I. Hildebrand wrote on three subjects in his Orthodoxa Declaratio Articulorum: De Morte Christi, De Reprobatione, and De Privata communione. The following is his work on the first article, De Morte Christi.
Herman Hildebrand, Orthodoxa Declaratio Articulorum Trium, De Mortis Christi Sufficientia et Efficacia, Reprobationis Causa Meritoria, Privata Denique Communione … Et postmodum Judiciis Theologorum clarissimorum, in Anglia Reverendiss. Johannis Davenantii Sarisburiensis & Josephi Halli Exoniensis episcoporum, in Germania Brandenburgensium Hassiacorum et Bremensium comprobata ac Auctoritatibus Ex veneranda partum, scholasticorum & conciliorum antiquitate & recentiorum Doctorum … (Bremen: Bertholdus Villierianus, 1642), 1–10.A DECLARATION OF
THE FIRST ARTICLE
On the death and merit of the Lord
and Savior Jesus Christ, namely,
whether and in what manner Christ
died for all men, and
how properly and truly his death brings salvation?
I.
On this article, I will briefly, clearly, and in accordance with divine truth, set forth my opinion. Since Scripture attests that Christ died for all, no one can or should simply and absolutely deny or dispute this. On the other hand, because the same Scripture applies Christ’s redemption not to all, but to many, and indeed to his Church alone, and expressly and explicitly excludes the world from his intercession (John 17), no one can or should extend it indiscriminately and without qualification to all individuals. From this it is clear that the question does not properly revolve around whether Christ died or did not die for all. Consequently, the Reformed Churches, when they are accused of this error (namely, that they deny Christ died for all men), are injured before God and the whole world.
II.
I, therefore, affirm that Christ, through His death and obedience, offered to the heavenly Father a sacrifice of such great perfection and value that it is, in actuality and truth, so worthy, holy, and efficacious that it is sufficient not only for some, but for ALL MEN [even if thousands more existed, whether in this world or another], to reconcile, justify, sanctify, and glorify them with Him. Thus, our Lord Jesus Christ, if you consider the greatness and sufficiency of His sacrifice and λύτρου,[1] bore, dissolved, and expiated the sins of all men; and by His death merited grace, righteousness, and life for all, as He willed nothing to be lacking in Himself and His merit, such that all the impious and perishing might be ἀναπολόγητοι.[2]
III.
The supreme dignity and perfection of Christ’s most holy death is explained by Scripture, when it affirms, FIRST, that this sacrifice, the shedding of Christ’s blood and the satisfaction He offered, was made for the whole WORLD. As John the Baptist says: “Behold, this is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29). And Christ Himself: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son (namely, for this world), that whoever believes in Him might not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16). And the Apostle John bears witness concerning Christ: “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). By the term “world,” however, only the human race is meant, and in no way other creatures—much less Satan and his angels. This is contrary to what Origen and his followers once attempted to conclude from such statements, as though even the devils and damned spirits were to be redeemed by Christ and, in due time, eternally saved and glorified. For Christ descended from heaven solely for the sake of mankind and their salvation, as the Nicene Creed expressly declares against Arius. Likewise, He nowhere took on angels but rather the seed of Abraham, as stated in Hebrews 2:16. SECONDLY, that Christ died FOR ALL (men), as Paul says: “We conclude that if one died for all, then all were dead; and He died for all, so that those who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again for them” (2 Cor. 5:14–15). And again, he says: “Jesus Christ gave Himself as a ransom for all, to be testified in due time” (1 Tim. 2:6). Likewise, “Jesus Christ was crowned with glory and honor so that, by the grace of God, He might taste death for all” (Heb. 2:9). THIRDLY, that He also died for those who perish or who may perish, as when Paul exhorts: “Do not let your food destroy the one for whom Christ died” (Rom. 14:15). And again: “And through your knowledge, the weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed” (1 Cor. 8:11). Also: “How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?” (Heb. 10:29). And the apostle Peter speaks thus: “To whom these things are lacking, he is blind, unable to see afar off, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins.” (2 Pet. 1:9). And again, concerning false prophets, he says: “Who even deny the master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction” (2 Pet. 2:1).
IV.
These words abundantly testify that Christ is both the unique and most perfect expiatory sacrifice, so that outside of His death, no reconciliation should be sought, nor is there any sinner so great that he will not find reconciliation and grace with God through faith in Christ. Indeed, if one man had committed the sins of the entire world and only believed in Christ (and repented), all would be forgiven him. For Christ, through His death, obtained sufficient favor, grace, and reconciliation for ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD before His Father (wherefore, above all, repentance and faith are to be demanded from all in general, and at the same time remission and life in Christ are faithfully offered and promised, and truly conveyed and given), if all would believe and wish to be reconciled with God. His death and burial are the true and heavenly pharmacy, in which MEDICINE, restoration, and the water of eternal life are most abundantly offered to ALL MEN against sin and death. It only requires that they seek and make use of this medicine through saving faith. For the heavenly Father did not want anything to be lacking in Himself or His Son, but rather to abundantly provide everything that pertains to the eternal salvation of mankind, so that all broken and hungry hearts might fully find the richest consolation and restoration in Him, as Christ Himself declares: “I came that they might have life and have it abundantly” (John 10:10). However, those who despise this are inexcusable, as the text also says: “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have had sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin” (John 15:22).
V.
This is the foundation of all evangelical consolation against any temptations of despair, when a sorrowful and afflicted soul hears that, although its sins are great and many, there is, nevertheless, reconciliation prepared before God, and indeed, most sufficient in the most holy passion and death of Christ. Although this comfort is not yet perfect or effective as long as faith is absent. For just as it does little good for a sick person to know that there is sufficient medicine in the pharmacy against his own and the city’s illness if he does not buy it and use it, or for a hungry person to know that there is food and drink available in the marketplace sufficient for the entire city, if he does not purchase it and eat, or for invited and ungrateful guests to know, in the Gospel, that at a royal wedding a great abundance of food has been prepared, which could satisfy all the invited with joy, yet by stubbornly rejecting it, they deprive themselves of it. In the same way, it is not enough for a Christian to know that Christ died for all, and that He acquired sufficient reconciliation for all, unless, by true and salutary repentance, we die with Him and, through the faith acquired and offered in the preaching of the Gospel, we accept the reconciliation. For without faith, Christ profits no one; therefore, as already indicated, that comfort is, in this sense, not yet perfect but conditional, namely, that our reconciliation will be, if we receive it by faith. But where faith and Christ are united in us, the comfort will be perfect and effective in the heart.
VI.
This, therefore, is the summary: that since Scripture declares that CHRIST DIED FOR ALL MEN, because His sacrifice is the unique and sufficient remedy for healing all the sins and mortal wounds of men (and indeed it actually heals, if only they make use of it and do not hold it in contempt). I DO NOT SAY (as some maliciously distort [pervertunt] the doctrine of the Reformed Churches by slander [calumniando]) THAT IT COULD BE SUFFICIENT if God had willed it to be sufficient, but I explicitly teach that it is actually and in reality sufficient for the whole world; [indeed, it would have been sufficient for a hundred thousand worlds], and that this was the serious will of Christ and of God the Father, so that there would be no deficiency in Him, but that the fault lies with man if, through contempt for this spiritual medicine of the soul, they die in their sins. It is, therefore, a malicious slander [Malitiosa … calumnia] of those who say that, according to our view, Christ offered so perfect a sacrifice that in reality it is only sufficient for some, namely, the elect, and that He could have provided something more perfect, which would have been no less sufficient for the rest as well, but did not will it: just as a certain master has a λύτρον for ten captives but still has enough silver to free all the rest, of whom more than a thousand remain in chains, yet does not will to do so. This, I say, is a most unjust slander [iniquissima calumnia]. For how can it be said that such a master offered a sufficient λύτρον in act and reality for a thousand captives, when he paid it for only ten, while retaining the rest of the sum of money? Christ, however, retained absolutely nothing for Himself, but poured out all the treasures of His grace in the full and sufficient perfection of His sacrifice for the whole world, in act and reality, and nothing is lacking in Christ or in His completed payment, but rather in the blind and insane world, which rejects all such riches of grace.
VII.
And indeed, according to the clear and evident scriptural testimonies cited above, as well as the entire preaching of the Gospel, I freely concede that the death of Christ, in its perfection, is a universal and most sufficient sacrifice for the whole world.[3] Nevertheless, I explicitly and clearly assert that, without the application of faith, this death of Christ belongs to no one as their own. In this sense, Scripture addresses the matter when it testifies that Christ endured death, laid down His life, and poured out His blood for many. Thus, the prophet Isaiah speaks as follows: “By his knowledge shall my servant justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities.” And again: “Because he poured out himself unto death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors” (Isa. 53) Similarly, Christ declares: “The Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28). Again: “For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28). Paul likewise states: “So Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many…” (Heb. 9:28). For the sheep, as Christ says: “I lay down my life for the sheep” (John 10:15). But the ungodly are not Christ’s sheep; they are goats belonging to the devil. For his people, as the angel says to Joseph: “He shall be called Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). And Paul similarly testifies about Christ: “He gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and purify for himself a people of his own, zealous for good works” (Titus 2:14). For his Church, which is his body, as Paul declares to the Ephesian elders that the Holy Spirit made them overseers to shepherd the Church of God, “which he purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). And again: “Christ is the head of the Church, and he himself is the savior of the body.” And shortly after: “Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present her to himself in splendor” (Eph. 5:23, 25–26). But the ungodly and the condemned are by no means part of this Church; only believers are numbered among it. For the Sons of God, as Christ says: “Jesus was to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad” (John 11:52). But the ungodly are not children of God; they are children of the devil, as Christ demonstrates in John 8. For those whom the Father gave to Him, as when Christ, in that solemn prayer, thus addresses the heavenly Father: I pray for them; I do not pray for the world, but for those whom You have given Me—that is, for those who believe in Him, as He later explains: “I do not pray only for these, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word” (John 17:9, 20). For the elect, as when Paul asks: “Who will bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ is the one who died,” that is, for the elect (Rom. 8:33). Finally, for the faithful, as when Peter says: “To Him (that is, Jesus of Nazareth) all the prophets bear witness that through His name (that is, on account of His death, passion, and merit) everyone who believes in Him will receive the forgiveness of sins” (Acts 10:43). And again: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in Him will not be put to shame. To you therefore who believe, He is honor, but for the disobedient: the stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense” (1 Pet. 2:6–7). And Paul: “If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but gave Him up for us all,” that is, for those who are in Christ Jesus, who believe in Him, and who do not walk according to the flesh. “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us (that is, a sacrifice for sin), so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Cor. 5:21). And again: “God is the Savior of all people (that is, in Christ and through Christ), especially of the faithful” (1 Tim. 4:10). But what prerogative would the faithful have over others if God were not their Savior in Christ in a different way than He is for all others, and if Christ had reconciled the unbelieving and the condemned to God by His death just as much as the faithful and the elect, and redeemed them from sins and death, purified them, sanctified them, and saved them? Also: “And being made perfect (that is, Christ), He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him” (Heb. 5:9).
VIII.
This distinction, however, between the sufficiency and efficacy of Christ’s death (that is, that the death of Christ, in its perfection, is a UNIVERSAL AND MOST SUFFICIENT sacrifice FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD, yet without the application of faith, benefits no one, and that thus its power, fruit, and (total and ultimate) efficacy are perceived only by the faithful) must necessarily be maintained. For without it, first, Scripture could not be reconciled with itself, since it states that Christ gave Himself for all (1 Tim. 2), but elsewhere says that He gave Himself (only) for the Church (Eph. 5). Similarly, it testifies that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2), but elsewhere declares that unbelievers are still under God’s wrath and in the snares of the devil (John 3 and 2 Tim. 2). Secondly, Scripture would agree even less with experience. For Scripture teaches that Christ gave Himself as a ransom for all. Yet experience shows that the majority of humanity is not redeemed but remains in bondage and captivity to the devil and perishes eternally. Finally, this distinction, as a clear interpretation of Scripture, is found in many churches and scholastic doctors, whom we may safely follow in this matter. Augustine [Prosper of Aquitaine, “Answers to the Vincentian Articles,” in Defense of St. Augustine, trans. P. De letter (New York: Newman Press, 1963), 164; Responsiones ad capitula objectionum Vincentianarum, art. 1] expressed it in these words: “As regards the greatness and potency of the price, the blood of Christ is the redemption of the whole world. But those who pass through this age without faith in Christ and without the sacrament of regeneration are strangers to this redemption.” And again [ibid.]: “The death of Christ was not so bestowed upon the human race as to extend to the redemption of those who were not to be regenerated.” The scholastics spoke in this way: “Christ died for all men, as far as the sufficiency of His merit is concerned; but for all and only the believers, as far as the efficacy of salvation is concerned.” Lombard says this [in his Sentences] in Book 3, Distinction 20, Chapter C. Innocent III expresses it [Qui pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Pro solis praedestinatis effusus est, quantum ad efficientiam. Sed pro cunctis hominibus esteffusus quantum ad sufficientiam] in Book 2 [Book 4], Chapter 41 of De Mysterio Missae [De sacro altaris mysterio]. Thomas Aquinas addresses it in his [or in Opera aliqua false adscripta Thomae] commentary on the Apocalypse, Chapter 5 [in Pareus], and in De Veritate, Question 29, Article 7, Reply to the Fourth Objection. [Nicholas of] Lyra remarks on it in his commentary on 1 John 2. And I will omit many more Reformed theologians who speak to this matter.
IX.
If anyone inquiries about God’s purpose and Christ’s will in His death, we cannot respond otherwise than to say that Christ, according to the eternal good pleasure of His Father, willed and had to die for the sins of all men. However, as the revealed Word of the Gospel and experience demonstrate and declare, He died for all. For this purpose and will are not to be investigated from God’s secret counsel but are to be known from His manifest Word and work itself. Just as the Gospel teaches and experience confirms that Christ died for all, so too it was the will and purpose of the heavenly Father, and of Christ Himself, to die for all. For what Christ did was, without any doubt, what He willed to do and so did, as He did it. Now, from the revelation of His Word, it is evident that He indeed died for all universally, as regards the sufficiency and perfection of His merit and sacrifice, as well as for the universal call and faithful reception of the same. But especially, He died for all believers and the elect, as regards the application, efficacy, and ultimate fruit of His death (both total and final). Nor does experience show otherwise. For although in Christ there is all sufficiency, and although the medicine, refreshment, and life for the whole world are most fully and abundantly offered in His death, such benefits are not enjoyed except by those who receive them by faith. Without any doubt, therefore, this was the will of the eternal Father and of Christ our Savior in His death: that His sacrifice would be the sole and sufficient remedy for the sins of the whole world against sin and eternal death, so that all penitent sinners would have the fullest consolation, and impenitent sinners would have no excuse. At the same time, however, and most especially, this universal remedy was intended to exercise its power and fruit (total and final) infallibly and certainly among the faithful and elect, whom the heavenly Father has given to Christ and whom He, by His singular grace, decreed to bestow with saving faith and the Holy Spirit.
X.
From this declaration, it is as clear as the noonday sun: First, how and in what sense Christ died for all, and yet to whom the death and bloodshed of Christ specifically profits. As has been stated, the death of Christ, in its perfection, is indeed a universal sacrifice for the sins of the whole world; however, without the application of faith, it profits no one. The fruit (total and ultimate) of Christ’s death is peculiar to believers. The phrase “sufficient for all” must not be understood as though the death of Christ could be the most perfect λύτρον, but rather that it is, in fact and in itself, the most perfect sacrifice and λύτρον, sufficient for the redemption of all men (provided they all receive it by faith). That not all are liberated by this death is not due to any defect in Christ’s merit, much less to any envy on His part or to God’s purpose, but rather to the disobedience and unbelief of men. For the Apostle testifies concerning God, “He desires all men to be saved” (1 Tim. 2:4). Likewise, Christ denies redemption to no one. Faith, however, is required if we wish to make it our own. For without faith, no one can please God, and without faith, Christ does not make anyone a partaker of His merit. From the same declaration, it is also evident what should be thought of the claim, shamelessly made by some, that Christ, by His death and the shedding of His blood, effectively and absolutely redeemed, purified from sins, reconciled to God, restored to the grace and favor of the Father, sanctified, and saved all men universally, whoever lived from the beginning of the world and whoever will live until its end, without exception, whether faithful or unfaithful. For instance, it has been argued that the wicked fratricide Cain, the impure Sodomites, the tyrant Pharaoh, the rich man suffering torment in hell, together with other impious persons who were already condemned and tormented in the fires of hell before Christ’s birth and passion, were redeemed by Christ’s death, restored to God’s grace, justified, sanctified, and saved. Similarly, the claim has been extended to all impious persons condemned after Christ’s death and passion and to those who will be condemned until the end of the world. Such a teaching must not be heard in the Church of God.
XI.
Nor, moreover, can the universal expressions used in Scripture fail to be rightly explained in consideration of these forms of speech. Namely, even though the promises of the Gospel (just as its entire proclamation) are in this respect universal, that they are proposed to all and each of the people in the whole world, to whom the Gospel is preached, without any distinction between the elect and the reprobate, just as Christ commanded His apostles to teach all nations and to preach the Gospel to every creature (Matt. 28:19 & Mark 16:15) and even though God Himself, having overlooked the times of ignorance, now declares to all people everywhere that they should repent (Acts 17:30). And although in this universal calling and invitation He seriously wants all people to be saved (namely, with this condition: if they believe, 1 Tim. 2:4), and, conversely, does not want any to perish, but rather for all to come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9), indeed, He promises rest for the soul and eternal life to all who come to Him and believe so that the fault for why many, though called through the ministry of the Gospel, do not come and do not convert, lies not in the Gospel, nor in Christ who is offered through the Gospel, nor in God who calls through the Gospel and even bestows various gifts upon them, but rather in the called themselves. For some do not receive the word of life because they are secure (i.e., indifferent), others do receive it, yet do not let it take root in their hearts, and therefore, after a fleeting joy of temporary faith, they fall away; others choke the seed of the word with the thorns of worldly cares and pleasures, and thus bear no fruit, just as our Savior teaches in the parable (Matt. 13:19–22).
XII.
Nevertheless, if we consider the usefulness and fruit of the promises of the Gospel, they do not belong universally to all, both believers and unbelievers, but rather to all and each, and indeed only to believers. For even if the word “believers” is not always explicitly added (though it often is), the nature and character of all promises of grace require that they be understood as applying only to believers, since the promise of grace and faith are correlatives, and one without the other is of no benefit. Moreover, according to the clear statements of Scripture, those in which God stipulates this condition from us, other passages, in which it is not explicitly stated, must necessarily be understood in the same way. Explicitly, it is believers who are spoken of in Christ’s famous testimony: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (Jn. 3:16). And again: “Come to me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28). Similarly, Paul says: “The righteousness of God comes through faith in Jesus Christ unto all and upon all who believe” (Rom. 3:24). Likewise: “The Scripture has concluded all under sin, that the promise might be given through faith in Jesus Christ to those who believe” (Gal. 3:22). And there exist innumerable such statements, in which the determination concerning believers is explicitly found. Therefore, in all other passages as well, those which do not explicitly mention faith, nevertheless, by implication, they must necessarily be understood with the condition both of faith and of repentance toward God.
XIII.
The necessity of such a declaration, and that it should not in any way be denied, is further evident from the indisputable fact that the Gospel frequently excludes unbelievers and impenitent individuals from the participation in all the saving benefits of Christ, and threatens them with eternal punishment and condemnation. For when Christ says, “He who does not believe is condemned already,” and John the Baptist says, “He who does not believe in the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him” (John 3:18, 26). And the Apostles: “Without faith, it is impossible to please God” (Heb. 11:6). Furthermore, “God does not hear sinners” (John 9:31). Again, “Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters, and whoever loves and practices falsehood” (Rev. 22:15), namely, those who, without repentance and conversion to God, remain in these sins, as without which there can be no true justifying faith.
_______________
[1. “Λυτρον” hoc autem est in forma genetiva “et λυτρου,” i.e., “[…] and of his ransom.”]
[2. “Ἀναπολογητος,” i.e., “ones lacking a defense.”]
[3. The following thesis has “for the…” to mark each of the points Hildebrand is emphasizing. Thus: (1) PRO TOTO MUNDO, (2) PRO MULTIS, (3) PRO OVIBUS, (4) PRO POPULO SUO, (5) PRO ECCLESIA, (6) PRO FILIIS DEI, (7) PRO IIS, QUOS PATER IPSUM DEDIT, (8) PRO ELECTIS, (9) PRO FIDELIBUS.]
Credit to Ansonius for this translation work (which is also partially AI translated) and the added footnote information. I have made a few minor formatting adjustments.
II. John Davenant replied (Latin source):
Letter to Herman Hildebrand
The Judgment of the Most Reverend John Davenant,
Bishop of Salisbury in England.
Greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, the author of our salvation. I will respond with a few words to our letter and I will freely declare what I think about your declaration, which caused so many disturbances among you.
1. You state that Christ died for all, and yet you claim that this death of his pertains in a special way to the holy Church (which he established as the mystical body of Christ to be glorified with Christ). You are absolutely correct. For the Holy Scriptures prove that this saving death of our Redeemer should be considered either as applicable to all by God’s ordination, under the universal promises of the gospel, or as to be actually, effectually, and infallibly applied to certain people for whom he wished to show mercy—this application ought to be derived from the absolute free will of God according to his special mercy and his gift of effectual grace.
2. Those things which you affirm concerning the value and efficacy of the death of Christ must be most true and certain. For the death and obedience of the God-man, our Redeemer, on account of the infinite majesty of his person, necessarily has infinite worth and efficacy in itself. Yet, this is the way we should understand it: that Christ’s death does not have the power to reconcile, justify, sanctify or glorify any individual person in any other way than according to the mode established by the eternal purpose of God before the foundation of the world and declared in the gospel in the fullness of time. For justice itself and right reason demand that to whom the gift itself belongs, it is proper that to that same person belongs the power of controlling and limiting his own gift.
3. The testimonies of Scripture accumulated in this place rightly prove, indeed in as many words as they convey, that Christ died for all. Accordingly, we should not doubt about this, but (as we said before) this universal extension of the death of Christ does not produce the benefit of salvation among any individuals, whether elect or non-elect, unless they exercise faith in the universal promises of the gospel and are obedient to Christ the Redeemer.
4. We cannot extend the power of this expiatory sacrifice beyond this mode, although it is in itself infinite. And clearly the divinely inspired Apostles in the preaching of the gospel truly and seriously promised remission of sins and eternal life to each and every person under the condition of faith. God himself has always regarded, and will always regard, this promise made by the Apostles in God’s name as valid with respect to each and every person. Therefore, in the proclamation of the death of Christ and the evangelical covenant, a contemplation of the hidden divine will, which separates elect from non-elect, is unnatural and unreasonable, indeed is vain and false, if by it, it tends to prevent any sinner from the right to participate in the salvation in Christ’s death, according to the tenor of the covenant in the gospel initiated with mankind. God excludes no one, nor prevents them from participation in the life of the Redeemer’s death, although those who despise this blood of Christ, exclude themselves by their wickedness and faithlessness.
5. It should be acknowledged that a most firm foundation of our consolation has been established in Christ’s all-sufficient merit, and gospel ministers are not able to comfort sinner’s souls weighed down by a heavy burden and crushed by the fear of eternal death unless they presuppose this universal conclusion, that through the death of Christ God indeed has been reconciled to the human race such that, by it, he has been obliged to pardon sins and grant life to them, whoever shall believe in this crucified Redeemer. This shines some light upon the sick and afflicted souls, and indicates a way or method, by which, if employed they can enjoy full consolation, although no one actually enjoys this consolation except by approaching by faith.
6. I agree with our assessment of that useless language [Futilem … orationem] of those who set out to diminish the sufficiency [qui sufficientiam] of this expiatory sacrifice (about which we speak) with that inept gloss [inepto glossemate]: “this death of Christ is able to be sufficient for all, if God had wished it to be sufficient.” Yet, the death of Christ has its own infinite and innate value because of the infinite worth of the person having died, and there is no need of some free decree of the divine will for it [to be such], but a free and gracious decree of God is required so that he might accept this payment price on behalf of the reconciliation of sinners and enemies of God. Moreover, we have this will of God revealed and signified in the gospel. And therefore, it is certain that the impious and the unbelieving die not because of a defect of the most sufficient expiatory sacrifice, but by lacking faith and by their own fault.
7. Those testimonies of Scripture which you collect here in order to show that the elect and faithful have a special prerogative in Christ’s death with regard to the actual and infallible obtaining of salvation do not need my explanation.
8. You do a good job explaining that old and approved distinction between sufficiency and efficacy, when you assign the sufficiency of Christ’s death to its infinite and innate value; but you derive its efficacy from the condition of faith, which makes that most sufficient sacrifice which was applicable before faith to be person who would believe, now applied and saving to the believer.
9. Concerning the decree or will of God the Father in sending his own Son into that world, and of the Son dying for the world, it is wrong for us to think otherwise than the will God himself has revealed in the holy writings. But the most holy gospel testifies that Christ died to the end that everyone who would believe in him would have eternal life. Thus, if Judas had believed in him, he would have obtained remission of sins and eternal life by the right of that evangelical covenant according to God’s will and firm ordination. And the power of that evangelical covenant is not weakened nor this ordination of God undermined by the fact that faith, by means of which some people make this death of Christ saving to themselves, is given to some people and is not given to others. For God has not bound himself by any promise and revealed ordination to give faith to this or that individual person, but by his own gracious promise and revealed will remains, and will perpetually remain, obligated to give remission of sins and eternal life to every individual penitent person believing in Christ.
10. In summarizing those things mentioned here, everything seems to me to be true and sound in the same sense in which it was previously explained.
11. The universality of the evangelical promises, whether they are presented in the absolute form of whoever believes will be saved, or in the conditional form of if you believe, you will be saved, always have the same import, and should be explained in the same way. For they place it beyond all doubt, that assuming the truth of the antecedent, the consequence will be confirmed, without any discrimination of persons: If Peter does not believe, he will be condemned; if Judas believes, he will be saved. Both of these propositions were most true and certain, and they can be adapted in the same way to any individual person by any evangelical minister. In this place, therefore, you prudently noted that the distinction between the elect and the reprobate should not be confused with this business of setting forth the promises of the gospel. What is clear from this is that the truth and infallibility of these promises is based on the revealed will of God, which equally regards each and every person, and does not depend on the hidden and unknown (to us) will of God, which regards those chosen before the foundation of the world were laid in one way, and those passed over or not elect in another way. For if the separation of the elect from the non-elect had been necessary to establish the truth of the evangelical promises, then the Apostles themselves, who could not distinguish between them, would not have been able to preach the gospel indiscriminately to the multitude of those assembled. For [in that case] they would have been false witnesses of the divine will whenever they announced these universal evangelical promises to any non-elect person. Therefore, the fault of those who are perishing is not to be placed on God, Christ, or the unsure truth of the promises of the gospel, but on the wickedness and unbelief of those who refuse to obey God’s calling and believe in Christ. But we should add that the glory of all who will be saved should always be ascribed to God alone and to Christ the Mediator, by whose mercy and special grace it came about that as many as believed in Christ believed for their salvation.
12. All admit the point you make, that the fruit and usefulness of the promises cannot issue to particular persons without faith. Thus, it is not necessary for me to say any more about that.
13. Moreover, no one will doubt that the declaration of this truth is especially necessary.
We have now considered your declaration concerning the death and merits of Christ, in which we find nothing that should have excited so many disturbances among you, or tainted you with the stain of any heresies.
John Davenant, “Letter to Hildebrand,” in On the Death of Christ & Other Atonement Writings, trans. Michael J. Lynch (Landrum, SC: Davenant Press, 2024), 357–62. The above was included by Lynch’s kind permission. Buy this book at Amazon, or at the Davenant Institute, as well as his excellent doctoral dissertation on John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism. Davenant’s letter in the Latin can be read here (click).
Bio:
Wiki
III. Joseph Hall replied to Hildebrand’s Orthodoxa Declaratio Articulorum in a letter, and mainly touched on Hildebrand’s work De Morte Christi and De Reprobatione. Here is what Hall wrote:
III. Joseph Hall replied to Hildebrand’s Orthodoxa Declaratio Articulorum in a letter, and mainly touched on Hildebrand’s work De Morte Christi and De Reprobatione. Here is what Hall wrote:
Joseph Hall, “Letter III. To the Most Eminent and Grave Divine, Herman Hildebrandt […],” in The Works of Joseph Hall, D.D. Successively Bishop of Exeter and Norwich: With Some Account of His Life and Sufferings, Written by Himself, 12 vols., ed. Peter Hall (Oxford: D. A. Talboys, 1839), 11:451–62.LETTER III.
__________
TO THE MOST EMINENT AND GRAVE DIVINE,
HERMAN HILDERBRANDT,
DOCTOR OF DIVINITY,
THE ZEALOUS PASTOR OF THE CHURCH OF ST. STEPHEN,
BREMEN,
HEALTH AND PEACE.
Although a heavier burden lies upon me than I am well able to bear, yet could I not consent, most Reverend Brother in Christ, to appear wanting to your wishes, savouring, as they did, of piety and peace. My care is, that I may have somewhat to say in answer; it must be yours to pardon me, if I say it briefly.
Your Declaration of the Three Articles discussed in the Assembly of the Clergy of Bremen; a grave, moderate, substantial, and truly orthodox work; I have read, with all the attention I could, from beginning to end, and carefully weighed the several clauses it consists of, one by one.
And the more accurate the examination, to which I have submitted each particular, the more has my mind been led to wonder, what can possibly be the point which offends even the harshest of your judges; or where it is that that poison of Pelagianism or (what is still more abominable) of Socinianism lies concealed, of which you say that some of them complain so grievously. I am much deceived if a single expression, yea, a single syllable, occurs throughout, which has not been derived, either directly from the sacred fount of Scripture, or from the rivulets of holy Fathers, or finally from the buckets of other writers, the very highest in estimation, and especially the Divines of Dort.
I can hardly suppose that any one of them would dare fasten on another the charge of holding sentiments so monstrous. You have chosen, indeed, to express these mysteries of divine truth, somewhat more cautiously and tenderly, than some of the stricter Divines (sound as they may be in the faith) are wont: and on this, whether it be called your prudence or your moderation, I congratulate you heartily.
In fact, this is the direct way to Christian concord. This is what the voice of one crying in the wilderness proclaimed in old time; to prepare a way for the God of Peace, to make rough paths smooth. Let others walk, if they will, over thorns and crags; be it ours to smooth, as much as possible, these sacred roads; that, with unencumbered and uninterrupted feet, we may press on towards heaven. Give all the diligence we may to this business, we shall find the journey difficult enough; there is no reason why we should strew the way moreover with flints and brambles.
They little know, who bring these accusations against you; indeed they little know how great the service rendered to the Church of God, by those who cut and smooth the stones and timbers required in the construction of this fabric; particularly if it be done without too much of the noise of the hammer: and this I think your Reverence has here endeavored with consummate skill.
With respect to the subject in dispute; is there any man, who aspires to the reputation of sound Theology, who would suppose that any limits of his own were to be affixed to the worthiness of the death of Christ? The Son of God is omnipotent, and of infinite virtue: to say, then, that the purpose he has set before himself is not sufficient for every creature, for whose redemption he has consented both to appear in the flesh, and to shed his blood, seem to sound very like a denial of the attributes of God. Now, how often and how expressly does the Scripture teach us, that the most Gracious Redeemer of the World intended both his incarnation and his death for the redemption of the human race! Well, then; if this phraseology of the Holy Spirit, where it occurs in the Holy Scriptures, can displease no man who is in his right mind; why is it, that, when transcribed by the pen of man, it affords so little satisfaction?
Certainly the distinction that is drawn, between the sufficiency (in act and deed) and the efficacy of the death of Christ; between the merit, on the one side, and the effect and result of that Mediatorial redemption, on the other; between the price of the infinite ransom, and its saving application; is a distinction so true and necessary, that, without it, we can hardly fail to think amiss of the Great Saviour of the World, and of the mysterious business of redemption.
Certainly, Christ died for all men in such wise only, as not to advantage all men for salvation.
Christ therefore did not die for all men, in the sense in which most learned Pareus (with whom also agree the Palatine Divines) interpreted that word: where he says, that to die for any one is properly, to deliver any one from death by dying for him; or so to die in the place of any one, that he himself should live. In this manner, the form of expression would include, not only the merit, but also the universal efficacy and common effect of the death of Christ; which no one in his senses would join with Huber in assigning to it, however productive of salvation it may be: though that this is not the case, is certainly the fault of men, and not of the Saviour. In this heavenly storehouse of merits, there is treasure enough laid up for the redemption of as many myriads of worlds, as there are human beings in existence: still, if there are any so sluggishly or so stubbornly inclined, that, warned or encouraged as they may be by the voice of the Gospel, they will neither move forward a foot, nor stretch forth a hand, to seek and bring home their reward, however ample; why, they deserve to die in bondage. What diminution does the infinite bounty of the Redeemer here sustain?
I am pleased, on this point, with a similitude conceived by my most illustrious friend Du Moulin. The sun was bestowed upon this world, to cheer and enlighten all men: and yet, not a few are blind; others are condemned to the gloom of dungeons; others are buried in sleep: all these enjoy the benefit of the sun but little: but what is this to that great and bounteous luminary? As many as have the use of their eyes, and keep awake by daylight, rejoice in this light, and are invigorated by its rays. Just so it is with the death of Christ; of which the saving benefit lies open to all, meritoriously, but not efficaciously. Of itself, it suffices for all; but it is not applied to all, either for remission or for salvation. In this way, the whole race of men are capable of reconciliation; but that they may be actually reconciled, something further is required; namely, the fulfilment of the condition, to which the covenant of grace is subject, and which consists in the faith of the receiver. Accordingly, through the efficacious virtue of this saving death, as many as have been ordained unto salvation, believe.
That the Palatine Divines should seem to dislike this method of expression, arises hence: that they longed, on this point, to withstand some of the Remonstrants, who were proceeding much further than was right; appearing actually to extend, not only the merit, but the efficacy, of the death of Christ to the whole race of man. In reality, however, our brethren of the Palatinate think the same with ourselves concerning the infinite merit and value of the death of Christ, as applicable indeed to every child of man, if they have grace to believe, but savingly applied to the elect alone.
And similar, moreover, is the offer of the promises of God. From one end of the earth to the other, there is not a man, to whom they may not and shuold not be freely preached. Meet me who may, a Turk, a Jew, a Judas: why may I not tell him, confidently and seriously, “Christ, O man, has so died for thee, that, if thou believest in him, thou shalt be saved?” But there is manifestly the same ground of dealing with all, as with one.
One thing is certain, that no one ever has perished, and no one ever will perish, for a deficiency in the price paid for his salvation. Christ, therefore, as our Divines of Britain fully and clearly teach, so died for all, that all and each may, by virtue of this ransom, and through the means of faith, obtain forgiveness of their sins, and eternal life: while he so died for the elect, that, by the merit of his death, ordained especially for them, according to the eternal goodwill of God, they infallibly obtain both faith and eternal life.
In a word, you have so handled this First Article of the death and merit of Christ, that you have the Scriptures, the Fathers, and all Orthodox Writers, unequivocally supporting you with their testimony: while our own Church of England is as entirely on your side of the question, as if you had borrowed her very words throughout.
Of the Second Article [De Reprobatione], again, I scarcely know whether I should say, that, according to my judgment, you have shown more soundness or more moderation in the treatment of it. If there be a difficult topic in the whole range of Theology, it is surely that of Reprobation: to stumble here, is as perilous as it is easy. But you have proceeded with such caution, that neither the milder interpreters of the decree, can discover an assertion to reprove; nor the harsher, any omission to regret. Wherefore I cannot help wondering, so much the more, what can be the pretense which the most ingenious adepts in cavillation have to offer for their censures.
Just let me state the fact. The whole of that passage, as explained by you, is nothing else than an accurate abridgment of the sentiments exhibited at Dort; and you have there most carefully retained not only the sense unadulterated, but generally the very words. How comes it then to pass, that they who appreciate that Synod, are so displeased with a just and faithful abstract of it? Certainly, were you not to point your finger to the spot, I should never myself discover where the objection lies. Now, then; that there is such a thing as reprobation, and that too from eternity, who doubts? and that this reprobation, so far as regards the act of Almighty God, is his rejection of certain men, whom God has decreed to leave in the common misery into which they have plunged themselves by their own fault; and at length, not only for their unbelief, but for all their other sins, to damn and punish them eternally in declaration of his justice. So say they. Here then their fault and their sins so intervene, that positive reprobation, apart from these, is not assigned to God without the plainest violation of truth.
This is the point you have so satisfactorily established out of Augustine, Fulgentius, Prosper, and the whole body of Confessions of the Church. Most rightly, therefore, you inveigh against the harsh and partial explanation given by those, who consider that absolute reprobation, proceeding of mere hatred, should be set up in opposition to free and gratuitous election. For what is there that God hates, except sin? and his creatures, not of themselves, but for sin? Sin out of sight, God beheld all things which he had made, and pronounced them good. But how could God exhibit himself the friend of man, if he hated man as man?
You, then, shall set me the example of those words, to which I most gladly assent: as it is an eminently devout and sweet assertion, that we were gratuitously elected, of the mere mercy and pleasure of God, in Christ unto salvation; so is the other neither devout nor tolerable, that the rest deserved to perish, even though they had not fallen in Adam; since God has so set Christ as Head over his Church, not that all, but that we alone, who have been elected to that end, should be saved in him.
That your zeal, and that of every good man, should kindle at the thought, I am not surprised. For what else is this, but to feign a sort of tyranny for the God of all Mercies? How far his absolute authority over the creature extends, none can doubt: but that God should exert and employ it over us, when, having resolved to deal with men on the principles of established law, he has so often testified his love and desire for the salvation of man; this is a harsher thought than a Christian ought to entertain. I only wish, either that hateful forms of speech like this had never fallen from any pious and learned professor of the Reformed Religion; or that, if at any time they accidentally escaped their lips, they had been doomed forthwith to perpetual oblivion.
Similar in worthlessness are those inconvenient and incongruous expressions, which not a few of the Divines of Dort wished to have rejected and amended; as would have been done at the very time, had not the opinions of certain persons [Maccovius?] received a larger share of deference than was perhaps their due.
On which subject I have written somewhat more at length to your illustrious colleague, Crocius. He will doubtless communicate to you the contents of my letter. You are both embarked in the same vessel; it is but right that you should both partake in the same counsels.
Meanwhile, this analysis of yours (as I see you excel in the art of resolving a discourse into its component parts) appears to harmonize very well with the scope of the passage now in hand; nor does it deserve to be impugned by any one. As all Scripture, so, above all, the Epistle to the Romans is (to use the language of the most learned of the Fathers) full of senses: and scarcely can any explanation of a passage be given, so sure and certain, but that another equally suitable may perhaps be afterwards suggested. Let others idolize their own opinions: for myself, I heartily approve this your method of connecting and interpreting the passage. Should any one murmur in opposition, tell him, in my name, if you like, that it is much easier to censure than to amend. But you, illustrious Sir, go on, as now, benefiting the Church of God by your sacred and devout labours; and, what I deem a subject of hearty congratulation both to you and yours, studying to be quiet; 1 Thess. vi. 11. And so help with your prayersYour most devoted brotherand fellow-minister in the Lord,Jos. Exon.
Given in our palace at Exeter.
Bio:
