William Laud (1573–1645) on the Catholic View of the Extent of the Atonement, the Synod of Dort, and the Error of Arminius; With Sources Cited

For that Christ died for all men is the universal and constant doctrine of the Catholic Church in all ages,^s and no ‘error of Arminius:’ and are the express words of Scripture itself, in more places than one.^t And the Synod of Dort,^u called purposely about the errors of Arminius, allows this for orthodox; Christum mortuum esse pro omnibus. And for my part I wish with all my heart, that this had been the greatest error of Arminius.
_______________
^s “Christus crucifixus propter genus humanum.” [Εἰ γὰρ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτὸς παθεῖν ταῦτα αὐτὸν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀνθρωπείου γένους ἐνήργησεν.]—S. Just. Mart. Dial. cum Tryph. p. 246. [§ 95, p. 192. C. Paris. 1742.]

“Tota natura redempta.”—Athan. de Incarn. Christi. Edit. Con. p. 66. [ἡ κτίσις πᾶσα λελύτρωται.—[S.] Athan. de Incarn. [§ 37. Op., tom. i. p. 79. C. Paris. 1698.]

“Pro omni humano grege.” [πάσης τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης ἀγέλης.]—Euseb. L. 10. De Demonstr. Evang. in præfat. [p. 462. De. Colon. 1688.]

“Pro orbe universo.” [ῥανίδες αἵματος ὀλίγαι κόσμον ὅλον ἀναπλάττουσαι.]—Greg. Naz. Orat. xlii. [Op., tom. i. p. 696. D. Paris. 1630.]

[“Venit Redemptor, et dedit pretium, fudit sanguinem suum, emit orbem terrarum.”—S.] Aug. in Ps. 95. Op., tom. iv. col. 1478. B.]

“Pro proditore suo” [“et ideo nec proditorem debuerat præterire, ut adverterent omnes, quod in electione etiam proditoris sui servandorum omium insigne prætendit.”]—S. Ambros. L. de Paradiso, cap. viii [Op., tom. i. col. 161.] “Pro iis qui curari nolunt.” [Ideo omnibus opem sanitatis detulit, ut quicunque perierit mortis suæ causas sibi ascribat, qui curari noluit, cum remedium haberet, quo posset evadere.”] S. Amb. L. 2. de Cain & Abel, c. iii. [Ibid. col. 211.]

“Pro Gentibus, sed illæ non voluerunt” [ὁ μὲν Χριστὸς καὶ ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ Ἑλλήνων … πῶς οὖν, φησίν, οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν; ὅτι οὐκ ἐθέλησαν.]—S. Chrysost. Hom. 7. in 1 Tim. 2. [Op., tom. xi. p. 586. D.]

“Pro omnibus, si omnes redimi vellent”—S. Hieron. in 1 Tim. ii. 1. [Pelag. apud S Hier. Op., tom. xi col. 1046. A.] Primasius, ibid. [apud Bibl. Max. Patr. tom. x. p. 237. H.]

“Nulla ratio dubitandi est … [sed prorsus pro omnibus mortuus est Christus].”—Prosper. [seu ignotus auctor.] lib. ii. de Vocat. Gent. c. 16. [apud S. Prosper. Op., col. 904. c. Paris. 1711.]

“Non pro fidelibus tantum, sed pro, &c.” [Χάριτι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἔδωκε εἰς θάνατον, οὐχ ὑπὲρ τῶν πιστῶν δὲ μόνον, ἀλλ’ ὑπὲρ τῆς οἰκουμένης ἁπάσης.]—Theoph. in Heb. ii. 9. [p. 890. Lond. 1636.] Œcumenius, ibid. [Εἰ γὰρ καὶ μή πάντες ἐσώθησαν διὰ τὴν οἰκείαν ἀπιστίαν, αὐτὸς μέντοι τὸ οἰκεῖον ἐπὶ πάντας καὶ ὑπὲρ πάντων ἐποίησεν.—Œcum. Comm. vol. ii. p. 329. B. Lut. Par. 1631.]

^t S. Jo. iii. 17; 2 Cor. v. 15; Heb. ii. 9; 1 Tim. ii. 6; 1 Tim. iv. 10; 1 S. Jo. ii. 1, 2.

^u “Nemo mortalium est, qui non possit vere et serio per ministros evangelii vocari ad participationem remissionis peccatorum et vitæ æternæ per mortem Christi. (Act. xiii. 38, et S. Jo. iii 17, 18.) Evangelio autem nihil falsum aut simulatum sebest; sed quicquid in eo per ministros offertur, aut promittitur hominibus, id eodem modo ab Authore Evangelii offertur et promittitur iisdem …

“Sic ergo Christus pro omnibus mortuus est, ut omnes et singuli, mediante, fide possint virtute ἀντιλύτρον hujus remissionem peccatorum et vitam æternam consequi, &c.”—Sententia Theologorum Magn. Britan. apud Acta Synod. Dord. Artic. ii. Thes. iii. [apud Judic. Theol. Exter. pp. 78, 79. Lug. Bat. 1620.]

William Laud, “History of Troubles and Trial,” in The Works of the Most Reverend Father in God, William Laud, D.D. (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1853), 3:304–05. For the last citation, see Anthony Milton, ed., “The Collegiat Suffrage of the Divines of Great Britaine, Concerning the Five Articles Controverted in the Low Countries,” in The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort (1618–1619) (Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK; Rochester, NY: The Boydell Press, 2005), 244–45.

Bio:
Wiki

Credit to “Anglican Zoomer” for this find.

It is interesting to see that he cites the following 12 theologians: Justin Martyr, Athanasius, Eusebius of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, Augustine, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Jerome, Primasius, Prosper of Aquitaine, Theophylact of Ohrid, and Œcumenius. Here are all of the citations in full and in order:

1. Justin Martyr (c. 90/100–165)

Chapter 95
‘Indeed, the whole human race could be said to be under a curse. For it is written in the Law laid down by Moses: “Cursed be he that abideth not in the words of the book of the Law, and fulfilleth them not in work” [Deut. 27:26. Cf. Gal. 3:10]. Not even you will dare to assert that anyone ever fulfilled all the precepts of the Law exactly; some have kept them more, some less, than others. But, if those who are subject to the Law are certainly under a curse, because they have not kept the whole Law, how much more so will all the Gentiles evidently be cursed, since they commit idolatry, seduce youths, and perform other wicked deeds? If, therefore, the Father of the Universe willed that His Christ should shoulder the curses of the whole human race, fully realizing that He would raise Him up again after His crucifixion and death, why do you accuse Him, who endured such suffering in accordance with the Father’s will, of being a cursed person, instead of bewailing your own iniquity? For, although He suffered for mankind according to the will of the Father Himself, it was not in obedience to the will of God that you made Him suffer. Nor did you practise piety when you put the Prophets to death. Nor can any of you say in self-defense: “If the [p 299] Father willed Him to suffer these things, in order that by His wounds mankind might be healed, we did no wrong [in putting Him to death].” If you would say this while you repent for your wicked actions, and acknowledge Jesus to be the Christ, and observe His precepts, then, as I said above, you will receive remission of your sins. But, if you curse Him and those who believe in Him, and, whenever it is in your power, put them to death, how will you prevent retribution from being demanded of you for having laid hands on Him, as of unjust and sinful men who are completely devoid of feeling and wisdom?’

Justin Martyr, “The Dialogue with Trypho,” in The First Apology, The Second Apology, Dialogue with Trypho, Exhortation to the Greeks, Discourse to the Greeks, The Monarchy or The Rule of God, vol. 6 of The Fathers of the Church, ed. Thomas B. Falls (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1948), 298–99; Dialogus cum Tryphone §95.

Another version:   

CHAP. XCV.—CHRIST TOOK UPON HIMSELF THE CURSE DUE TO US.
“For the whole human race will be found to be under a curse. For it is written in the law of Moses, ‘Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them’ [Deut. 27:26]. And no one has accurately done all, nor will you venture to deny this; but some more and some less than others have observed the ordinances enjoined. But if those who are under this law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements, how much more shall all the nations appear to be under a curse who practise idolatry, who seduce youths, and commit other crimes? If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father’s will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves? For although His Father caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family, yet you did not commit the deed as in obedience to the will of God. For you did not practise piety when you slew the prophets. And let none of you say: If His Father wished Him to suffer this, in order that by His stripes the human race might be healed, we have done no wrong. If, indeed, you repent of your sins, and recognise Him to be Christ, and observe His commandments, then you may assert this; for, as I have said before, remission of sins shall be yours. But if you curse Him and them that believe on Him, and, when you have the power, put them to death, how is it possible that requisition shall not be made of you, as of unrighteous and sinful men, altogether hard-hearted and without understanding, because you laid your hands on Him?

Justin Martyr, “Dialogue of Justin with Trypho, a Jew,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 247; Dialogus cum Tryphone §95.

2. Athanasius (c. 296/298–373)

XXXVII. The unparalleled death of Christ
Or who of those recorded in Scripture was pierced in his hands and feet, or has been hanged at all on a tree and ended his life on a cross for the salvation of all? For Abraham died departing this life on a bed: Isaac and Jacob themselves, too, died, having gathered up their feet on a bed. Moses and Aaron died on the mountain, David in his house, suffering from no plot of the people; although, indeed, he was sought after by Saul, yet he was preserved unharmed. Isaiah was sawn asunder, but he did not hang upon a tree; Jeremiah was insulted, but was not condemned to death: Ezekiel suffered, but not on the people’s behalf, rather pointing out what should come upon the people.

Moreover, these men, even when they suffered, were men all alike in their natural similitude; but He who is pointed out by the Scriptures to suffer on behalf of all is not a mere man, but is called the Life of all, even though He was like in nature to men. For ‘Ye shall see,’ it says, ‘your Life hanging before your eyes;’ and ‘Who shall declare His generation?’ [Isa. 53:8]. For of all the saints one can learn the generation, and trace it down from of old, and whence each was born; but of Him who is the Life, the Divine words signify that the generation is untraceable.

Who then is it of whom the Divine Writings say these things? or who is so great that the prophets foreannounce such great things concerning Him? Indeed, none other is found in the Scriptures except the common Saviour of all, the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ. For this is He who, coming forth from the Virgin, appeared as man upon earth, having an untraceable generation according to the flesh. For there is none that can speak of His father after the flesh, His body not being from a man, but from a virgin only.

As, then, one can trace their genealogy by their fathers of David, and of Moses, and of all the patriarchs, so no one can trace the generation from a man of the Saviour according to the flesh. For this is He who made the star to signify the birth of His body; for it was right that the Word descending from heaven should have also the signification of it from heaven; and it was right that the King of Creation at His coming should be visibly recognised by all creation.

Doubtless He was born in Judæa, yet men from Persia came to worship Him. This is He who won the victory over the opposing dæmons, and trophies against idolatry, even before His bodily manifestation. All, at least, from among the nations everywhere, abjuring their ancestral custom and the godlessness of idols, are placing their hope henceforth in Christ, and registering themselves under Him, as, indeed, one can see so much with one’s eyes.

For at no other time has the godlessness of the Ægyptians ceased, except when the Lord of all, as it were ‘riding upon a cloud,’ [Isa. 19:1] went down thither in the body and brought to naught the deceit of idols, and brought over all to Himself, and to the Father through Him. This is He who was crucified before the witness of the sun and creation, and before those who led Him forth to death; and by His death salvation has come for all, and all creation has been ransomed. This is He who is the Life of all, and who, as a sheep, surrendered His own body to death for the salvation of all as a life-gift, although the Jews believe it not.

Athanasius of Alexandria, Athanasius: On the Incarnation of the Word of God, trans. T. Herbert Bindley, Second Edition Revised. (London: The Religious Tract Society, 1903), 109–111; De incarnatione §37.

Another version:   

37 Which of those borne witness to in the scriptures was pierced in his hands and feet, or was hung at all upon a tree, and completed his life on the cross for the salvation of all? Abraham died, expiring on a bed; Isaac and Jacob also died with feet raised upon a bed. Moses and Aaron on the mountain; David died in his house, without being the object of any plotting by the people. Even if he was sought by Saul, yet he was preserved unharmed. Isaiah was sawn asunder, but he was not hanged upon the wood; Jeremiah was abused, but he did not die under condemnation; Ezekiel suffered, but not for the people, but indicating what would happen to the people. Moreover, these, although suffering, were human beings, like everyone else in the similarity of nature; but he who is declared by the scriptures to suffer on behalf of all is not simply human, but is called the Life of all, even if similar in nature to human beings. “You will see,” it says, “your life hanging before your eyes” (Deut 28:66) and “Who will declare his generation?” (Isa 53:8) For one could study the generation of all the saints, to expound from of old who and whence each one was, but the generation of the one who is Life the divine words declare to be inexpressible.

Who then is this of whom the divine scriptures say these things? Or who is so great, that the prophets also foretell such things about him? For no one else is found in the scriptures except the Savior common to all, the God Word, our Lord Jesus Christ. For he it is who came forth from a virgin, and appeared on earth as a human being, and has an inexpressible generation in the flesh. For there is no one who can speak of his father in the flesh, his body not being from a man but from a virgin alone. Just as one can, therefore, trace the genealogy of David and Moses and all the patriarchs, so no one can tell of the generation in the flesh of the Savior from man. For he it is who made the star tell of the birth [genesis] of his body. For as the Word came down from heaven, it was necessary to have a sign from heaven too; and as the king of creation came forth, it was necessary that he be clearly known by the whole inhabited world. He was born in Judaea and they came from Persia to worship him. He it is who even before his bodily manifestation took the victory against the opposing demons and the trophy over idolatry. So all Gentiles from everywhere, rejecting the inherited customs and the godlessness of idols, place their hope henceforth in Christ and dedicate themselves to him, so that one can also see such things with the eyes themselves. For at no other time did the godlessness of the Egyptians cease, except when the Lord of all, riding as upon a cloud, went down there in the body, destroyed the error of the idols, and brought all to himself and through himself to the Father. He it is that was crucified, with the sun and creation as witnesses together with those who inflicted death upon him; and by his death salvation has come to all, and all creation been ransomed. He it is who is the Life of all, and who like a sheep delivered his own body to death as a substitute for the salvation of all, even if the Jews do not believe.

St Athanasius the Great of Alexandria, On the Incarnation: Translation, ed. and trans. John Behr, vol. 44a of Popular Patristics Series (Yonkers, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2011), 127–31; De incarnatione §37.

Another version:   

§ 37. Psalm 22:16, &c. Majesty of His birth and death. Confusion of oracles and demons in Egypt
Or who among those recorded in Scripture was pierced in the hands and feet, or hung at all upon a tree, and was sacrificed on a cross for the salvation of all? For Abraham died, ending his life on a bed; Isaac and Jacob also died with their feet raised on a bed; Moses and Aaron died on the mountain; David in his house, without being the object of any conspiracy at the hands of the people; true, he was pursued by Saul, but he was preserved unhurt. Esaias was sawn asunder, but not hung on a tree. Jeremy was shamefully treated, but did not die under condemnation; Ezechie suffered, not however for the people, but to indicate what was to come upon the people.

2. Again, these, even where they suffered, were men resembling all in their common nature; but he that is declared in Scripture to suffer on behalf of all is called not merely man, but the Life of all, albeit He was in fact like men in nature. For “ye shall see,” it says, “your Life hanging before your eyes;” and “who shall declare his generation?” For one can ascertain the genealogy of all the saints, and declare it from the beginning, and of whom each was born; but the generation of Him that is the Life the Scriptures refer to as not to be declared. 3. Who then is he of whom the Divine Scriptures say this? Or who is so great that even the prophets predict of him such great things? None else, now, is found in the Scriptures but the common Saviour of all, the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ. For He it is that proceeded from a virgin and appeared as man on the earth, and whose generation after the flesh cannot be declared. For there is none that can tell His father after the flesh, His body not being of a man, but of a virgin alone; 4. so that no one can declare the corporal generation of the Saviour from a man, in the same way as one can draw up a genealogy of David and of Moses and of all the patriarchs. For He it is that caused the star also to mark the birth of His body; since it was fit that the Word, coming down from heaven, should have His constellation also from heaven, and it was fitting that the King of Creation when He came forth should be openly recognized by all creation. 5. Why, He was born in Judæa, and men from Persia came to worship Him. He it is that even before His appearing in the body won the victory over His demon adversaries and a triumph over idolatry. All heathen at any rate from every region, abjuring their hereditary tradition and the impiety of idols, are now placing their hope in Christ, and enrolling themselves under Him, the like of which you may see with your own eyes.

6. For at no other time has the impiety of the Egyptians ceased, save when the Lord of all, riding as it were upon a cloud, came down there in the body and brought to nought the delusion of idols, and brought over all to Himself, and through Himself to the Father.

7. He it is that was crucified before the sun and all creation as witnesses, and before those who put Him to death: and by His death has salvation come to all, and all creation been ransomed. He is the Life of all, and He it is that as a sheep yielded His body to death as a substitute, for the salvation of all, even though the Jews believe it not.

Athanasius of Alexandria, “On the Incarnation of the Word,” in St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Archibald T. Robertson, vol. 4 of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 55–56; De incarnatione §37.

3. Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260/265–339)

For He was the Lamb that takes away sin, according to John the Baptist, when he said: “Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world” [John 1:29], and He was the Lamb led to the slaughter in the oracle of Isaiah, which said: “He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before her shearers is dumb” [Isa. 53.7]. [d] And of Him as of a lamb was it said: “For the sins of my people he was led to death” [Isa. 53.8]. For it was necessary that the Lamb of God, taken by the great High-Priest on behalf of the other kindred lambs, for all the flock of mankind [πάσης τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης ἀγέλης], should be offered as a sacrifice to God: “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead,” says the apostle: “and as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation: even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life” [1 Cor. 15:21; Rom. 5:18]. [463] Hence, also, He taught His disciples that He was life and light and truth, and the other conceptions of His Divinity, whereas to them that were not initiated into the secrets of His nature, He said: “Why do ye seek to kill me, a man that has told you the truth?” [John 8:40]

Eusebius of Cæsarea, The Proof of the Gospel: Being the Demonstratio Evangelica of Eusebius of Cæsarea, ed. W. J. Sparrow-Simpson and W. K. Lowther Clarke, trans. W. J. Ferrar, vol. 2 of Translations of Christian Literature: Series I: Greek Texts (London; New York: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; The Macmillan Company, 1920), 191; Demonstratio Evangelica 10.praef.5 (PG 22, col. 718 B).

Here are a few more relevant quotes from this work by Eusebius:

[b] We must, therefore, regard the brutes as akin in kind and nature and essence to the vegetation of the earth and the plants, and conclude that those who sacrifice them commit no sin. Noah indeed was told to eat flesh, as the herb of the field.

While then the better, the great and worthy and divine sacrifice was not yet available for men, it was necessary for them by the offering of animals to pay a ransom for their own life, and this was fitly a life that represented their own nature. [c] Thus did the holy men of old, anticipating by the Holy Spirit that a holy victim, dear to God and great, would one day come for men, as the offering for the sins of the world, believing that as prophets they must perform in symbol his sacrifice, and shew forth in type what was yet to be. But when that which was perfect was come, in accordance with the predictions of the prophets, the former sacrifices ceased at once because of the better and true Sacrifice.

This Sacrifice was the Christ of God, from far distant times foretold as coming to men, to be sacrificed like a sheep for the whole human race. As Isaiah the prophet says of him: “As a sheep he was led to slaughter, and as a lamb dumb before her shearers” [Is. 53:7].

Eusebius of Cæsarea, The Proof of the Gospel: Being the Demonstratio Evangelica of Eusebius of Cæsarea, ed. W. J. Sparrow-Simpson and W. K. Lowther Clarke, trans. W. J. Ferrar, vol. 1 of Translations of Christian Literature: Series I: Greek Texts (London; New York: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; The Macmillan Company, 1920), 56–57; Demonstratio Evangelica 1.10.

[c] His Strong One forsook Him then, because He wished Him to go unto death, even “the death of the cross” [Phil. 2:8], and to be set forth as the ransom and sacrifice for the whole world, and to be the purification of the life of them that believe in Him. [d] And He, since he understood at once His Father’s Divine counsel, and because He discerned better than any other why He was forsaken by the Father, humbled Himself even more, and embraced death for us with all willingness, and “became a curse for us” [Gal. 3:13], holy and all blessed though He was, and “He that knew no sin, became sin, that we might become the righteousness of God in* Him” [2 Cor. 5:21]. Yea more—to wash away our sins He was crucified, suffering what we who were sinful should have suffered, as our sacrifice and ransom, so that we may well say with the prophet, He bears our sins, and is pained for us, and he was wounded for our sins, and bruised for our iniquities, so that by His stripes we might be healed, for the Lord hath given Him for our sins [Isa. 53:4]. So, as delivered up by the Father, as bruised, as bearing our sins, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter. With this the apostle agrees when he says, “Who spared not his own Son, but delivered him for us all” [Rom. 8:32]. And it is to impel us to ask why the Father forsook Him, that He says, “Why hast thou forsaken me?” [496] The answer is, to ransom the whole human race, buying them with His precious Blood from their former slavery to their invisible tyrants, the unclean dæmons, and the rulers and spirits of evil.

And the Father forsook Him for another reason, namely, that the love of Christ Himself for men might be set forth.

Eusebius of Cæsarea, The Proof of the Gospel: Being the Demonstratio Evangelica of Eusebius of Cæsarea, ed. W. J. Sparrow-Simpson and W. K. Lowther Clarke, trans. W. J. Ferrar, vol. 2 of Translations of Christian Literature: Series I: Greek Texts (London; New York: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; The Macmillan Company, 1920), 220–21; Demonstratio Evangelica 10.8.

4. Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329–390)

Laud lists the following as Orat. 42 (according to Opera, tom. i. p. 696. D. Paris. 1630), as some others do as well, but in some modern versions, as in the following, it is Orat. 45.

XXIX. Many indeed are the miracles of that time: God crucified; the sun darkened and again rekindled; for it was fitting that the creatures should suffer with their Creator; the veil rent; the Blood and Water shed from His Side; the one as from a man, the other as above man; the rocks rent for the Rock’s sake; the dead raised for a pledge of the final Resurrection of all men; the Signs at the Sepulchre and after the Sepulchre, which none can worthily celebrate; and yet none of these equal to the Miracle of my salvation. A few drops of Blood recreate the whole world [ρανιδες αἱματος ὀλιγαι κοσμον ὁλον ἀναπλαττουσαι], and become to all men what rennet is to milk, drawing us together and compressing us into unity.

Gregory Nazianzen, “Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen,” in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Charles Gordon Browne and James Edward Swallow, vol. 7 of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), 433; Orat. 45.29.

Another version:   

29 Many indeed are the wonders of that time: God crucified; the sun darkened and again rekindled, for created things also had to suffer with the Creator; the veil split; blood and water pouring from his side, the first as human, the second as above the human; the earth shaken, rocks broken in pieces for the sake of the Rock; dead people raised to bring faith in the completion of the universal resurrection; the signs at the tomb and after the tomb. Who can adequately sing their praise? Yet none is like the wonder of my salvation: a few drops of blood recreate the whole world and become for all human beings like a curdling agent for milk, binding and drawing us together into one.

St Gregory of Nazianzus, Festal Orations, ed. John Behr, trans. Nonna Verna Harrison, vol. 36 of Popular Patristics Series (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2008), 189; Orat. 45.29 (PG 36, col. 663 A).

5. Augustine of Hippo (354–430)

More to be feared he is indeed than all the gods. The place where he intends to build his house is thickly forested, which is why we heard in yesterday’s psalm, We found it in the pastures and woodlands (Ps 131(132):6). It was this same house that was being sought when the psalm spoke of pastures and woodlands. Why was the place forested? Men and women were worshipping idols, so it is small wonder that they were feeding pigs. There was once a son who forsook his father, and ran through all his money by extravagant living and frequenting prostitutes. He ended by feeding pigs [See Lk 15:13–15], which is a way of saying that he paid cult to demons. Through the superstition prevalent among the Gentiles the whole earth had become a thick wood. But the Lord who builds his house uprooted the forest, and this is why our psalm is entitled, When the house was being built after the captivity; for people certainly had been held captive under the devil, and had served demons, but they were redeemed from captivity. They had the power to sell themselves, but were powerless to buy themselves back. The redeemer came, and laid down the price. He poured out his blood and purchased the whole round world. Are you asking what he bought? Look what he paid, and from that infer what he bought. The price paid was Christ’s blood. What is worth a price like that? What else but the entire world? What else but all nations? When certain people maintain either that the price was so low that it purchased Africans only, or that they are themselves so important that so high a price was justly paid for them alone, they are either shockingly ungrateful for the generosity that ransomed them, or else exceedingly proud. Let them not triumph [Variant: “insult us”], and let them not be arrogant; whatever Christ spent, he spent for all the world. He knows what he has bought, and he knows what he paid for it.

Saint Augustine, Expositions of the Psalms 73–98, ed. John E. Rotelle, trans. Maria Boulding, vol. 18 of The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2002), 428–29.

Another version:   

5. … For the spot where he wished to build the house, is itself woody, where it was said yesterday, “we found it in the wood” [Ps. 132:6. Hence it appears that Ps. 132 had been expounded the day before]. For he was seeking that very house, when he said, “in the wood.” And why is that spot woody? Men used to worship images: it is not wonderful that they fed hogs. For that son who left his father, and spent his all on harlots, living as a prodigal, used to feed hogs [Luke 15:12–15], that is, to worship devils; and by this very superstition of the heathen, all the earth became a wood. But he who buildeth a house, rooteth up the wood; and for this reason it was said, “While the house was being built, after the captivity” [Title of Psalm]. For men were held captive under the devil, and served devils; but they were redeemed from captivity. They could sell, but they could not redeem themselves. The Redeemer came, and gave a price; He poured forth His Blood, and bought the whole world. Ye ask what He bought? Ye see what He hath given; find out then what He bought. The Blood of Christ was the price. What is equal to this? What, but the whole world? What, but all nations? They are very ungrateful for their price, or very proud, who say that the price is so small that it bought the Africans only; or that they are so great, as that it was given for them alone. Let them not then exult, let them not be proud: He gave what He gave for the whole world. He knew what He bought, because He knew at what price He bought it. Thus because we are redeemed, the house is built after the captivity. And who are they who held us in captivity? Because they to whom it is said, “Declare His honour,” are the clearers of the wood: that they may root out the wood, free the earth from captivity, and build, and raise up, by declaring the greatness of the Lord’s house. How is the wood of devils cleared away, unless He who is above them all be preached? All nations then had devils for their gods: those whom they called gods, were devils, as the Apostle more openly saith, “The things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice unto devils, and not to God” [1 Cor. 10:20]. Since therefore they were in captivity, because they sacrificed to devils, and on that account the whole earth had remained woody; He is declared to be great, and above all worldly praise.

Augustine of Hippo, “Expositions on the Book of Psalms,” in Saint Augustin: Expositions on the Book of Psalms, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 8 of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1888), 471–72.

6. Ambrose of Milan (c. 339–397)

De paradisio:

(39) Possible objections on the part of the Gentiles who do not admit this evidence stand in need of a response. Since the Gentiles demand a rational explanation, here is the reason why the Son of God either gave a command to one who is going to disobey it or has chosen one who is going to betray Him. The Lord Jesus came to save all sinners [Cf. Luke 19:10]. He was bound to show concern even for the wicked. Accordingly, He was bound not to disregard one who was to betray Him. He wished that all might take note that in the choice even of His betrayer He was offering a sign for the salvation of all of us. No injury was done to Adam in that he received a command, or to Judas because he was chosen. God did not lay it down as a necessary consequence that one should disobey and the other should betray Him. Both could have abstained from sin if they had guarded what they had received. Hence, although He knew that all the Jews would not believe, He stated: ‘I have not come except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel’ [Matt. 15:24] The fault is, therefore, not in the one issuing the command; the sin is rather in the one who disobeys. God’s intent was this: He wanted to show to everyone that He willed to give freedom to all mankind. I do not mean to maintain that He did not know of the disobedience to come. Rather, I contend that He did know, but that He should not for that reason be subject to reproach for a betrayer who met death. God should not be accused of being the cause why both lapsed. In fact, both stand convicted and condemned, because one received a command not to fall into sin, and the other was enrolled among the Apostles in order that he, as the result of kindness, might change his intention to betray.

Ambrose of Milan, Hexameron, Paradise, and Cain and Abel, trans. John J. Savage, vol. 42 of The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1961), 316–17; De paradisio 8.39.

De Cain et Abel:   

(11) Our price is the blood of Christ. Hence the Apostle Peter says: ‘Not with gold or silver you were redeemed, but with the precious blood.’ And Paul says: ‘You have been bought with a price. Do not become the slaves of men’ [1 Peter 1:18; 1 Cor. 7:23]. Therefore, not without reason did they marvel in the Gospel on seeing the Lord Jesus sitting on a colt, because the race of the Gentiles is to Christ like a victim which, according to the Law, is considered to be unclean. Hence we read in the Scriptures that the Levites redeemed them [Cf. Exod. 13:13]. In this way they would be able by the sanctity of their lives and by their prayers to take away the sins of their people. Here in the figure of the Lamb we have the true Levite who was to come and preside over the mysteries. By His own Passion He would take away the sins of the world [Cf. John 1:29]. The word ‘Levite’ means ‘raised up for me’ or ‘on me he is light.’ The word ‘Levite’ bears witness to a perfection in virtue by which the people attain holiness. He, therefore, is the expected who was born of a virgin and who came for my salvation and for the salvation of the entire world. For me He was sacrificed; for me He tasted death; and for me, too, He rose from the dead. In Him has the redemption of all men been undertaken; in Him is their resurrection. He is the true Levite. We, His Levites, He would bring closer to God so that we might pray to Him unceasingly, hope for salvation from Him, shun all worldly affairs, and finally be numbered among the elect, as it is written: ‘O Lord, possess us’ [Exod. 34:9]. Then alone is found true possession when we are not subject to the temptations of life and when we bring forth perfect fruit for all time. The Levite is one who redeems, because a man of wisdom redeems the man who is weak and foolish. He is like a physician who revives the spirit of his helpless patient. In imitation of that Physician who came down from heaven, he assuages the convalescent with healing words of wisdom, in order to point out to men the ways of wisdom and to reveal the paths of wisdom to little ones [Cf. Ps. 18:8; Matt. 11:25]. He perceived that those who suffer cannot be healed without a remedy. For this reason He bestowed medicine on the sick and by His assistance made health available to all, so that whoever died could ascribe to himself the real causes of his death. That man was unwilling to be cured, although he had a remedy at hand which could effect his escape from death. The mercy of God has been made manifest to all. Those who perish, therefore, perish through their own negligence, whereas those who are saved are freed by the judgment of God, who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the recognition of truth [Cf. John 3:16–21; Luke 19:10]. Hence, if Sodom had fifty just men, it would not have been destroyed. If it had ten just men, Sodom would have been saved [Cf. Gen. 18:24–32], because a declaration of the remission of sin would have rescued their souls from servitude, and the plenitude of perfect knowledge would not have allowed their hearts to be consumed in the devouring flames of lust.

Ambrose of Milan, Hexameron, Paradise, and Cain and Abel, trans. John J. Savage, vol. 42 of The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1961), 411–13; De Cain et Abel 2.3.11.

7. John Chrysostom (c. 347–407)

Ver. 4. Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Imitate God! (2) if He will have all men to be saved, there is reason why one should pray for all, if He hath willed that all should be saved, be thou willing also; and if thou wishest it, pray for it, for wishes lead to prayers. Observe how from every quarter He urges this upon the soul, to pray for the Heathen, shewing how great advantage springs from it; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life; and what is much more than this, that it is pleasing to God, that thus men become like Him, in that they will the same that He does. This is enough to shame a very brute. Fear not therefore to pray for the Gentiles, for God Himself wills it; but fear only to pray against any, for that He wills not. And if you pray for the Heathens, you ought of course to pray for Heretics also, for we are to pray for all men, and not to persecute. And this is good also for another reason, as we are partakers of the same nature, and God commands and accepts benevolence and affection towards one another.

But if the Lord Himself wills to give, you say, what need of my prayer? It is of great benefit both to them and to thyself. It draws them to love, and it inclines thee to humanity. It has the power of attracting others to the faith; (for many men have fallen away from God, from contentiousness towards one another;) and this is what he now calls the salvation of God, who will have all men to be saved; without this all other is nothing great, a mere nominal salvation, and only in words. And to come to the knowledge of the truth. The truth: what truth? Faith in Him. And indeed he had previously said, Charge some that they teach no other doctrine. But that no one may consider such as enemies, and on that account raise troubles [μάχας] against them; he says that He will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth; and having said this, he adds,

Ver. 5. For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men.

He had before said, to come to the knowledge of the truth, implying that the world is not in the truth. Now he says, that there is one God, that is, not as some say, many, and that He has sent His Son as Mediator, thus giving proof that He will have all men to be saved. But is not the Son God? Most truly He is; why then does he say, One God? In contradistinction to the idols; not to the Son. For he is discoursing about truth and error. Now a mediator ought to have communion with both parties, between whom he is to mediate. For this is the property of a mediator, to be in close communion with each of those whose mediator he is. For he would be no longer a mediator, if he were connected with one but separated from the other. If therefore He partakes not of the nature of the Father, He is not a Mediator, but is separated. For as He is partaker of the nature of men, because He came to men, so is He partaker of the nature of God, because He came from God. Because He was to mediate between two natures, He must approximate to the two natures; for as the place situated between two others is joined to each place, so must that between natures be joined to either nature. As therefore He became Man, so was He also God. A man could not have become a mediator, because he must also plead with God. God could not have been mediator, since those could not receive Him, toward whom He should have mediated. And as elsewhere he says, There is one God the Father, … and one Lord Jesus Christ [1 Cor. 8:6]; so also here One God, and One Mediator; he does not say two; for he would not have that number wrested to Polytheism, of which he was speaking. So he wrote One and One. You see how accurate are the expressions of Scripture! For though one and one are two, we are not to say this, though reason suggests it. And here thou sayest not one and one are two, and yet thou sayest what reason does not suggest. ‘If He begat He also suffered [ἔπαθεν].’ For there is one God, he says, and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.

Ver. 6. Who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified [Lit. the Testimony] in due time.

Was Christ then a ransom for the Heathen? Undoubtedly Christ died even for Heathen; and you cannot bear to pray for them. Why then, you ask, did they not believe? Because they would not: but His part was done. His suffering was a Testimony, he says; for He came, it is meant, to bear witness to the truth of the Father, and was slain [He seems to mean, ‘was slain for that purpose’]. Thus not only the Father bore witness to Him, but He to the Father. For I came [John 5:43], He saith, in my Father’s name. And again, No man hath seen God at any time [John 1:18]. And again, That they might know Thee [John 17:3], the only true God. And, God is a Spirit. And He bore witness even to the death. But this, in due time [John 4:24], means, In the fittest time.

Ver. 7. Whereunto I am ordained a preacher and an Apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not:) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

Since therefore Christ suffered for the Gentiles, (3) and I was separated to be a teacher of the Gentiles, why dost thou refuse to pray for them? He fully shews his own credibility, by saying that he was ordained [Acts 13:2], that is, separated, for this purpose, the other Apostles being backward [ἐνάρκων] in teaching the Gentiles; he adds, in faith and verity, to shew that in that faith there was no deceit. Here is observable the extension of grace. For the Jews had no prayers for the Gentiles; but now grace is extended to them: and when he says that he was separated to be a Teacher of the Gentiles, he intimates that grace was now shed over every part of the world.

Moral. He gave himself a ransom, he saith, how then was He delivered up by the Father? Because it was of His goodness. And what means ransom? God was about to punish them, but He forbore to do it. They were about to perish, but in their stead He gave His own Son, and sent us as heralds to proclaim the Cross. These things are sufficient to attract all, and to demonstrate the love of Christ. So truly, so inexpressibly great are the benefits which God has bestowed upon us. He sacrificed Himself for His enemies, who hated and rejected Him. What no one would do for friends, for brethren, for children, that the Lord hath done for His servants; a Lord not Himself such an one as His servants, but God for men; for men not deserving. For had they been deserving, had they done His pleasure, it would have been less wonderful; but that He died for such ungrateful, such obstinate creatures, this it is which strikes every mind with amazement. For what men would not do for their fellow men, that has God done for us! Yet after such a display of love towards us, we hold back [ἀκκιζόμεθα], and are not in earnest in our love of Christ. He has sacrificed Himself for us; for Him we make no sacrifice. We neglect Him when He wants necessary food; sick and naked we visit Him not. What do we not deserve, what wrath, what punishment, what hell? Were there no other inducement, it should be sufficient to prevail with every one that He condescended to make human sufferings His own, to say I hunger, I thirst.

John Chrysostom, “Homilies of S. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the First Epistle of S. Paul the Apostle to Timothy,” in The Homilies of S. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Epistles of St. Paul the Apostle to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford; London: John Henry Parker; J. G. F. and J. Rivington, 1843), 56–59. See also John Chrysostom, “Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the First Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to Timothy,” in Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. James Tweed and Philip Schaff, vol. 13 of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1889), 430–31; and Chrysostom, In epist. 1 ad Timoth. Cap. II. Homil. VII. (PG 62, col. 537).

8. Jerome (c. 342/347–420)

Qui dedit redemptionem semetipsum pro omnibus. Ille se pro omnibus dedit, si omnes redimi vellent.

AI Translation: Who gave himself as a redemption for all. He gave himself for all, if all were willing to be redeemed.

Jerome, Commentarius in epistolam I ad Timotheum. Cap. II (PL 30, col. 878 A). Or see here (click).

9. Primasius of Hadrumetum (fl. 551–died c. 560)

Qui dedit redemptionem semetipsum pro omnibus. Pro omnibus quidem effuses est sanguis Christi, sed credentibus prodest: incredulis vero erit in condemnationem: sicut alibi decit, Aliis sumus odor vitae in vitam: aliis odor mortis in mortem.

AI Translation: Who gave Himself as a redemption for all. For the blood of Christ was indeed poured out for all; but it benefits believers, whereas for unbelievers it will be unto condemnation: just as He Himself says elsewhere, “To some we are the fragrance of life unto life; to others the fragrance of death unto death.”

Primasius, In epistolam I ad Timotheum commentaria (PL 68, col. 663 C).

10. Prosper of Aquitaine (c. 390–c. 455)

CAPUT XVI. Quod Christus pro omnibus impiis mortuus sit. Nulla igitur ratio dubitandi est, Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum pro impiis et peccatoribus mortuum, a quorum numero si aliquis liber inventus est, non est pro omnibus mortuus Christus: sed prorsus pro omnibus mortuus est Christus:

Prosper, De vocatione omnium gentium Liber II (PL 51, col. 702–703 D–A).

There can, therefore, be no reason to doubt that Jesus Christ our Lord died for the unbelievers and the sinners.¹⁴⁰ If there had been any one who did not belong to these, then Christ would not have died for all. But He did die for all men without exception.
_______________
¹⁴⁰ The Semi-Pelagians wrongly concluded from St. Augustine’s teaching on predestination that Christ did not die for all men, but only for the predestined. Cf. Prosper’s answer in Resp. cap. Vincent. 1 and Resp. cap. Gall. 9.

St. Prosper of Aquitaine, St. Prosper of Aquitaine: The Call of All Nations, ed. Johannes Quasten and Joseph C. Plumpe, trans. P. De Letter, vol. 14 of Ancient Christian Writers (New York; Ramsey, NJ: Newman Press, 1952), 118.

11. Theophylact of Ohrid (c. 1055–c. 1107)

Ut gratia Dei pro omnibus gustaret mortem. Deus enim non ex debito, sed ex gratia Filium suum nobis dedit in mortem, non pro fidelibus tantum, sed pro universo terrarum orbe. Etsi enim omnes non sunt servati, ipse tamen quod sui officii erat implevit.

“That by the grace of God He might taste death for all.” For God did not give His Son over to death for us out of debt, but out of grace—not for the faithful only, but for the whole circle of the world. For although not all are saved, He nevertheless fulfilled what belonged to His office.

Theophylact, Expositio in epist. ad Hebraeos (PG 125, col. 210 B).

12. [Pseudo-] Œcumenius (c.550–c.600)

Pro universo orbe gustaret mortem. Quanquam enim non omnes salvi facti sint ob suam incredulitatem: ipse tamen quod suum erat ad omnes et pro omnibus fecit.

AI Translation: He might taste death for the whole world. For although not all are saved because of their own unbelief, He nevertheless did what was His part for all and on behalf of all.

Oecumenius, Commentaria in Novum Testamentum. (Continuatio.): Pauli Apostoli ad Hebraeos epistola (PG 119, col. 295 C).

Michael J. Lynch on John Davenant’s (1572–1641) Correction of Those Misreading Prosper of Aquitaine’s First Letter to Augustine

Another argument for reading Prosper as initially affirming that Christ died for the elect alone has been offered by Haykin:

In a letter to Augustine, he also challenged the view of the so-called Semi- Pelagians that “the propitiation which is found in the mystery of the blood of Christ was offered for all men without exception.” From the letter it is clear that Prosper does not agree with this statement, and Augustine does not refute Prosper in his reply. In his later career, Prosper appears to have either softened this commitment to definite atonement, or even rejected it in favor of an advocacy of the universal salvific will of God based on his reading of 1 Timothy 2:4.¹¹⁷

Haykin misreads Prosper’s Letter to Augustine. First, it is not “clear [that] Prosper does not agree with” the view of the semi-Pelagians that Christ died for all.¹¹⁸ Here is the fuller context of the Prosper quotation in question:

For this is their [viz., the semi-Pelagians’] argument and profession: that every human being has sinned by sinning in Adam, and no person is saved by their own works, but by regeneration through the grace of God: nevertheless, God put forward Christ as a propitiation which is in the sacrament of the blood of Christ for all human beings without exception in order that whosoever wishes to come to faith and baptism is able to be saved.¹¹⁹

In the first sentence, which begins an enumeration of the semi-Pelagian positions on grace, Prosper says that the semi-Pelagians also teach that “every human being has sinned in Adam, and no person is saved by his or her own works, but by regeneration through the grace of God.” Are we to believe that just because Prosper lists this as a position of his opponents that he must disagree with it? Haykin assumes, following Blacketer, that what Prosper explains as the view of his opponents is rejected by Prosper. Yet Davenant himself warned against Haykin’s false assumption:

Therefore, it should be observed that when Hilary and Prosper are noting the opinion of the semi- Pelagians, many things are mixed together, some of which agree with the truth, and others savor of error. When, therefore, they record that the semi-Pelagians declared that all people sinned in Adam, and that our Lord Jesus Christ died for the whole human race, and some other things, they do not note these ideas as the errors of the semi-Pelagians, but in order to show how far they agree with the orthodox, and so that they may explain the whole order and connection of the semi-Pelagian doctrine. Those, then, greatly err who think that all the things which are attributed to the semi-Pelagians by Prosper and Hilary are erroneous and Pelagian.¹²⁰

Furthermore, Haykin fails to address the remarks Prosper gives regarding the semi-Pelagian opinion later on in the letter.¹²¹ As Davenant noted, what Prosper rejects is not the position that Christ died for all. Rather, the objection seems to be the attached condition, “even if he lives his whole life in complete estrangement from [God],” coupled with a denial of unconditional predestination, resulting in a predestination to faith which is dependent upon free choice.¹²²

Haykin at one point confesses, “Prosper admitted that Christ may be said to have died ‘for all’ because he took on the human nature that all humanity shares and because of the ‘greatness and value’ of his redeeming death,” while also teaching that “Christ ‘was crucified only for those who were to profit by his death,’ that is, only the elect.”¹²³ This position, ironically enough, sounds quite similar to the position Davenant himself would go on to defend in De Morte Christi.
_______________
117. Haykin, “‘We Trust in the Saving Blood,’” 72–73.
118. Cf. almost the same language in Blacketer, “Definite Atonement,” 310.
119. Prosper, Epistola ad Augustinum, 880; Prosper, Letter to Augustine, 39. [Lynch knows that the label “semi-Pelagian” is problematic. See p. 180n67].
120. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 5 (328).
121. Prosper, Epistola ad Augustinum, 883– 84; Prosper, Letter to Augustine, 43–44.
122. Davenant, De Morte Christi, in DD, 5 (329).
123. Haykin, “‘We Trust in the Saving Blood,’” 72.

Michael J. Lynch, John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism: A Defense of Catholic and Reformed Orthodoxy. Oxford Studies in Historical Theology, ed. R. A. Muller, et al. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2021), 38–40.

David Allen also recently noted the following:

Augustine asserted that Christ died for the sins of Judas, and in many places in his writings he asserted that Christ died for the sins of all humanity. Some have maintained that Prosper of Aquitaine, early in his career, taught “definite atonement,” based on an early letter that he wrote to Augustine (e.g., Michael A. G. Haykin, “‘We Trust in the Saving Blood’: Definite Atonement in the Ancient Church,” in Gibson and Gibson, From Heaven He Came, 72–73). But they falsely assume that just because Prosper attributed to the Massilians (or the so-called Semi-Pelagians) the belief that “Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has died for the whole of mankind [pro uniuerso autem humano genere mortuum esse dominum nostrum Iesum Christum]” (Prosper of Aquitaine, “Letter to Augustine,” in Defense of St. Augustine, trans. P. De Letter (New York: Newman Press, 1963), 43; Letter 225.6), he therefore must have disagreed with it. This is clearly a false inference since he also attributed to them the belief that “Every man has sinned in Adam, and no one is reborn and saved by his own works but by God’s grace” (Prosper, Defense of Augustine, 36; Letter 225.3). Augustine and Prosper both believed that. John Davenant dealt with this erroneous inference long ago. See John Davenant, “A Dissertation on the Death of Christ,” in An Exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians, 2 vols., trans. J. Allport (London: Hamilton, Adams, 1832), 2:328. See also Michael J. Lynch, John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism: A Defense of Catholic and Reformed Orthodoxy. Oxford Studies in Historical Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2021), 38–40.

David L. Allen, “A Critique of Limited Atonement,” in Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique, ed. D. L. Allen and S. W. Lemke (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2022), 74–75, n. 8.

A. C. Denlinger on Robert Baron (c.1593/6–1639) and God’s Universal Saving Will

God’s Universal Will to Save

Baron’s discussion of ‘the true sense of that statement “God wants all to be saved”’ occurs in the context of lengthy reflections about ‘whether God, who wants all to be saved (as the Apostle says in 1 Tim. 2), has denied the nations destitute of faith in Christ the means necessary unto salvation’.²⁶ Having previously argued that explicit faith in Jesus Christ, who is revealed only in the gospel, is necessary for salvation, Baron notes ‘an infinite multitude in the New World and the more remote parts of Asia and Africa who lack the light of the gospel’.²⁷ God’s providential withholding of the gospel from so many persons seems hard to reconcile with God’s desire for their salvation.

In formulating a response to this ‘serious and difficult question’ Baron takes his cues primarily from Augustine’s fifth-century disciple Prosper of Aquitaine, who ‘contemplated this mystery more than all the Fathers of the ancient church’.²⁸ In his work De vocatione omnium gentium, Prosper advanced three assertions which, in Baron’s judgement, comprise the right theological response to the question at hand. ‘The first is that God wills all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.’²⁹ With Prosper, Baron understands ‘all men’ in the apostolic affirmation quoted (1 Tim. 2.14) to mean every human person without exception; no one is excluded in the divine will to save.³⁰ ‘The second is that no one is actually saved or comes to a knowledge of the truth by his own merits or abilities, but only by the power and operation of divine grace’.³¹ Third and finally, ‘no one in this life can know exactly why God does not administer means of grace equally to all, or why God, who wants all to be saved, does not save all’.³²

Prosper’s assertions do not serve to alleviate the tension inherent to the question at hand; they serve to state it with greater force and clarity. His first and second assertions, in particular, establish an apparent contradiction between God’s sentiments and his actions towards humankind, or at least towards those who are not ultimately saved. God loves them and wills their salvation. God denies them a particular grace without which they will not be saved. His third assertion, far from serving to resolve this paradox, asserts the futility of attempting – at least ‘in this life’ – to reconcile these seemingly contradictory truths.

According to Baron, then, the proper dogmatic response to the apparent contradiction between God’s universal will to save and God’s sovereign discrimination in the distribution of his saving grace is to assert both truths with equal rigour. Neither truth, in other words, should be watered down or washed away in service to the other. This, of course, requires a rather careful balancing act; Baron proceeds by identifying two categories of theologians who ‘shrink back from the moderation and modesty of St Prosper’ on this issue, exalting one dogmatic truth at the expense of the other.

On one hand are ‘those who affirm that God’s grace for the obtaining of salvation is universal, so that its efficacy in some persons rather than others depends upon the freedom of man’s will’.³³ Baron has in mind certain medieval scholastics as well as contemporary Jesuit thinkers who:

explain and confirm their opinion with that well-known axiom facienti quod in se est Deus non denegat gratiam. If, they say, the nations were to make good use of those natural gifts and means of salvation originally distributed to them, then God, who does not deny grace to those who do what lies within them, would grant them fuller grace, … and lead them finally to a knowledge of Christ.³⁴

Those advancing this position, Baron notes, deny that man can properly (or condignly) ‘merit grace through a good use of free will’. They affirm, however, that man might, ‘by virtue of his natural abilities’, render himself ‘disposed to grace’ –or at least ‘less indisposed to grace’ – which God in turn will grant according to his promise.³⁵

In Baron’s judgement such doctrine ‘is clearly semi-Pelagian, and hence contrary to Scripture and the general consensus of the Fathers’. He rejects it on the grounds that it makes God a debtor to man in the distribution of his saving grace: ‘If God has regard to deeds performed by the virtues of [human] nature when he confers helping grace upon some and denies the same to others, then our calling unto salvation in some way depends upon our works, contrary to Paul’s teaching in Rom. 11.6, Eph. 2.8–9, 2 Tim. 1.9, and Tit. 3.9.’ Moreover, such a doctrine creates space for human boasting: ‘The one who is called has distinguished himself [by his proper use of natural gifts] from the one who is not, contrary to Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor. 4.7: “Who has set you apart from others? And what do you have that you have not received?”’³⁶

While rejecting the positive assertion that man might elicit saving grace from God through the right use of natural gifts, Baron acknowledges some truth in the inverse claim that man’s abuse of natural gifts ‘provides a peculiar reason that he is denied grace’.³⁷ ‘Sacred Scripture’, notes Baron, ‘clearly testifies that man’s prior rejection of God is a cause of divine dereliction: “Because you have forsaken Jehovah, he has forsaken you” (2 Chron. 24.20).’³⁸ But two caveats are required. First, it should be noted that God also, and justly, denies men grace because ‘they have sinned in Adam’s loins’, regardless of their subsequent abuse of natural gifts.³⁹ In other words, actual sins merely aggravate the culpability established by original sin. So ‘Thomas, following Augustine, says that grace is justly withheld from those to whom it is not given as punishment for previous sin, even original sin’.⁴⁰ It should be noted, secondly, that human sin – whether original or actual – provides no ‘exact or adequate explanation for why certain men are denied grace, since … grace is given to other men who are no less unworthy’.⁴¹

Equally removed, on the other hand, from Prosper’s ‘moderation and modesty’ are those who ‘recklessly affirm that no divine grace whatsoever extends to those who have not received the gospel’, and that, ‘in the end, God in no way wants them to be saved’.⁴² Here Baron has in mind certain Reformed peers who, he says, interpret the biblical phrase ‘God wants all to be saved’ to mean not that God wants ‘every person’ to be saved, but that he wants ‘every kind of person, i.e. individuals from every nation, rank and position’ to be saved; thus they ultimately understand ‘all’ as a reference ‘only to the elect’, who in fact receive the means necessary to salvation. According to Baron, ‘the principal reason they cling so tenaciously to this stern doctrine’ is recognition that ‘if God wants some to be saved who are not actually saved, it follows that in God there is somehow an ineffective will, a desire for things to happen which never in fact occur, and this seems absurd’.⁴³

In response to these theologians Baron argues that God has granted some grace even to those who are not ultimately elected to eternal life – ‘not only to the reprobate living within the church, but also to the nations’ – and has done so from a genuine desire that they seek him. Concerning ‘the reprobate within the church’: these ‘are granted certain gracious assistances, not only externally but also internally (Heb. 6.4–5)’.⁴⁴ Baron appeals to those theologians who belonged to the British delegation to the Synod of Dort, who in their suffrage on the articles of that Synod affirmed that ‘God truly and earnestly calls and invites the reprobate within the church to faith and repentance, and neither deserts them nor desists from pushing them forward in the way of true conversion until they first desert him by voluntarily neglecting or rejecting his grace’.⁴⁵ He anticipates an objection: ‘You will say it follows that the reason one rather than another is converted is to be found not in God, but in men themselves; one made good use, another bad, of that initial grace given to them.’ Baron unequivocally rejects such an implication, insisting that both ‘the elect who are actually converted’ and ‘the reprobate’ equally ‘abuse that initial grace’. Indeed ‘all [within the church] are called by God in a certain manner which they resist’, but while God ‘justly deserts some because they have first deserted him’, others are ‘not deserted, but are led by an extraordinary and peculiar grace of God to genuine faith and repentance, and are saved’.⁴⁶

Those outside the church have some grace and certain gifts entrusted to them as well; they have ‘the law of nature written on their hearts (Rom. 2.14–15)’ and some further ‘witness to God (Acts 14.17)’ through ‘the works of creation’. Baron quotes Rom. 1.19–20: ‘What may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made.’⁴⁷ He discovers in Acts 17.27 a clear statement of the purpose for such divine self-disclosure: ‘It is said that God offers these means to them “in order that they might seek him”.’ Nevertheless some – Baron specifically names contemporary English divine William Twisse – discover in the ultimate clause of Romans 1.20 (‘so that men are without excuse’) a rather different purpose for God’s witness to himself in creation; they insist that ‘these means are imparted to [those who are not ultimately saved] merely in order to render them anapologia, that is, inexcusable before God’.⁴⁸

Baron takes strong exception to this interpretation of the final clause of Romans 1.20: ‘These words should not be understood to indicate cause, but only consequence; in other words, they should not be read as naming the reason that God manifests his invisible qualities to the nations, but only as naming the actual outcome of that manifestation.’ It is man’s sinful response to God’s self-disclosure through ‘the works of creation’ that properly renders man anapologia in the judgement; thus ‘inexcusability before God’ is ‘only secondarily and per accidens, not per se, an end of God’s manifestation’.⁴⁹ He highlights the support his reading of Romans 1.20 finds in the biblical commentaries of Reformed theologians Heinrich Bullinger, Martin Bucer, Augustin Marlorat, Wolfgang Musculus and David Pareus.⁵⁰ And he discovers a further argument in his favour in the claim of Rom. 1.21 that ‘those who knew God’ through his self-disclosure in creation ‘did not give thanks to God.’ He explains:

If God offered these means [of knowing him] to those who are perishing only to the end of rendering them inexcusable, then those means offered to them would not have the proper character of gifts, and consequently, those who abused those means and rendered themselves anapologia or inexcusable would be falsely accused of ingratitude towards God.⁵¹

The charge of ingratitude against those who squander the gift of God’s testimony to himself in creation assumes that such testimony flows from a genuine desire for their good and well-being.

As noted above, Baron perceives the fundamental objection against a universal salvific will in God to be that it credits God, at least by implication, with an ineffective will; he tackles this problem in a discrete section titled ‘whether there is in God a certain will which is ineffective or conditional’.⁵² Baron answers ‘yes’ to that question. God genuinely wills the salvation of all, but all are not saved; something, therefore, renders that divine will ineffective. He recognizes, however, that ‘Arminians, Lutherans, and some Romanists’ also affirm an ineffective will in God, and he is keen to dissociate his view from:

those who teach that God equally or indifferently seeks and intends the salvation of all, so that the reason one is saved rather than another is to be sought not in God’s eternal election or the measure and quality of grace which men in time receive, but in the free volition of men themselves, presupposing some grace.⁵³

In contrast to any such scheme of grace and salvation, Baron affirms that:

God generally wills all to be saved by his conditional or ineffective will, but he also specifically intends and seeks the salvation of certain men by his effective will, and he decrees the salvation of certain men prior to any foreknowledge of faith, repentance, or good works which they in time will perform.⁵⁴

The arguments that Baron subsequently advances serve to demonstrate the reality of some ineffective will in God per se, regardless of its orientation towards the salvation of all. He notes, for example, that God ‘loves and prescribes many good works in his law’. If God loves certain works, he must genuinely desire their performance by men. But ‘many good works which God prescribes do not happen’. Thus, Baron reasons, ‘it is necessary to attribute to God a certain will or volition which is, in fact, ineffective’.⁵⁵ Likewise, ‘God often, in sacred scripture, promises men good things, some temporal and some eternal, which in fact they never receive because they fail to fulfil some condition which is attached to the promise’. So, for example, ‘God promised Cain his favour and acceptance, adding the condition “if you do well” (Gen. 4); God promised the Israelites that he would dispel the remaining nations from the land, adding the condition “if you cling to Jehovah” (Josh. 23. 5, 8)’. Similarly, ‘Adam and his posterity were promised immortality on condition of obedience’. Such conditional promises, Baron reasons, require recognition of ‘a certain ineffective will in God’, for a promise made to man without some corresponding desire that man fulfil the prescribed condition and inherit that which is promised would be ‘false, deceitful, and hypocritical’.⁵⁶

Baron also appeals to authorities in support of his doctrine: ‘A conditional or ineffective will in God for the salvation of all is acknowledged not only by the sacred Fathers, … but also by many orthodox theologians.’ Among the Fathers he names Chrysostom, Jerome, Prosper, John of Damascus, ‘and, indeed, Augustine himself’ as supporters of his doctrine. Among orthodox Reformed theologians he names Jerome Zanchi, Amandus Polanus and Musculus.⁵⁷ Lucas Trelcatius, he notes further, ‘distinguishes between an absolute and a conditional divine will, even if he does not explicitly say that God, by virtue of his conditional will, wants all to be saved’.⁵⁸ Pareus, moreover, ‘not only acknowledges a conditional will (which he also calls “antecedent”) in God, but also asserts that, according to it, God wills all to be saved by faith, i.e., on the condition that they believe in the Son of God’.⁵⁹ So also Daniel Chamier ‘distinguishes between … God’s will of approbation and his will of decree, and says that God, by virtue of the former, wills all to come to salvation’.⁶⁰

Baron addresses, finally, two objections to the doctrine of an ineffective or conditional will in God. Some theologians, he notes first, refuse to attribute an ineffective will to God because they deem such ‘to be an imperfection’. He responds that ‘an ineffective will is only an imperfection when it exists in one who is unable to procure that which he wills’. God, of course, is able to accomplish whatever he desires. Hence his will for certain outcomes remains ineffective merely by virtue of his own free decision not to achieve his desire.⁶¹ In other words, what trumps God’s (ineffective) desire for some end is not a force or forces outside of God, but God’s own effective desire for some other end.

‘Some say’, secondly:

that if God wants all to be saved on condition of faith and repentance, it follows that God’s decision concerning the salvation of men remains in suspense until he foresees who will fulfil that condition and who will not. Consequently, the reason he elects one man and not another lies in those men themselves; that is, God foresees that one man and not another will fulfil that condition of faith and repentance under which he wants all to be saved.

Baron again rejects the claim that a doctrine of a divine, ineffective will only properly fits in such a heterodox scheme of election. He argues: ‘Just as God from eternity wills to grant men salvation on condition of faith and repentance, so also from eternity, and without any foresight of human volitional consent, he resolves to grant certain men the most effective resources to fulfil that condition, and denies the same to other men.’ God, in other words, also has an effective will, by which he determines without regard to future human decisions that some men will indeed be saved and others will not. Baron concludes his defence of God’s ineffective, universal will to save by stressing again the proper relationship between divine election and human faith: ‘God has not elected any man to glory because he foresaw that that man would fulfil the condition of faith and repentance. On the contrary, he himself causes the condition to be fulfilled in a man because he has elected that man to glory.’⁶²
_______________
27. Ibid., p. 29. For Baron’s argument regarding the necessity of explicit faith in Christ for salvation, see pp. 22–9.
28. Ibid., pp. 29–30, 48.
29. Ibid., p. 30, citing Prosper of Aquitaine, De vocatione omnium gentium, 2.1 (PL vol. 51, p. 686).
30. See Prosper, De vocatione, 2.2 (PL vol. 51, pp. 687–8).
31. Baron, Septenarius sacer, p. 30, citing Prosper, De vocatione, 2.1 (PL vol. 51, pp. 686–7).
32. Ibid., p. 30, citing Prosper, De vocatione, 2.1 (PL vol. 51, p. 687).
33. Ibid., p. 31.
34. Ibid., p. 35.
35. Ibid., pp. 35–8. In addition to the medieval scholastics Durandus of Saint-Pourcain, Duns Scotus and Gabriel Biel, Baron names the Jesuits Luis de Molina and Leonard Lessius as representatives of the doctrine that man can, by virtue of his natural abilities, render himself ‘disposed or prepared for grace’ (pp. 35–7). He names the Jesuits Francisco Suarez and Diego Ruiz de Montoya as representatives of the doctrine that man can, by virtue of his natural abilities, render himself at least ‘less indisposed to grace’ (pp. 37–8).
36. Ibid., pp. 36–7.
37. Ibid., p. 45.
38. Ibid., p. 40. Baron also references Prov. 1.24.
39. Ibid., p. 45.
40. Ibid., p. 46, citing Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae 2a2ae, 2, 5, ad primum.
41. Ibid., p. 41.
42. Ibid., p. 31.
43. Ibid., p. 31.
44. Ibid., p. 47. Baron does not define these ‘external’ or ‘internal’ graces specifically; presumably he has in mind the general call of the gospel and some internal promptings of God’s Spirit towards repentance. He distinguishes these ‘assistances’ from the God’s ‘efficacious call’ to the elect.
45. Ibid., p. 47, paraphrasing the delegates’ 3rd and 4th positions on the 3rd and 4th articles; see Anthony Milton, The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2005), pp. 253–4.
46. Ibid., p. 47, referencing the British delegation’s 6th and 7th positions on the 3rd and 4th articles at Dort; see Milton, British Delegation, pp. 255–6.
47. Ibid., p. 31.
48. Ibid., p. 31. See William Twisse, Vindiciae gratiae, potestatis, ac providentiae Dei (Amsterdam: Ioannem Ianssonium, 1632), lib. 1, pars 2, sect. 12.
49. Ibid., p. 34.
50. Ibid., pp. 33–4.
51. Ibid., p. 33.
52. Ibid., pp. 49–54.
53. Ibid., p. 49
54. Ibid.
55. Ibid., p. 50.
56. Ibid., pp. 50–1.
57. Ibid., pp. 52–3, citing Zanchius, De natura Dei (Heidelberg: Iacobus Mylius, 1577), lib. 3, ca. 4, q. 3; Polanus, Syntagma theologiae christianae (Hanau: Wechelianis, 1609), lib. 2, ca. 19; Musculus, Loci communes (Erfurt: Georgium Bauuman, 1563), ca. De volunte Dei, ca. De remissione peccatorum.
58. Ibid., p. 53, citing Trelcatius, Institutio theologiae (London: Iohannis Bill, 1604), lib. 1, disp. De Deo.
59. Ibid., citing Pareus, Roberti Bellarmini … de gratia et libero arbitrio libri VI...explicati et castigati studio (Heidelberg: Iohannis Lancelloti, 1614), lib. 2, ca. 3.
60. Ibid., citing Chamier, Panstratiae Catholicae, sive, controversiarum de religione advresus Pontificios corpus (Geneva: typis Roverianis, 1626), tom. 3, lib. 7, ca. 6, and tom. 2, lib. 3, ca. 9, para. 19.
61. Ibid., pp. 53–4.
62. Ibid., p. 54.

Aaron Clay Denlinger, “Scottish Hypothetical Universalism: Robert Baron (c.1596–1639) on God’s Love and Christ’s Death for All,” in Reformed Orthodoxy in Scotland: Essays on Scottish Theology 1560–1775, ed. Aaron Clay Denlinger (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015), 87–94.

For more on Baron and the extent of the atonement, see here (link).

Bio:

Wiki

DNB (2) 

Richard Baxter (1615–1691) on Augustine and Redemption

As for Augustine and some Protestants, they oft deny that Christ redeemeth any but the Faithful, because the word Redemption is ambiguous, and sometimes taken for the price or ransome paid, and often for the very liberation of the captive Sinner. And whenever Austin denieth common Redemption, he taketh Redemption in this last sense, for actual deliverance. But he asserteth it in the first sense, that Christ died for all. Yea, he thought his death is actually applied to the true Justification and Sanctification of some Reprobates that fall away and perish, though the Elect only are so redeemed as to be saved. Read yourself in Augustine, Prosper and Fulgentius, and you will see this with your own eyes.

Richard Baxter, Catholick Theologie (London: Printed by Robert White, for Nevill Simmons at the  Princes Arms in St. Pauls Church-yard, 1675), 2:57–58.

Similarly, Henry Browne (1804–1875) said:

Perhaps it will generally be found, that in speaking of Redemption, St. Augustine contemplates it not merely as the act of Christ, objectively, consummated once for all on the Cross, but subjectively, as an act taking place in the persons redeemed: in other words, he speaks of it as the actual deliverance of souls from the power of Satan. This work of grace in the individual man, which is begun here in the emancipation of the captive will, takes place (as he teaches) infallibly and indefectibly in the elect. But the reprobate, even if for a while they live faithfully and righteously, (de Corrept. et Grat. § 16. 40) not receiving the gift of perseverance, remain finally under the power of the devil; consequently, are not redeemed: Redemption does not take place in them as a fact. And since the Will of God is all in all, and cannot be defeated of Its purpose, therefore God did not purpose the redemption of such, and Christ died not for them, but only for those whom He knew to be given Him of the Father, that He should give unto them eternal life, and lose none of them.

Henry Browne, “Note A,” in S. Augustine, Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John, and his First Epistle, trans. H. Browne, 2 vols. (A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church; Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1848-1849), 1238.

Bio:  
Wiki
DNB

William Bridge (1600–1670) Describing Augustine’s Atonement Views

Bridge and Brinsley were both high Calvinists and puritans. While I think Bridge rightly describes Augustine’s position in what follows, I believe he strains in the context to find continuity between Augustine and some later thinkers on this subject where there is none, such as with Gottschalk, Beza, Whitaker, Rivet, and Ames. In other words, while I think Bridge’s historiography is generally bad in this preface, he still manages to get Augustine right. Here’s how he described Augustine’s atonement views:

And whereas he was charged by the Pelagians with denying that Christ suffered for the Redemption of all men, he plainly gave his sense therein thus. As for the greatness and sufficiency of the price, the blood of Christ is the Redemption of the whole world; but they that die without Faith and Regeneration, are aliens from Redemption. All men (saith he) are rightly said to be redeemed in respect of one nature of all, and the one cause of all, which the Lord did truly take upon him, and yet all are not delivered from captivity. The propriety of Redemption without doubt belongeth unto them out of whom the Prince of this world is cast, who are not vessels of Satan, but the members of Christ. And herein Prosper doth totidem verbis concur with him. This ergo was the sense of the Orthodox (for by Augustine’s judgment you may measure the rest) in those times.

From William Bridge’s “To the Reader” in John Brinsley, Gospel-Marrow, the Great God Giving Himself for the Sons of Men (London: Printed by S. Griffin for Richard Tomlines, and are to be sold at the Sign of the Sun and Bible near Pye-Corner, 1659), vii–viii. [No pagination; pages numbered manually from the beginning]

Bio:
Wiki
DNB

Augustine (354–430) on God’s Invincible Will

Even though the following quote from Augustine is quite famous and very circulated in the Reformation period, people today do not see all that it is saying. All they can see is that “THE WILL OF GOD IS NEVER DEFEATED” (to borrow the NPNF heading) in Augustine’s thought, but totally miss the teaching that he also says “MUCH IS DONE THAT IS CONTRARY TO HIS WILL.”

They miss the fact that Augustine said that, when angels and Adam sinned, they “had not done His will but their own;” indeed, “the opposite of the Creator’s will was done.” “They did what God did not want done” and “they acted against His will.” Even though the will of God is not ultimately thwarted, and men only sin by way of God’s willing permission, their sinning “is done against His will.” Augustine is not merely saying that men disobey his commands when they sin, but they are doing the contrary of what He wills. In other words, God wills their obedience, and so they are actually violating or crossing His will. Augustine is not saying God does not will their compliance to His commands, but that when they disobey his commanding will, they are only able to do that through His willing permission, such that His will to punish them is finally achieved.

Note that this is in the same writing (Enchiridion ad Laurentium de fide spe et caritate) by Augustine wherein he takes a limited decretal view of 1 Tim 2:4. It is the later Augustine (written circa AD 421–23), and yet many are not seeing that Augustine taught that God wills men to obey him even when they disobey, which includes gospel commands as well.

Shaw Translation:

Chap. 100.–THE WILL OF GOD IS NEVER DEFEATED, THOUGH MUCH IS DONE THAT IS CONTRARY TO HIS WILL.

These are the great works of the Lord, sought out according to all His pleasure, and so wisely sought out, that when the intelligent creation, both angelic and human, sinned, doing not His will but their own, He used the very will of the creature which was working in opposition to the Creator's will as an instrument for carrying out His will, the supremely Good thus turning to good account even what is evil, to the condemnation of those whom in His justice He has predestined to punishment, and to the salvation of those whom in His mercy He has predestined to grace. For, as far as relates to their own consciousness, these creatures did what God wished not to be done: but in view of God’s omnipotence, they could in no wise effect their purpose. For in the very fact that they acted in opposition to His will, His will concerning them was fulfilled. And hence it is that “the works of the Lord are great, sought out according to all His pleasure,” because in a way unspeakably strange and wonderful, even what is done in opposition to His will does not defeat His will. For it would not be done did He not permit it (and of course His permission is not unwilling, but willing); nor would a Good Being permit evil to be done only that in His omnipotence He can turn evil into good.

Augustine of Hippo, “The Enchiridion,” in St. Augustin: On the Holy Trinity, Doctrinal Treatises, Moral Treatises, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. F. Shaw, vol. 3, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 269; Enchiridion, c. 100.

Arand Translation:

CHAPTER 26

God always accomplishes His will, whether man co-operates with Him or whether he opposes Him.

100. These are the great works of the Lord sought out according to all His wills.³³¹ And so wisely are they sought out, that when His creatures, angels and man, had sinned, that is, had not done His will but their own, He still accomplished what He willed, and that through the same willfulness by which the opposite of the Creator’s will was done. As the sovereign Good He turned to good account even what was evil, for the condemnation of those whom He has justly predestined to punishment,³³² and for the salvation of those whom He has mercifully predestined to grace. For, as far as they themselves were concerned, they did what God did not want done; but as regards God’s omnipotence, they were in no way able to accomplish this. Yes, by the very fact that they acted against His will, His will concerning them was fulfilled. For the reason that the works of the Lord are great, sought out according to all His wills, lies in this, that in a wondrous, indescribable way even that which is done against His will is not done without His will. It simply could not be done if He did not permit it, and of course He permits it not against His will, but with it; nor would He in His goodness permit evil unless in His omnipotence He could bring good even out of evil.
_______________
331 Ps. 110:2.
332 St. Augustine evidently speaks of a predestination to punishment and to eternal punishment, as he does, for instance in De anima et eius orig. 4. 11. 16: Quos praedestinavit ad aeternam mortem. However, he never says that anyone is predestined to sin. Cf. ibid. 1. 7. 7: Praescientia … Dei … peccatores praenoscit, non facit.” For other texts, see O. Rottmanner, op. cit. 18. 1.

St. Augustine, St. Augustine: Faith, Hope and Charity, ed. Johannes Quasten and Joseph C. Plumpe, trans. Louis A. Arand, vol. 3 of Ancient Christian Writers (New York; Mahwah, NJ: The Newman Press, 1947), 94–95; italics original.

Harbert Translation:

26, 100. These are the great works of the Lord, sought out according to all his purposes (Ps 111:2 LXX), and sought out so wisely that when creatures, both angels and humans, had sinned, that is, had done not what he willed but what they willed, the creator fulfilled what he willed by means of that very will of the creature by which what was against his will was done, making good use even of evil creatures as befits the one who is supremely good, for the damnation of those whom he had justly predestined to punishment and for the salvation of those whom he had mercifully predestined to grace. For as far as they were concerned, they did what God did not will, but as far as the omnipotence of God is concerned, they were in no way able to contravene his will. By the very fact that they acted against his will, his will was done through them. For the great works of the Lord are sought out according to all his purposes in order that even what happens against his will should in a wonderful and inexplicable way not be done despite his will, since it would not happen if he did not permit it, and he does not permit things unwillingly but willingly; nor would he in his goodness allow anything evil to happen were he not able in his omnipotence even to bring good out of evil.

Augustine of Hippo, “The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, and Charity,” in On Christian Belief, ed. Boniface Ramsey, trans. Bruce Harbert, vol. I/8 of The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2005), 330–331; italics original.

Outler Translation:

CHAPTER XXVI

The Triumph of God’s Sovereign Good Will

100. These are “the great works of the Lord, well-considered in all his acts of will” [Psa 110:2; Vulgate]—and so wisely well-considered that when his angelic and human creation sinned (that is, did not do what he willed, but what it willed) he could still accomplish what he himself had willed and this through the same creaturely will by which the first act contrary to the Creator’s will had been done. As the Supreme Good, he made good use of evil deeds, for the damnation of those whom he had justly predestined to punishment and for the salvation of those whom he had mercifully predestined to grace.

For, as far as they were concerned, they did what God did not will that they do, but as far as God’s omnipotence is concerned, they were quite unable to achieve their purpose. In their very act of going against his will, his will was thereby accomplished. This is the meaning of the statement, “The works of the Lord are great, well-considered in all his acts of will”—that in a strange and ineffable fashion even that which is done against his will is not done without his will. For it would not be done without his allowing it—and surely his permission is not unwilling but willing—nor would he who is good allow the evil to be done, unless in his omnipotence he could bring good even out of evil.

Augustine, Confessions and Enchridion, trans. Albert C. Outler, LCC VII (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1955), 399.

Latin Version:

C. Haec sunt magna opera Domini, exquisita in omnes voluntates eius), et tam sapienter exquisita, ut quum angelica et humana creatura peccasset, id est, non quod ille, sed quod voluit ipsa fecisset, etiam per eamdem creaturae voluntatem, qua factum est, quod creator noluit, impleret ipse quod voluit, bene utens et malis, tamquam summe bonus ad eorum damnationem, quos iuste praedestinavit ad poenam, et ad eorum salutem, quos benigne praedestinavit ad gratiam.) Quantum enim ad ipsos adtinet, quod Deus noluit, fecerunt; quantum vero ad omnipotentiam Dei, nullo modo id efficere valuerunt. Hoc quippe ipso, quod contra voluntas eius. Propterea namque magna opera Domini, exquisita in omnes voluntates eius, ut miro et ineffabili modo non fiat praeter eius voluntatem, quod etiam contra eius fit voluntatem; quia non fieret, si non sineret (nec utique nolens sinit, sed volens); nec sineret bonus fieri male, nisi omnipotens et de malo facere posset bene.

S. Aurelii Augustini, “Enchiridion ad Laurent,” in  De Doctrina Christiana Libri Quatuor et Enchiridion ad Laurentium, ed. Car. Herm. Bruder (Lipsiae: Sumtimbus Et Typis Caroli Tauchnitii, 1838), 238.

Since I have seen this section in Augustine’s Enchiridion referenced in a number of the Puritans (like John Arrowsmith, a Westminster divine), I decided to post the entire chapter. See also Thomas Watson on God’s will of precept and permissive decree. Théodore Bèze, Walter Haddon, Jacob Kimedoncius, Edward Bulkley, William Perkins, Guillaume Bucanus, Daniel Featley, Richard Resbury, Wiliam Twisse, John Knox, William Whitaker, and Johannes  Hermanus Dalhusius also cite this section from Augustine approvingly.

Prosper rightly represents historic Augustinianism on God’s will, and he said this:

Likewise, he who says that God will not have all men to be saved but only the fixed number of the predestined, speaks more harshly than we should speak of the depth of the unsearchable grace of God.

Prosper of Aquitaine, “Answers to the Gauls,” in Defense of St. Augustine, trans. P. De letter (New York: Newman Press, 1963), 159.

Update on 10-18-14:

“These are the great works of the Lord, sought out unto all His wills” (ver. 2): through which mercy forsaketh none who confesseth, no man’s wickedness is unpunished. . . . Let man choose for himself what he listeth: the works of the Lord are not so constituted, that the creature, having free discretion allowed him, should transcend the will of the Creator, even though he act contrary to His will. God willeth not that thou shouldest sin; for He forbiddeth it: yet if thou hast sinned, imagine not that the man hath done what he willed, and that hath happened to God which He willed not. For as He would that man would not sin, so would He spare the sinner, that he may return and live; He so willeth finally to punish him who persisteth in his sin, that the rebellious cannot escape the power of justice. Thus whatever choice thou hast made, the Almighty will not be at a loss to fulfill His will concerning thee.

Augustine, “Exposition on the Book of Psalms,” NPNF, 1st Series, ed. by Philip Schaff (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), 8:545. [Note: Augustine's meaning in the underlined portion above is this: In the sense that God doesn't want man to sin (but rather to obey), in that sense (i.e. according to the revealed will) he wishes to spare the sinner, that he may return and live.]

Calvin cites both of these quotes (from Augustine's Enchiridion and Exposition of the Psalms) in his Institutes 1.18.3.

In describing Calvin’s views on providence, John Murray said:

In the realm of sin we do have the contradiction of God’s revealed and prescriptive good pleasure. But that very contradiction is embraced in the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God. And it is just because this is the case, it is just because the contradiction which sin offers to his sovereignty in command is embraced in the sovereignty of both decree and providence and does not create a realm impervious to his efficient foreordination and operation that the sovereign provisions of his grace invade that same realm and emancipate men from the contradiction itself and therefore from the curse, condemnation, thraldom, and misery which the contradiction entails. It is this doctrine of God’s sovereignty in the realm of sin that is the precondition of sovereignty in redemptive grace.

John Murray, Calvin on Scripture and Divine Sovereignty (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2009), 70–71.