Spark Notes for Bishop Davenant’s “De Morte Christi” - Part 1
Over the next couple months I’ll be summarizing Davenant’s primary work on the universality of the atonement, with the hope that those who don’t have the time or inclination to read the whole book will still be able to get a decent handle on the boogeyman of “hypothetical universalism.”
We’ll start with Davenant’s historical survey of the debate, starting with the Church Fathers and moving through the Augustinian-Pelagian controversy. The next article will continue this survey, moving into the Middle Ages and dealing with men like Faustus of Riez and Gottschalk.
1 - On The Origin of the Controversy
Davenant opens his dissertation by noting with sadness the present controversy surrounding the doctrine of the atonement, noting that, “this situation seems to arise from the innate curiosity of human beings, who are more anxious to scrutinize the hidden purposes of God than to embrace the benefits openly offered to them.” He gently chides all those involved in the debate, warning them to take care that they do not spend more time arguing over the technical mechanics of the atonement than they do taking hold of it for themselves through faith in Christ.
His desire is to “appease these disputes rather than incite them anew,” and he briefly explains that he thinks the two opposing camps share common ground insofar as both of them acknowledge a two-fold consideration of the death of Christ: “For both sides regard Christ’s death as a universal cause of salvation applicable to each and every human being if they should believe, and as a special cause of salvation effectually applied to certain persons in particular who have believed.”
Before propounding his own theses on the topic, Davenant gives us a brief historical overview of the debate over the question, “For whom did Christ die?” while noting some key intellectual battles and the consensus of the orthodox church regarding the matter.
Previous to the debate between Augustine and Pelagius, Davenant asserts that “there was no debate concerning the death of Christ, whether it was to be extended to all people or restricted to the elect.” He notes that the church fathers seem to universally speak of Christ’s death as having been endured for the sake of the entire human race, while admitting that it is only “actually beneficial” to those who believe. He cites Clement of Alexandria’s Paedagogus as saying, “Christ freely brings (or bestows) salvation to the whole human race.” He also quotes Origen and Primasius to the same effect, before moving on to Augustine.
Augustine came under fire from some of his Pelagian critics for supposedly holding the opinion that Christ died for the predestined alone, an accusation hotly contested by Prosper of Aquitaine, Augustine’s disciple. In his responses to the Vincentian Articles’ ninth objection, namely, “That the Savior was not crucified for the redemption of the whole world,” Prosper maintains that Christ suffered for the whole world, but that the elect alone obtain the special, persevering faith necessary to apply the death of Christ to themselves. He says that, “With respect to the magnitude and potency of the price, and to the one cause of the human race, the blood of Christ is the redemption of the whole world; but those who pass through this life without faith in Christ and the sacrament of regeneration do not partake of this redemption.” Additionally, “The cup of immortality, which is composed of our infirmity and divine goodness, had indeed in itself what is profitable for all, but if it is not drunk, it does not heal.”
Davenant further vindicates Augustine against the semipelagian accusations by noting that both Prosper and Augustine extend a particular benefit of the atonement, namely remission of original sin, even to non-elect infants, a position impossible to hold if one restricts Christ’s suffering to the predestined alone. Prosper holds to this view strongly enough to state that, “The one who says that the grace of baptism being received does not take away original sin from those who are not predestined to life is not a Catholic.” This view is manifestly at odds with the claim that the extent of the atonement (and subsequent benefits of it, such as Holy Baptism,) is restricted only to those who are predestined.
Davenant then turns to Pelagius, pointing out that both sides of the debate in his (Davenant’s) day were erring in their accusations. One side claimed that the statement “Christ died for all” and the formulation of a universal redemption and a limited deliverance were reworked versions of the Pelagian heresy. To this effect, they cite Augustine against Julian: “Go on then, go on and say that in the sacrament of the Savior infants are baptized, but are not saved; are redeemed, but not absolved; so also say that his blood is shed for them for the remission of sins, but they are not cleansed by the remission of sin. You say astonishing things. You say novel things. You say false things.” As Davenant notes, the scope of Augustine’s polemic is only as broad as what he is actually talking about, i.e. Pelagius’ cognitive dissonance in asserting that infants have no guilt while also applying the remedy for their guilt through the sacrament of baptism. Augustine is not taking issue with Pelagius’ assertion that Christ died for all, but rather his denial of original sin. As Davenant points out, Pelagius was not condemned in any council for his belief that Christ died for all, nor did Augustine denounce this position in his writings against the Semipelagians.
On the opposite side of the debate, Davenant points out an error in Grevinchovious, who asserted that Pelagius taught that Christ did not die for all human beings, attempting to place William Ames in the same boat as Pelagius. His source for this claim was Faustus of Riez, who incidentally also claimed that the same position (Christ did not die for all human beings) was held by Augustine and Prosper, which, as we have just seen, is a false charge.
Davenant moves on from these two false accusations to deal with the actual errors of the Pelagians and Semipelagians. Once again, their heresy did not lie in their assertion that Christ died for all, but in their denial of original sin, which resulted in the bizarre dissonance of holding two contrary positions: 1) Redemption through Christ’s death is applicable to all humans of all ages, and 2) Infants are free from any sin that would necessitate redemption. Additionally, the Pelagians believed that none were excluded from the redemption of Christ’s atonement, even if they should endure in their unbelief and wicked lives, thus removing the condition attached to the universality of Christ’s death: repent and believe. Lastly, the Pelagians denied predestination, that Christ’s atoning work is infallibly applied to the elect by a special act of mercy on God’s part, asserting the free will of men as being the deciding factor in their salvation. These three errors are the grounds on which Augustine and Prosper opposed the Pelagians and Semipelagians, not on the grounds of belief in the universality of Christ’s sacrifice.