Theological Meditations

March 25, 2025

The Reformed(ish) Confessions Explicitly Rejecting God as the Author of Sin

Vallérandus Poullain: Confession of the Glastonbury Congregation (1551)

This is not to say that we make God the author of any sin, seeing that He Himself is a God that cannot have pleasure in any iniquity.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “Vallérandus Poullain: Confession of the Glastonbury Congregation (1551),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 1:649.

Rhaetian Confession (1552)

It is thus displeasing that certain men, when speaking about providence, everywhere indiscriminately insult any number of people, [saying that] God is the author of both virtues and vices, and that He no less desires actions done in a wicked manner than those which are done well and virtuously. … Nevertheless, we will say that sins are not from God and that He is not the author of perversity if we want to speak properly and truly and in accordance with the rule and words of Holy Scripture.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “Rhaetian Confession (1552),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 1:671–72.

Consensus Genevensis: Calvin on Eternal Predestination (1552)

Although, therefore, I thus affirm that God did ordain the Fall of Adam, I so assert it as by no means to concede that God was therein properly and really the author of that Fall.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “Consensus Genevensis: Calvin on Eternal Predestination (1552),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 1:775.

I have, with equal constancy, asserted that the eternal death to which man rendered himself subject so proceeded from his own fault that God cannot, in any way, be considered the author of it.

But how it was that God, by His foreknowledge and decree, ordained what should take place in Adam, and yet so ordained it without His being Himself in the least a participator of the fault, or being at all the author or the approver of the transgression; how this was, I repeat, is a secret manifestly far too deep to be penetrated by any stretch of human intellect.

Yet we deny that He is the author of sin, or that the blame of things done amiss can be laid upon Him, seeing His will is the sovereign and infallible rule of all righteousness and equity: but this we confess that He has those admirable means as whereby He makes the devils and the ungodly, as His instruments to serve Him and to turn the evil which they do and whereof they are guilty into good.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The French Confession (1559),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 2:143.

Lattanzio Ragnoni’s Formulario (1559)

He is the only true God (Deut. 32:39; Isa. 44:6; 45:5–6; 1 Cor. 8:6), of an eternal, infinite (Dan. 6:26; Rom. 16:25), spiritual (John 4:24), invisible, incomprehensible, and immortal (John 1:18; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16) essence, of utmost power (Gen. 17:1; Luke 1:51), wisdom (Rom. 16:27; 1 Tim. 1:17), justice (Deut. 32:4), mercy (Ps. 118:1–4, 29), goodness (Matt. 19:17; V 2, p 165 Ps. 31:5), truth (Rom. 3:4), who is the true and only fountain of every virtue, from whom every good thing flows (James 1:17), in whom there is no evil, who is not the author of any sin (Job 34:10, 12) but rather is displeased and hates and abominates every injustice and iniquity (Deut. 25:16; Pss. 5:4; 92:15), who being perfect in Himself and communicating His good to others (James 1:5; Matt. 7:7; 2 Cor. 9:8–9; 1 Tim. 6:17) does not need anything (Ps. 16:2; Acts 17:25).

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “Lattanzio Ragnoni’s Formulario (1559),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 2:164–65.

The Waldensian Confession (1560)

We believe that the same God governs all His creatures and that He disposes and orders all that takes place in the world according to His will, not being the author of evil or that the blame for it might be imputed to Him, since His will is the supreme and infallible rule of every justice and equity.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Waldensian Confession (1560),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 2:220.

Theodore Beza’s Confession (1560)

Nothing is done at adventure or by chance or without the most just ordinance and appointment of God (Eph. 1:11; Matt. 10:29; Prov. 16:4), although God is in no way author nor culpable of any evil which is committed. … But if man had been created wicked or evil, God would not have had just occasion to punish the wickedness of which He Himself was the author and maker.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “Theodore Beza’s Confession (1560),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 2:242, 244–45.

The Belgic Confession (1561)

We believe that the same good God, after He had created all things, did not forsake them or give them up to fortune or chance, but that He rules and governs them according to His holy will, so that nothing happens in this world without His appointment; nevertheless, God neither is the author of nor can be charged with the sins which are committed.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Belgic Confession (1561),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 2:431.

The Hungarian Confessio Catholica (1562)

Concerning Permission

We say that God acts permissively in foul sins or offenses because He is not the author of sin or evil offenses (Acts 14; Ps. 83). He only permits men to commit them, but does not command or perform them. God does not perform anything close by, effectively or directly, but only indirectly, sustaining the ruined mass, its movement, existence; giving life in accordance with His general providence. But when God punishes sins with later sins, working indirectly in a manner deserving of punishment, He does not sin (2 Sam. 16, 18, 19). The instruments, men and devils, work sinfully close by, committing sin in themselves, with regard to themselves, as Absalom, Ammon, the Chaldeans, Satan (Rom. 7; Eph. 4; 2 Sam. 7, 12, 13; 1 Kings 11, 17, 22; 2 Chron. 25; so teach the Holy Scriptures and the fathers: Augustine, on predestination; Ambrose, on the call of the heathen; 2 Thess. 2; Jerome, Prosper, and others).

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Hungarian Confessio Catholica (1562),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 2:481–82.

The Confession of Tarcal (1562) and Torda (1563)

We confess that nothing takes place except in the sight of God or without His righteous decree: although God is not the author of sin of any kind and has no part therein.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Confession of Tarcal (1562) and Torda (1563),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 2:654.

The Second Helvetic Confession (1566)

Moreover we condemn Florinus Blastus (against whom also Irenaeus wrote) and all those that make God the author of sin; seeing it is expressly written, “Thou art not a God that loveth wickedness; thou hatest all them that work iniquity, and wilt destroy all that speak lies” (Ps. 5:4–6).

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Second Helvetic Confession (1566),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 2:821.

Documents of the Debrecen Synod (1567)

Here we condemn the belief of the Manicheans too, i.e., those who make God, one way or another, the author of sin. First, because it is written in Psalm 5:4 that God does not desire sin, i.e., He cannot wish for sin, cannot make it. God performs only what He wishes (Pss. 114, 135). But as He does not desire sin, He does not cause it. And since God is the highest righteousness, light, and life, He cannot do that which is contrary to His own nature.
Second, because Scripture says that God hates sin, cannot abide falsehood, and cannot perform deception or sin.
Third, because He forbids and punishes the sinful, He cannot be the author of that which He forbids and punishes.
Fourth, because Scripture teaches that God would not be able to punish men and be the judge of the world if He desired and performed sin (Gen. 18; Rom. 2–3). If my sin is to the glory of God, why then does He punish me as a sinner?
We repudiate the hairsplitting speculations, without foundation in Scripture, of those who say that it was of necessity, by the decree of God, that Adam fell from that blessed integrity.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “Documents of the Debrecen Synod (1567),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 3:19.

The Confession of La Rochelle (1571)

Certainly we do not believe that God is the author of evil or that guilt can be imputed to Him, since, on the contrary, His will is the sovereign and infallible rule of all true justice and righteousness.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Confession of La Rochelle (1571),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 3:309.

The Bohemian Confession (1575/1609)

Of the author of sin, we confess that our Lord God, though He is the creator and sustainer of all creatures, yet He is not the author of sin.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Bohemian Confession (1575/1609),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 3:409.

The Bremen Consensus (1595)

It is thus a notable calumny in opposition to the previously recounted, authentic doctrine of the divine decree and His government of all things, when one seeks to sanction and validate the following absurd and false opinions: As, that no one need have scruples about sin and that all evil is done not merely by the will of God, but even occurs with Him as its author. Or that the ungodly sin in accord with the will of God and that their sins are effected in them by God. Or that not only the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, but even a stiff-necked, ungodly and disobedient spirit are produced by God, and that the evil will in perverse men is from God. Or that men must by necessity sin against their own will, and that God has determined from eternity (and that it suits Him) to create men so that they must sin.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Bremen Consensus (1595),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 3:671.

The Confession of John Sigismund (1614)

It is not that God is a cause of man’s ruin, nor that He desires the death of the sinner, nor that He is an author or instigator of sin, nor that He does not desire all to be saved, for we find the opposite throughout Holy Scripture (Ezek. 18:21–23; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9; Matt. 10[?20]).

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Confession of John Sigismund (1614),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:85–86.

The Irish Articles (1615)

28. God is not the author of sin: however, He does not only permit, but also by His providence governs and orders the same, guiding it in such sort by His infinite wisdom as it turns to the manifestation of His own glory, and to the good of His elect.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Irish Articles (1615),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:94–95.

The Canons of Dort (1618–1619)

And this is the decree of reprobation, which by no means makes God the Author of sin (the very thought of which is blasphemy), but declares Him to be an awful, irreprehensible, and righteous Judge and Avenger thereof.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Canons of Dort (1618–1619),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:125.

‘That the doctrine of the Reformed Churches concerning predestination, and the points annexed to it, by its own genius and necessary tendency, leads off the minds of men from all piety and religion; that it is an opiate administered by the flesh and the devil; and the stronghold of Satan, where he lies in wait for all, and from which he wounds multitudes, and mortally strikes through many with the darts both of despair and security; that it makes God the author of sin, unjust, tyrannical, hypocritical; that it is nothing more than an interpolated Stoicism, Manicheism, Libertinism, Turcism; that it renders men carnally secure, since they are persuaded by it that nothing can hinder the salvation of the elect, let them live as they please; and, therefore, that they may safely perpetrate every species of the most atrocious crimes; and that, if the reprobate should even perform truly all the works of the saints, their obedience would not in the least contribute to their salvation; that the same doctrine teaches that God, by a mere arbitrary act of his will, without the least respect or view to any sin, has predestinated the greatest part of the world to eternal damnation, and has created them for this very purpose; that in the same manner in which the election is the fountain and cause of faith and good works, reprobation is the cause of unbelief and impiety; that many children of the faithful are torn, guiltless, from their mothers’ breasts, and tyrannically plunged into hell: so that neither baptism nor the prayers of the Church at their baptism can at all profit them;’ and many other things of the same kind which the Reformed Churches not only do not acknowledge, but even detest with their whole soul.

For it is a true and infallible rule that God is in no wise the author of evil, nor can any such by just reasoning be attributed to God.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Confession of Cyril Lukaris (1629/1631),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:157.

The Colloquy of Thorn (1645)

1) God is not at all the author of any sin, but rather the source and author of all good things; by contrast, the hater and avenger of all that is evil.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Colloquy of Thorn (1645),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:210.

2) It is therefore outright calumny when that horrible blasphemy impugns our church—that we make God the author of sin.

I. GOD from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass (Eph. 1:11; Rom. 11:33; Heb. 6:17; Rom. 9:15, 18): yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin (James 1:13, 17; 1 John 1:5), nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established (Acts 2:23; Matt. 17:12; Acts 4:27–28; John 19:11; Prov. 16:33).

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:238.

IV. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men (Rom. 11:32–34; 2 Sam. 24:1; 1 Chron. 21:1; 1 Kings 22:22–23; 1 Chron. 10:4, 13–14; 2 Sam. 16:10; Acts 2:23; 4:27–28); and that not by a bare permission (Acts 14:16), but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding (Ps. 76:10; 2 Kings 19:28), and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends (Gen. 1:20; Isa. 10:6–7, 12); yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin (James 1:13–14, 17; 1 John 2:16; Ps. 50:21).

God has decreed in Himself, before the world was, concerning all things (Isa. 46:10; Eph. 1:11; Rom. 11:33; Pss. 115:3; 135:6), whether necessary, accidental (Ps. 33:15; 1 Sam. 10:9, 26), or voluntary, with all the circumstances of them, to work, dispose, and bring about all things according to the counsel of His own will, to His glory (yet without being the author of sin, or having fellowship with anything therein); in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, unchangeableness, power, and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree: and God has before the foundation of the world, foreordained some men to eternal life, through Jesus Christ, to the praise and glory of His grace; and leaving the rest in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of His justice (Prov. 21:6; Ex. 21:13; Prov. 16:33; Ps. 144; Isa. 45:7: Jer. 14:22; Matt. 6:28, 30; Col. 1:16–17; Num. 23:19–20; Rom. 3:4; Jer. 10:10; Eph. 1:4–5; Jude 4, 6; Prov. 16:4).

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The London Confession (1646),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:274.

Waldensian Confession (1655)

That He directs and governs all things by His providence, ordaining and appointing all that happens in the world, without being either the author or cause of evil committed by the creatures, or that the culpability in power or obligation may in any way be imputed to Him.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “Waldensian Confession (1655),” trans. James T. Dennison Jr., in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:438.

A brief justification touching the points, or articles of faith which the doctors of Rome impute to us in common with all the Reformed churches. Accusing us of believing:
1. That God is the author of sin.
2. That God is not all powerful.
3. That Jesus Christ fell into despair on the cross.
4. That in the works of salvation, when man is moved by the Holy Spirit, he does not cooperate any more than a piece of wood or a rock.
5. That the efficacy of predestination, is of no consequence whether one does good or evil.
6. That good works are not necessary to salvation.
7. That we absolutely reject confession of sin and repentance.
8. That fasting must be rejected, and other mortifications of the flesh, to live in dissolution.
9. That any one can explain the Holy Scripture as it pleases him, and according to the inspirations of his own particular spirit.
10. That the church can fail entirely and be destroyed.
11. That baptism is not a necessity for anyone.
12. That in the sacrament of the Eucharist, we do not have any real communion with Jesus Christ, but only in a figure.
13. That it is not obligatory to obey magistrates, kings, princes, etc.
14. Because we do not invoke the holy virgin, and men already glorified, they accuse us of scorn, when we declare them blessed, worthy both of praise and imitation, and hold above all the holy virgin “blessed among all women.”

But all these articles which are so maliciously imputed to us, far from believing or teaching them, we hold to be heretical and damnable, and denounce from all our heart anathema against whoever would maintain them.

God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The Savoy Declaration (1658),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:462.

IV. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, in that His determinate counsel extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men (and that not by a bare permission) which also He most wisely and powerfully boundeth, and otherwise ordereth and governeth in a manifold dispensation to His own most holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God, who being most holy and righteous, neither is, nor can be the author or approver of sin.

That God guides and governs them all by His providence, ordering and directing all that happens in the world, but without being the author or the cause of the evil of creatures, or that the guilt of it might or ought to be imputed in any way to Him.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “Waldensian Confession (1662),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:501.

We are usually accused of believing that:
1. God is the author of sin;
2. God is not omnipotent;
3. Jesus Christ was not without sin;
4. Jesus Christ fell into despair on the cross;
5. Man is like a piece of wood or a rock in his actions to salvation, being moved by the Spirit of God;
6. Because of predestination it is indifferent if one lives well or amiss;
7. Good works are not necessary for salvation;
8. Among us repentance and confession of sins are condemned;
9. It is convenient to reject fasting and other mortifications to live in debauchery;
10. It is lawful for everyone to explain freely Scripture according to the motions of a peculiar spirit;
11. The church can be reduced to nothing and be extinguished;
12. Baptism avails for nothing;
13. In the sacrament of the Eucharist, there is no real communion with Christ, but only a picture;
14. It is not necessary to submit to and obey kings, princes, and magistrates;
15. Since we do not pray to the virgin and glorified saints, we despise them; while we consider them blessed, worthy of laud, and imitation, and especially we consider the glorious virgin blessed above all women.

These beliefs are imputed to us, while our churches detest them as heresies and declare anathema with the whole heart any who uphold them.

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “Waldensian Confession (1662),” trans. Andrea Ferrari, in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:515.

The London Baptist Confession (1677)

1. God has decreed in Himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass (Isa. 46:10; Eph. 1:11; Heb. 6:17; Rom. 9:15, 18); yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor has fellowship with any therein (James 1:13, 17; 1 John 1:5); nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established (Acts 4:27–28; John 19:11); in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree (Num. 23:19; Eph. 1:3–5).

4. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in His providence, that His determinate counsel extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sinful actions both of angels and men (Rom. 11:32–34; 2 Sam. 24:1; 1 Chron. 21:1); and that not by a bare permission, which also He most wisely and powerfully bounds, and otherwise orders and governs (2 Kings 19:28; Ps. 76:10), in a manifold dispensation to His most holy ends (Gen. 50:20; Isa. 10:6–7, 12); yet so, as the sinfulness of their acts proceeds only from the creatures, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin (Ps. 50:21; 1 John 2:16).

James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “The London Baptist Confession (1677),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 4:539.

Citations in order: James T. Dennison Jr., ed., “Vallérandus Poullain: Confession of the Glastonbury Congregation (1551),” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014), 1:649; “Rhaetian Confession (1552),” in Reformed Confessions, 1:671–72; “Consensus Genevensis: Calvin on Eternal Predestination (1552),” 1:775, 776; “The French Confession (1559),” 2:143; “Lattanzio Ragnoni’s Formulario (1559),” 2:164–65; “The Waldensian Confession (1560),” 2:220; “Theodore Beza’s Confession (1560),” 2:242, 244–45; “The Belgic Confession (1561),” 2:431; “The Hungarian Confessio Catholica (1562),” 2:481–82; “The Confession of Tarcal (1562) and Torda (1563),” 2:654; “The Second Helvetic Confession (1566),” 2:821; “Documents of the Debrecen Synod (1567),” 3:19; “The Confession of La Rochelle (1571),” 3:309; “The Bohemian Confession (1575/1609),” 3:409; “The Bremen Consensus (1595),” 3:671; “The Confession of John Sigismund (1614),” 4:85–86; “The Irish Articles (1615),” 4:94–95; “The Canons of Dort (1618–1619),” 4:125, 151–52; “The Confession of Cyril Lukaris (1629/1631),” 4:157; “The Colloquy of Thorn (1645),” 4:210, 211; “The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646),” 4:238, 240; “The London Confession (1646),” 4:274; “Waldensian Confession (1655),” trans. James T. Dennison Jr., 4:438, 443–44; “The Savoy Declaration (1658),” 4:462, 464; “Waldensian Confession (1662),” trans. Andrea Ferrari, 4:501, 515; “The London Baptist Confession (1677),” 4:536, 539.

February 13, 2025

Hermann Hildebrand (1590–1649) on the Extent of the Death and Merit of Christ; With Replies by John Davenant (1572–1641) and Joseph Hall (1574–1656)

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.

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.]

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.

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:

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 prayers

Your most devoted brother
and fellow-minister in the Lord,
Jos. Exon.

Given in our palace at Exeter.

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.

Bio:

Wiki

January 8, 2025

John Calvin (1509–1564) on the Gospel of God, Wherein He Wills, Urges, and Wishes Men to Repentance and Faith by Giving His Son

We are told, then, that because the kingdom of God is near we must be converted and believe the gospel. We have already explained, though rather briefly, what is meant by ‘the kingdom of God.’ It means that God has chosen to reveal himself to men from whom he was formerly estranged, and who were more or less cut off from him. We have all been banished from the heavenly life by Adam’s sin and fall. God therefore sends his only Son and, as it were, with outstretched arms asks us to turn back to him, for he is willing to receive us. Although we have strayed and are lost because of our demerits, he still wills to show us mercy. Because the kingdom of God is near, our Lord Jesus Christ urges men to repentance and faith.

Notice first of all that nothing should move or inflame us to yield to God more than his offer of infinite grace and goodness. When Paul, for example, seeks to pierce men’s stony hearts and to soften their hardness and obduracy, he appeals to ‘the bowels of God’s mercy’ (Phil. 2:1). In speaking thus, he is really saying: ‘Will you now continue in our madness? Must you be worse than the devils? And when God comes to you, displaying his mercy and opening his heart to welcome you as his own children—when he gives you his own Son, will you be so unfeeling as not to be softened or inflamed by love for his grace? Will you not allow him to lead you, and will you not delight in the goodness he shows you?’ It is in just this way that Jesus Christ urges men to repentance and faith. But on what does he base his appeal? On the fact that God wishes to draw near to those from whom he was once estranged. God, therefore, in receiving us in mercy, sets his goodness before us without waiting for us to seek him out; he forestalls us with such exceptional grace that we cannot grasp even a hundredth part of it. Since he is so kindly disposed toward us, we should be rightly and deeply touched, to the very core of thought and feeling.

John Calvin, “The Gospel of God (Matt. 4:12, 17; Mark 1:14–15; Luke 3:19–20; 4:14–15),” in In the Power of the Spirit: Sermons on Matthew, Mark & Luke, trans. Robert White (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2024), 154–55.

Bio:

Wiki

December 24, 2024

John Davenant (1572–1641) on Different Senses of God’s Will

That God wills the good of men in bestowing any good gifts or graces upon them, needed no proof at all: We have always willingly granted this proposition. Yet for the true understanding thereof it must be observed, That when we say, This is God’s will, This is God’s aim or intent, these words have not always the same signification. This Author [Hoard] by confounding the divers meaning of these and the like words doth strangely entangle himself through his whole discourse. First therefore; any thing is said to be according to God’s will, which considered in itself is according to the goodness and pureness of the Divine nature. This is a perpetual and necessary volition in God, quâ Deo placet omne bonum. And this simplex complacentia towards all good actions of men, or events unto men, is possible circa creaturas omnes etiam nunquam futuras: For there is no goodness imaginable, which has not an agreement with the good will of God, which we call amorem simplicis complacentiae. Satis constat hujusmodi complacentiam Dei versari circa poenitentiam, gratiam & gloriam possibilem Judae aut cujus libet damnati [Ruiz. disp. 19. pag. 214]. But this is not it which we now speak of. 2. Secondly, God is said to will, desire, or aim-at that good, for the obtaining whereof he affords fitting means, though withal he wills that it shall be in the liberty of the creature to hinder & frustrate those means, & though he have absolutely decreed to permit the creature to abuse them unto his own destruction. This is that which usually is termed by Divines voluntas antecedens, voluntas conditionata, voluntas simplicis complacentiae. And thus God is said to aim-at or to will and desire the conversion, justification and salvation of those who never shall be converted, justified, or saved. Neither must we think that by these men God’s omnipotent will is crossed, because his voluntas simplicis complacentiae is not fulfilled. For the absolute will of God was, that in such persons their own free-will might hinder the good effect of his gifts and graces, which he was absolutely resolved to permit for some greater good. Lastly, there is a will in God which strictly and most properly is called voluntas beneplaciti or his absolute will, which is not only a liking of the good willed unto the creature, and an ordering of fit means whereby the creature (if his own free-will hinder not) may attain it; but a merciful decree of so ordering the means and the very will of the creature, that it shall infallibly and infrustrately obtain the good end whereunto such means were accommodated. … We grant therefore, that in the second acception of the word will God truly wills, likes, desires the repentance, faith, perseverance, and salvation of all to whom the Gospel is preached and Christ offered. But in the last and most proper acception, God wills the perseverance and salvation only of his Elect, in whom he never ceases working till the happy effect be produced.

Our Divines at Dort granted a true and serious will in God according to the second acception of the word will, but not according to the last. Which will simplicis complacentiae may stand with absolute Reprobation.

John Davenant, Animadversions Written By the Right Reverend Father in God, John Lord Bishop of Sarisbury, upon a Treatise intitled, Gods love to Mankind (London: Printed by John Partridge, 1641), 305–307; italics original; some English updated.

John Davenant, Animadversions Written By the Right Reverend Father in God, John Lord Bishop of Sarisbury, upon a Treatise intitled, Gods love to Mankind (Cambridge: Printed by Roger Daniel […], 1641), 390–93; italics original; some English updated.

Bio:
Wiki
DNB

Pages

TAGS / LABELS

March 25, 2025

The Reformed(ish) Confessions Explicitly Rejecting God as the Author of Sin

February 13, 2025

Hermann Hildebrand (1590–1649) on the Extent of the Death and Merit of Christ; With Replies by John Davenant (1572–1641) and Joseph Hall (1574–1656)

January 8, 2025

John Calvin (1509–1564) on the Gospel of God, Wherein He Wills, Urges, and Wishes Men to Repentance and Faith by Giving His Son

December 24, 2024

John Davenant (1572–1641) on Different Senses of God’s Will

Translate

NOTE

About Me

Total Pageviews

Links

Blog Archive

StatCounter