date the conflict surrounding the theology of Saumur by its appearance. The situation is rather that the criticism of Amyraut's theology re-activated the existing criticism of Testard's book. Amyraut's critics took it ill of him, among other things, that he had published the book in French, thus making it accessible to many people. Also, whereas Testard's book was written in Latin and was full of technical jargon, Amyraut's work was written popularly. Another reason for not dating the beginning of the conflict in 1633 is that, after the National Synod of Alençon in 1637, the Amyraut-conflict remained alive but Testard was hardly mentioned anymore.

The end of the conflict can be put in 1650. An official accord was struck between the representatives of the various parties to the conflict in October of the preceding year, but for a number of months afterwards it was still doubtful whether it would hold. In the course of 1650, however, there was an evident readiness among those who had opposed each other previously to regard the conflict as settled.

Frans Pieter Van Stam, The Controversy Over the Theology of Saumur, 1635-1650 (APA-Holland University Press, 1988), 22–23.

Stephen Charnock (1628–1680) Referencing Amyraut

Stephen Charnock cites John 1:29 and then references Amyraut’s writings for a proper understanding of “takes away the sin of the World.”

Stephen Charnock, “A Discourse of Christ Our Passover,” in The Works of Stephen Charnock (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1985), 4:507.

Stephen Charnock, “A Discourse of Christ Our Passover (1 Cor. 5:7),” in The Complete Works of Stephen Charnock, 5 vols. (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: James Nichol; James Nisbet and Co.; W. Robertson; G. Herbert, 1864–1866), 4:507.

Bio:  
Wiki

If number of citations are any indication it would appear the School of Saumur in France made the largest impression on Charnock next to puritanism. In his Works he cited Moise Amyraut 130 times and Jean Daille 79 times. The next largest number of citations of anyone not affiliated with the School of Saumur was the Roman Catholic Francisco Suarez with 44 and Johannes Cocceius 33 times. From the School of Saumur and those affiliated with it he referred to Amyraut, Daille, Louis Cappel, Jean Mestrezat, John Cameron, Paul Testard, Michel Le Faucheur, Josue de Place (Placeus) and the Theses Salmuriensis a total of 254 times … After the ejection Charnock visited France for an extended period and brought back the French reformers' books as well as their ideas.

Larry Daniel Siekawitch, Stephen Charnonck’s Doctrine of the Knowledge of God: A Case Study of the Balance of Head and Heart in Restoration Puritanism (PhD diss., University of Wales, Bangor, 2007), 70.

In his introduction to Charnock’s Works, M‘Cosh noted:

Among contemporary philosophic writers, he quotes from Gassendi and Voetius. His favourite uninspired writers were evidently the reformers, and those who defended and systematised their theology. Amyraut, and Suarez, and Daille were evidently favourites; and he was familiar with Turretine, Ames, Zanchius, Cocceius, Crellius, Cameron, Grotius, and many others; nay, he is not so bigoted as to overlook the high church Anglican divines of his own age.

James M‘Cosh, “Introduction,” in The Complete Works of Stephen Charnock, B.D., 5 vols. (Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1865), 1:xiii. This is an approximate number of explicit citations of some the Saumur theologians in his Works: volume 1: Amyraut, 22 times; Daille, 20 times; Cameron, 1 time; volume 2: Amyraut, 38 times; Daille, 13 times; Testard, 2 times; Cameron, 4 times; volume 3: Amyraut, 6 times; Daille, 10 times; Cameron, 4 times; volume 4: Amyraut, 39 times; Daille, 24 times; Cameron, 2 times; volume 5: Amyraut, 12 times; Daille, 13 times; Cameron, 6 times.

These stats argue against the broad brushing of Beeke and/or Jones who say without careful qualification that the “Puritans also opposed the views of the Amyraldians and their hypothetical universalism…” (Joel R. Beeke and Mark Jones, A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life [Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012], 360). Clearly Beeke is not aware of Charnock’s moderate Calvinism or his fondness for Amyraldian theology, even on the extent of Christ’s satisfaction.

Lawrence Proctor on Amyraut’s “Equally for All”

78. In this way, Amyraut could say that Christ died equally for all. In the statement that Christ died pro omnibus equiliter (explained Daillé, Apologiae ii 632), the theologians of Saumur meant the adverb to signify that there is none for whom Christ did not die; it does not mean that all are equal in affection or will of God in giving Christ to die. Cf. Drost, Specimen 25: Amyraut and Testard explained the death of Christ for all equally in terms of sufficiency … Amyraut explained the two uses of the adverb in De Grat (Gen) 223.

Lawrence Proctor, The Theology of Moïse Amyraut Considered as a Reaction Against Seventeenth-Century Calvinism (PhD diss., University of Leeds, 1952), 376n78. Long ago, Aquinas said, “Christ’s merit bears the same relation to all men in point of sufficiency, not in point of efficacy [quod meritum Christi quantum ad sufficientiam aequaliter se habet ad omnes, non autem quantum ad efficaciam].”—Thomas Aquinas, QDeVer.Q29.A7.Rep4. John Stalham (d. 1681), a high Calvinist, described Paul Testard’s view this way: “he [Testard] maintaineth that Christ died for all, and every singular, but he will not assert, that he died æque or alike for every one; Christ died (he saith) for all, to prepare an apt and sufficient remedy, and for the elect, to apply to them, what he had prepared for all.” See also Donald Davis Grohman on Testard’s view, in The Genevan Reactions to the Saumur Doctrine of Hypothetical Universalism: 1635–1685 (PhD diss., Knox College, Toronto, 1971), 46.

Original Source 1:

Daille, in Apologiae ii 629–33, wrote:

Sextus a Synodo damnatus error eorum est, “qui impetrationis & applicationis distinctionem usurpant, ut incautis & imperitis hanc opinionem instillent, Deum quantum ad se attinet, omnibus hominibus ex aequo ea beneficia voluisse conferre, quae per mortem Christi acquirumtur; Quod autem quidam prae aliis participes fiant remissionis peccatorum, & vitae aeternae, discrimen illud pendere ex libero eorum abritrio, se ad gratiam indifferenter oblatam applicante, non autem ex singulari misericordiae dono efficaciter in illis operante, ut prae aliis gratiam illam sibi applicent. Nam isti dum simulant se distinctionem hanc sano sensu proponere, populo permiciosum Pelagianismi venenum conantur propinare.” Accusator ait fratres profiteri se ab hoc istorum, quos Synodus damnat, “dogmate alienos esse.” Ego vere alienos esse credo; & aliud de iis suspicari, quam quod ipsi profitentur, non a charitate modo Christiana, sed & a veritate ipsa alienum esse certo scio. Mox addit Exercitator, “plaerisque Synodi Patribus illam impetrationis & applicationis distinctionem eatenus quoque displicuisse, quatenus ejus membra dispescuntur objectis, & impetrationis beneficiorum objectum statuitur universale, applicationis particulare;” & no jubet consulere judicia singulorum Theologorum, quae una cum Actis Synodi in altera voluminis parte publicata sunt. Ego respondeo fuisse quoque ex illis Theologis, quibus haec distinctio eatenus non displiceret; ut ex eorum quoque judiciis eidem volumini insertis liquet. Caeterum non hic quid singuli senserint, sed quid universi decreverint, quaerimus. Id autem universit decreverunt, quod nuper recitavimus, non aluid. Quod singulorum judicia spectemus, cum ea tametsi hac in parte inter se diversa, minime prohibuerint, quo minus alii alios ferrent, fatisque haberent, quod consentirent in hoc uno ab universis probato articulo; est quod sequamur praeclarum egregiae moderationis exemplum, ut fratres alii alios etiam aliter de hac distinctione, & aliis ejusdem generis sentientes, mutua charitate feramus; neu si plures in unam sententiam conveniamus, alios ideo, quod pauciores sint, spernendos, & in nostra verba perfas, nefasque adigendos putemus. Quod Exercitator deinceps fratrum sententiam cum Arminianorum dictatis contendit, vultque aliquem inter eos in quibusdam consensum esse; respondeo dum is in iis, quae sunt a Synodo rejecta, nullus sit, id totum perinde esse, & ad Arminianorum apologiam potius, quam ad fratrum criminationem pertinere. Itaque caetera quidem mittimus, ea vero expendemus, quae sunt a Synodo damnata; quale illud est quod primo statim loco Exercitator memorat, “Deum quantum ad se attinet hominbus ex aequo ea beneficia voluisse communia esse, quae per mortem Christi acquiruntur.” Id vero si eo sensu intelligit, quo & ab Arminianis dicitur, & a Synodo rejicitur, ut scilicet omnibus antecedentis voluntatis momentis Deus ex aequo “omnes homines salvari” velit, nulloque alios prae aliis amore complexus fuerit; nego id fratribus sine horrenda & immani sycophantia tribui posse; qui clare diserteque & nunc antehac non semel, sed saepissime, passimque testati sunt, se credere Deum ex omnibus illis hominibus, quos in se aequiliter corruptos, perditosque primo (ut si dicam) momento respexit, dilexitque, quosdam sequente aeternitatis momento ab aliis mera voluntate elegisse, & peculiari gratia, quam certo sequutura esset salus, donare decrevisse. Fratres vero, non homines, sed belluas esse necesse fuerit, si quos peculiari singularique amore prae caeteris a Deo dilectos fatentur, Deum cum his caeteros omnes mortales ex aequo amasse, ac salvos fieri voluisse dixerint. Neque est quod accusator sese id demonstratum dedisse putet. Numquam fecit, numquam faciet. Neque ii Dei gratia sunt fratres, qui tam stulta, tamve ασυςατα simul doceant. Si qui ex iis olim dixerunt Deum ex aequo voluisse homines omnes servari, id de primo illo dilectionis divinae momento, de quo monui, dixerunt, quo primum lapsi homines ei obversabantur. De sequentibus, absit ut dixerint, ut cogitarint, ut vel unquam somniaverint. Et si quis Christum “pro omnibus aequaliter mortuum” dixit, is intellexit neminem esse, pro quo non sit mortuus; quo sensu interdum sumi adverbium illud aequaliter ipse Exercitator, cum libet, notat; non significavit pari in omnes affectu, pari in omnes Dei voluntate Christum esse mortuum. Quod vero decretum electionis posterius censetur decreto redemptionis, eo quidem efficitur, ut in primo (ut dixi) divinae in homines benevolentiae momento, nondum potior eluxerit in electos, quam in caeteros amor; non efficitur, ut ne in sequenti quidem momento, quo eos caeteris praetulit, potior fuerit. Beneficia quidem ex aequo omnibus proponi fateor, a quibus scilicet nemo excluditur, si crediderit, ad quae omnes sub fidei conditione invitantur; parem esse in omnes amoris ac voluntatis in Deo gradum, nego. Ex quibus postremo liquet vanum & falsum esse quod accusatator ex futilibus istis praemissis tandem concludit, “consensum” esse (inter fratres & Arminianos) in universalitate miserationis (sic ille vocat Dei de hominibus servandis voluntatem) & “redemptionis.” Ita-ne vero? An ergo Deum ex mera voluntate certos quosdam homines elegisse ad fidem salutemque, vel sentiunt Arminiani, vel non sentiunt fratres? Atqui hoc & illi respuunt, & hi credunt, ac tenent; Ergo, ne hic quidem est inter eos consensus. De Christi sacrificio Exercitator, quod secundo loco ponit, non disputat foelicius. Neque enim vel Deum, vel Christum pari in omnes eos, pro quibus oblatum est, affectu atque amore fuisse fratres putant; quod putant tamen Arminiani.

Joannis Dallaei, Apologia pro synodis Alensonensi et Carentonensi. Tomus Secundus: In quo Gratia Dei uiversalis, quam Fridericus Spanhemius suis Exercitationibus oppugnavit, Theologorum Veterum cxx, & Recentiorum LXIII, auctoritate defenditur. (Amstelodami: Joannis Ravensteynii, 1655), 629–33.

Here is a ChatGPT, Copilot, and Google Translate combination:

The sixth error condemned by the Synod is that of those “who make use of the distinction between impetration and application in order to instill in the incautious and unskilled the opinion that, as far as God is concerned, He has willed to bestow the benefits acquired through Christ’s death equally upon all men; and that the reason why some rather than others become partakers of the remission of sins and eternal life depends on their free will, by which they apply to themselves the grace offered indifferently, rather than on the singular gift of mercy effectively operating in them, causing them to apply that grace to themselves rather than others. For these, while pretending to propose this distinction with a sound sense, are attempting to poison the people with the pernicious poison [venom] of Pelagianism.” The accuser [Spanheim] says that the brothers profess to be “free from this doctrine of those whom the Synod condemns.” I truly believe they are foreign to it, and to suspect otherwise about them than what they themselves profess is certainly contrary not only to Christian charity but to truth itself. The Exercitator [Spanheim] immediately adds, “and most of the Fathers of the Synod also disapproved of that distinction of impetration and application, inasmuch as its members differ in their objects, and the object of impetration of benefits is established as universal, and of application as particular;” and he orders us to consult the judgments of individual theologians, which have been published together with the Acts of the Synod in the other part of the volume. I respond that there were also theologians among them to whom this distinction was not so displeasing, as is evident from their judgments included in the same volume. However, what we seek here is not what individuals thought but what all collectively decreed. And what they collectively decreed is what we recently recited—nothing else. Even if we consider the judgments of individuals, although they differed among themselves in this part, they did not forbid others to tolerate them, and it was enough that they agreed on this one article approved by all; it is something we follow as a clear example of excellent moderation, so that brothers, even if they feel differently about this distinction and others of the same kind, we bear with mutual charity; nor if many agree on one opinion, should we despise others because they are fewer, and compel them to our words by any means necessary. As for the Exercitator’s subsequent attempt to compare the brothers’ opinion with Arminian doctrines and claim that there is some agreement between them in certain points, I respond that, since there is no agreement in what the Synod rejected, the whole matter is irrelevant and serves more as an apology for the Arminians than as a charge against the brothers. Therefore, we set aside other matters and consider only what the Synod condemned. Among these is what the Exercitator first mentions: “that, as far as God is concerned, He willed the benefits acquired through Christ’s death to be common to all men equally.” If he understands this in the sense in which it is stated by the Arminians and rejected by the Synod—namely, that in terms of antecedent will, God equally wills “all men to be saved” and has embraced no one with greater love than another—I deny that this can be attributed to the brothers without horrendous and monstrous slander. The brothers have clearly and repeatedly testified, not once but very often and everywhere, that they believe God, out of all those men whom He first regarded as equally corrupt and lost, has, by His mere will, chosen some over others in the following moment of eternity and decreed to grant them special grace, which would certainly lead to salvation. The brothers, however, must be beasts, not men, if they confess that God loved some with special and singular love over others and then said that God loved all mortals equally and wished them to be saved. Nor is there any reason for the accuser to think he has demonstrated it. He never did, and he never will. Nor are they brothers by the grace of God who teach such foolish and absurd things at the same time. If any of them once said that God willed all men equally to be saved, they meant it only concerning that first moment of divine love, about which I have spoken, when fallen men first appeared before Him. But concerning later moments, far be it from them to have said, thought, or even dreamed such a thing. And if anyone has said that Christ “died equally for all,” he meant that there is no one for whom He did not die—which is a sense in which even the Exercitator, when it suits him, acknowledges the adverb “equally” is sometimes used. He did not mean that Christ died for all with the same affection and will. As for the decree of election being posterior to the decree of redemption, this indeed results in the fact that, in the first moment of divine benevolence toward men (as I have said), a greater love had not yet appeared for the elect than for others; but it does not follow that in the subsequent moment, when He preferred them above others, this love was not greater. I acknowledge that the benefits are offered equally to all, so that no one is excluded if he believes, and all are invited under the condition of faith. But I deny that there is an equal degree of love and will in God toward all. From this, it finally becomes clear that the accuser’s ultimate conclusion, drawn from such flimsy premises—namely, that there is “agreement” between the brothers and the Arminians concerning the universality of God’s mercy (which he calls God’s will to save men) and “redemption”—is vain and false. Is it really so? Do the Arminians hold, or do the brothers deny, that God, by His mere will, has chosen certain individuals for faith and salvation? On the contrary, the Arminians reject this, while the brothers believe and hold it. Therefore, there is no agreement between them on this point either. As for the sacrifice of Christ, which the Exercitator discusses in the second place, he does so no more successfully. For the brothers do not believe that either God or Christ had the same affection and love toward all for whom the sacrifice was offered—whereas the Arminians do believe this.

Original Source 2:

Drost, in Specimen 25, wrote:

Non miramur synodum Alenconensem imprimis Amyraldum rogasse, quid significaret illud: “Christum mortuum esse aequaliter pro omnibus” 1). Hoc autem Amyraldus et Testardus ita explicuere 2): Christus mortuus est pro omnibus sufficienter, pro electis vero tantum efficaciter. Christus voluit, ut crucis suae sacrificium abundantissime sufficeret ad totius mundi peccata expianda. Efficacitatis vero et fructus illius mortis electi tantum participes fiunt.” Hac explicatione contenta rogavit tamen synodus, ut hacce formula discendi uti nollent, quae aliis lapis offensionis esse posset; idem de aliis formulis quibusdam rogavit; de ipsius autem systematis et doctrinae orthodoxia non dubitavit, Amyraldumque igitur et Testardum, ut supra jam vidimus, honorifice dimisit.

Arent Dionysiuszoon Drost, Specimen Ethico-Theologicum de Moyse Amyraldo, ethices christianae doctore, quod annuente summo numine […] (Amstelodami: apud Fratret Koster, 1859), 25.

Copilot translation of Drost:

We do not wonder that the Alençon Synod especially asked Amyrald what he meant by saying: “Christ died equally for all.” This Amyrald and Testard explained in this way: “Christ died sufficiently for all, but effectively only for the elect. Christ wanted the sacrifice of his cross to be abundantly sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world. However, the efficacy and fruit of that death are only shared by the elect.” Content with this explanation, the synod nevertheless asked them to avoid using this phrase, which might be a stumbling block for others; similarly, they asked to avoid certain other expressions. However, the synod did not doubt the orthodoxy of their system and doctrine, and therefore, as we have seen above, they honorably dismissed Amyrald and Testard.

ChatGPT translation of Drost:

We are not surprised that the Synod of Alençon first asked Amyraldus what was meant by the phrase: “Christ died equally for all” (1). However, Amyraldus and Testardus explained it as follows (2): Christ died sufficiently for all, but effectively only for the elect. Christ willed that the sacrifice of His cross would be abundantly sufficient to atone for the sins of the entire world. As for the efficacy and the fruits of that death, only the elect become partakers of them.” Though content with this explanation, the synod requested that they would not use this formula for teaching, as it could be a stumbling block to others. The synod made the same request concerning some other formulas. However, it did not doubt the orthodoxy of the system and doctrine, and therefore, as we have already seen, the synod dismissed Amyraldus and Testardus with honor.

Original Source 3:

Amyraut, in De Grat. 222–23, wrote:

Tertium denique quod Vir doctus ait, illud est. “Repetit, inquit,” nobis “etiam Amyraldus ista locutione paruin caute dogma suum, Deum aequali amore in homines ferri.” Atque ad eam rem citat locum e Tractatus de Praedestinatione, & decretum Patrum Alenconiensium. At vehementer errat cum putat φιλανθροπιαν illam communem suisse a Patribus Alenconiensibus reiectam, cum hoc a me postularunt ut ne discerem Christum esse aequaliter pro omnibus mortuum. Illud enim aequaliter duo significat. Nimirum rei ipsius communitatem indifferentem denotat; ut in illis Ciceronis verbis de Clodio; “Quanquam haec quidem iam tolerabilia videbantur, etsi aequaliter in Rempublicam, in priuatos, in longinquos, in propinquos, in alienos, in suos irruebat.” Id enim nihil aluid sibi vult, nisi hominis istius surorem adeo late perugatum esse in omnes, ut eius nemo suerit expers omnino. Deinde significat item rei vel causae ipsius vehementiam aequabilem, atque similem in omnibus; ut siquis dicat omnes electos suisse aequaliter dilectos a Deo ab aeterno. Quum igitur Christum pro omnibus aequaliter esse mortuum, dici possit priore sensu, posteriore minime, (alia est enim amoris vehementia quae Deum eo impulit ut vellet Filium tradere ad mortem pro electis, quam pro caeteris hominibus) Patres illi non existimarunt e re esse, ut vel priore illo sensu diceretur, ne quis qui in calumniam pronus esset, id acciperet quasi dictum posteriore. Rursus, mortem Christi pro omnibus aequaliter oppertitam esse, dupliciter dici potest. Vel enim id dicitur respectu modi conditionis, iuxta quem Christi mors ad omnes pertinet sub fidei conditione; vel dicitur respectu modi absoluti, secundum quem Christi mors pertinet ad unos eos qui actu credunt. Priore sensu verum est Christum esse mortuum aequaliter pro omnibus; posteriore, falsum. Ne quis igitur item eorum qui ex ea locutione occasionem arripuerant obtrectandi doctrinae de Gratia Universali, denuo in eum scopulum inueherentur, Synodus pro sapientia sua existimauit esse satius, si abstineretur ab omnibus ab eo verbo, ne vero sensu enuntiatum, mala interpretatione in sequiorem inflecteretur. Verum de his pluribus alias. Nunc nobis sufficit ostendisse, amorem illum peculiarem, quo Deus electos suos complexus est, ut in salute donanda eorum singularem quandam rationem haberet, non prohibuisse quominus in eo negotio reliquos mortales communi φιλανθροπια prosequeretur.

Mose Amyraldo, Specimen animadversionum in Exercitationes de gratia universali (Salmurii: apud Joh. Lesnerium, 1648), 222–23; italics original.

ChatGPT translation:

Finally, the third point that the learned man makes is this. “Amyraldus,” he says, “has somewhat incautiously repeated his doctrine in this phrase, namely, that God is carried toward men with equal love.” And to support this claim, he cites a passage from the Treatise on Predestination and the decree of the Fathers of Alençon. But he is gravely mistaken in thinking that the Fathers of Alençon rejected this common philanthropia, for what they actually required of me was that I should not say that Christ died equally for all.

For the word equally has two meanings. First, it denotes an indifferent universality of the thing itself, as in these words of Cicero regarding Clodius [Orations: Pro Milone (In Defence of Titus Annius Milo)]: “Although these things now seemed tolerable, yet he rushed equally upon the Republic, upon private individuals, upon those far and near, upon strangers and his own” [76. “…although he attacked with equal fury the republic, and private individuals, and men who were at a distance, and men who were near, people who had no connection with him, and his own relations;…,” trans. C. D. Yonge; Quamquam haec quidem iam tolerabilia videbantur, etsi aequabiliter in rem publicam, in privatos, in longinquos, in propinquos, in alienos, in suos inruebat]. This means nothing other than that the madness of that man had spread so widely to all that no one was entirely untouched by it.

Second, equally can also signify the uniform and similar intensity of the thing or cause in all cases. For instance, one might say that all the elect were equally loved by God from eternity. Since, then, it may be said that Christ died equally for all in the first sense but not in the second—because the intensity of the love that moved God to deliver His Son to death for the elect is different from that for the rest of mankind—the Fathers did not think it advisable to use the phrase even in the first sense, lest someone inclined to misinterpretation should take it as if it were meant in the second sense.

Again, the statement that Christ underwent death equally for all can be understood in two ways. Either it is said in reference to the conditional mode, according to which Christ’s death pertains to all under the condition of faith, or it is said in an absolute mode, according to which Christ’s death pertains only to those who actually believe. In the first sense, it is true that Christ died equally for all; in the second, it is false.

Therefore, lest any of those who had previously seized upon this phrase as an opportunity to oppose the doctrine of Universal Grace should again stumble over it, the Synod, in its wisdom, judged it better to avoid the use of this term altogether, so that a statement made in a true sense might not, through a faulty interpretation, be twisted into a false one.

But of these matters, more shall be said on another occasion. For now, it suffices for us to have shown that the particular love by which God has embraced His elect, so that He has a special regard for them in granting salvation, has not prevented Him from pursuing the rest of mankind in this matter with common philanthropia.