On Amyrauldianism & Hypothetical Universalism

Order of Contents

On H.U. in the Reformed Tradition
History of
. Amyrauldianism
. H.U.

Dort
French Reformed Synods
Westminster
Websites

Contra Amyrauldianism & H.U.
. Articles & Books
. Quotes

On H.U. in the Reformed Tradition

Articles

Muller, Richard

‘Richard Muller on Hypothetical Universalism & the Reformed Tradition’ being selections from Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), pp. 17-19, 24-25, 29-30

Muller argues here that both Amyraldian and non-Amyrauldian Hypothetical Universalism were understood and designed by their proponents to be within the confessional, reformed tradition. To the reformed that disagreed, and strongly disagreed with them, the H.U.s were yet understood to be reformed brethren, though in significant error; they were not considered as holding to heresy.

‘Richard Muller on Non-Amyrauldian Precedents to Hypothetical Universalism’ being a review of “English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology,” by Jonathan D. Moore. Reviewed by Richard A Muller, Calvin Theological Journal, 43 (2008), pp. 149-150

Muller cites as reformed H.U. precedents to Amyrauldianism:

Bullinger, Musculus, Ursinus & Zanchi.

Other H.U.s Muller references are:

Preston, Carleton, Davenant, Ward, Goad, Hall, Martinius, Crocius, Alsted & Ussher.

Audio Lecture

Muller, Richard – ‘Revising the Predestination Paradigm: An Alternative to Supralapsarianism, Infralapsarianism & Hypothetical Universalism’ being the Fall Lecture series (2008?) at Mid-America Reformed Seminary

The three lectures are: ‘The Problem Stated’, ‘The Lapsarian Question,’ & ‘Varieties of Hypothetical Universalism’. It may be possible to attain the lectures for around $15 through contacting Mid-America.

On the History of Amyrauldianism

On John Cameron

Gootjes, Albert – ‘John Cameron (ca. 1579-1625) and the French Universalist Tradition’ in The Theology of the French Reformed Churches (RHB, 2014), pt. 2, pp. 169-96

This includes a short survey of Amyraut and a bit more detailed survey of La Place and Cappel.

Ponter, David – ‘John Cameron (1579-1625) and Moses Amyraut (1596-1664) on the Order of the Decrees’ 2013

Muller, Richard – ‘Divine Covenants, Absolute and Conditional: John Cameron and the Early Orthodox Development of Reformed Covenant Theology’ 2006 46 pp. in Mid-America Journal of Theology 17 (2006): 11-56

“Cameron’s understanding of absolute and hypothetical covenants as reflecting God’s love in its antecedent and consequent moments stands quite noticeably within the trajectories of Reformed orthodoxy, and also quite in accord with the orthodox views on the divine attributes and divine decrees found among Cameron’s
predecessors and contemporaries.

Certainly, Cameron’s understanding of the antecedent divine love looks toward Amyraut[‘s future work]. But none of these arguments stepped beyond the confessional boundaries of the Reformed churches, and none implies a rejection of the scholastic methods of the era, with their theses for disputation and careful distinctions, in favor of a more biblicistic and humanistic model.” – Conclusion, p. 55

On Amyraut & Amyrauldianism

Articles

Gootjes, Albert

pp. 299-300 of ‘Polemics, Rhetoric & Exegesis: Claude Pajon (1626-1685) on Rom. 8:7’ in The Theology of the French Reformed Churches (RHB, 2014), pt. 2

‘Calvin & Saumur: The Case of Claude Pajon (1626—1685)’ Church History and Religious Culture, vol. 91, No. 1/2, The Reception of John Calvin and His Theology in Reformed Orthodoxy (2011), pp. 203-214 There is an abstract at the bottom of the page.

Klauber, Martin – ‘Conflicts with the Amyraldians’, pp. 228-230 of ‘Defender of the Faith or Reformed Rabelais? Pierre Du Moulin (1568-1658) and the Arminians’ in The Theology of the French Reformed Churches (RHB, 2014), pt. 2

van Asselt, Willem – pp. 269-270 of ‘Andreas Rivetus (1572-1651): International Theologian and Diplomat’ in The Theology of the French Reformed Churches (RHB, 2014), pt. 2. Rivet was against HU.

McKee, R. Jane – pp. 293-5 of ‘The Pastoral & Polemical Theology of Charles Drelincourt (1595-1669)’ in The Theology of the French Reformed Churches (RHB, 2014), pt. 2. Drelincourt was against HU.

“…Drelincourt remained firmly on the side of the orthodox in this dispute. He was close to Andre Rivet and to Pierre du Moulin, who is often mentioned in his twenty-six year correspondence with Rivet. These two men, together with Guillaume Rivet, Andre’s younger brother, were the most determined opponents of Amyraut’s hypothetical universalism…”

Strehle, Stephen – ‘Universal Grace & Amyraldianism’ in Westminster Theological Journal, 51 (1989), pp. 345-46

Strehle “tend[s] to place distance between Cameron’s thought and the orthodoxy of the era.” – Muller, Divine Covenants, pp. 12-13

Wenkel, David – ‘Amyraldianism: Theological Criteria for Identification & Comparative Analysis’ Download Chafer Theological Seminary Journal, 11:2 (Fall 2005)

Mullan, David George – ‘A Hotter Sort of Protestantism? Comparisons between French and Scottish Calvinisms’ The Sixteenth Century Journal, vol. 39, No. 1 (Spring, 2008), pp. 45-69

Armstrong, Brian – ‘The Calvinism of Moïse Amyraut: The Warfare of Protestant Scholasticism and French Humanism’ Church History, vol. 37, No. 2 (Jun., 1968), pp. 205-206

This work is one of others which “has tended… to argue the significance of his [Amyraut’s] thought as a humanistic, Calvinian protest against a rigid, Bezan Scholastic orthodoxy…” – Muller, Theology of the French Reformed Churches, p. 197

Ponter, David – ‘John Cameron (1579-1625) & Moses Amyraut (1596-1664) on the Order of the Decrees’ (2013)

Nicole, Roger R.

‘Brief Survey on the Controversy on Universal Grace (1634–1661)’ in Standing Forth: Collected Writings of Roger Nicole

‘Amyraldism’ in eds. Sinclair B. Ferguson & David F. Wright, New Dictionary of Theology (Leicester: IVP, 1988)

“Amyraut intended to soften the edges of the traditional Reformed view and thus to relieve difficulties in the controversy with Roman Catholics and facilitate a reunion of Protestants in which Reformed and Lutheran could join ranks… [it] tended to weaken the unity of Reformed thought and to open the door to increasing departures from Reformed orthodoxy.” – p. 17

‘Covenant, Universal Call & Definite Atonement’ in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38 (1995): pp. 403-411

This article “argue[s] that his [Amyraut’s] thought was a highly problematic deviation from the fundamental message of Calvin as well as from the orthodoxy of his time.” – Richard Muller, Theology of the French Reformed Churches, pp. 197-8

Sabean, David W. – ‘The Theological Rationalism of Moise Amyraut’ Buy Archiv fur Reformationgeschichte 55 (1964): pp. 204-215

Muller says that this is an exception to most of the other works about Amyraut which tend portray his theology as a humanistic, Calvinian protest against a rigid Bezan Scholastic orthodoxy, or as a highly problematic deviation from the fundamental message of Calvin and the orthodoxy of his time.

Muller, Richard

pp. 197-200 of ‘Beyond Hypothetical Universalism: Moise Amyraut (1596-1664) on Faith, Reason & Ethics’ in The Theology of the French Reformed Churches (RHB, 2014), pt. 2

“With few exceptions, virtually all of the recent scholarly literature devoted to him [Amyraut] has tended either to argue the significance of his thought as a humanistic, Calvinian protest against a rigid, Bezan Scholastic orthodoxy, or to argue that his thought was a highly problematic deviation from the fundamental message of Calvin as well as from the orthodoxy of his time.

More recent study has argued that both of these older approaches misrepresent Amyraut. Opposition to his doctrine was not uniformly ‘Bezan.’ Amyraut’s doctrine, although hardly a reprise of Calvin, arguably fell within confessional boundaries set by the Canons of Dort: it was never formally condemned as a heresy. In addition, Amyraut’s method of argumentation was just as ‘Scholastic’ as that of his opponents and, indeed, depended on a series of Scholastic distinctions.

Although there is merit in continuing this discussion, particularly when it is directed toward identifying the actual historical situation of Amyrauldian thought rather than debating the nature of what one writer has unfortunately identified as ‘authentic Calvinism,’ focus on the controversy can obscure the broader significance of Amyraut’s work, specifically those intellectual contributions that were highly regarded by virtually all of his Reformed contemporaries, including those who disagreed with him on the controversial point of hypothetical universalism.
…

“He [Amyraut] received early support from the provincial Synod of Isle de France and, despite continuing opposition, was cleared of charges at the Synods of Alencon (1637) [below], Charenton (1644-1645) [below], and Loudon (1659). Amyraut died at Saumur in 1664. His teachings, together with those of Cappel and La Place, were subsequently censured in the Formula Consensus Helvetica (1675), albeit never declared heretical.” – Richard Muller, Theology of the French Reformed Churches, pp. 197-8, 200

‘A Tale of Two Wills: Calvin & Amyraut on Ezekiel 18:23’ in Calvin Theological Journal 44 (2009): 211-25

“Amyraut, however, builds on Calvin’s argument and, indeed, claims to be interpreting and clarifying it by arguing two mercies and two wills in God where Calvin did not; in fact where Calvin had specifically stated that the will of God is one and simple, albeit with distinctions that can be observed in its revelation. Where Calvin resolved the issue of the universal call and particular election by simply declaring a resolution in the fact that, as promised, the repentant are saved, Amyraut indicated a double divine intentionality…

Even if Amyraut had added, as he would do at the Synod of Alençon, that his language of two decrees was by rational distinction and intended “without any succession of Thought, or Order of Priority and Posteriority” in God, his exegesis still would differ from Calvin’s in its postulation of two divine mercies and two intentions. The exegesis of the particular text, therefore, does not fully support those who appeal to it in order to interpret Amyraut as a precise follower of Calvin…

Amyraut offered his own conclusion, modifying and supplementing Calvin’s argument with a concept of two wills in God—a scholastic distinction not found in Calvin’s reading of the text and related, probably, to Amyraut’s own training under John Cameron.” – p. 224

‘Richard Muller on Amyraut’ selections from Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 1:76-77, 79-80, 2:15 and ‘Divine Covenants, Absolute & Conditional: John Cameron & the Early Orthodox Development of Reformed Covenant Theology,’ Mid-America Journal of Theology 17 (2006), 36-37

Books

Proctor, Lawrence – The Theology of Moyse Amyraut Considered as a Reaction against Seventeenth-Century Calvinism PhD diss. (Univ. of Leeds, 1952)

Sabean, David W. – Moise Amyraut & Rationalism Masters thesis (Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison, 1961)

Nicole, Roger R. – Moyse Amyraut: a Bibliography with Special Reference to the Controversy on Universal Grace, First Phase (1634-1637) PhD Diss. (Harvard Univ., 1966)

1634 was when Amyraut published his tract on predestination. 1637 was when the Synod of Alancon cleared him and Testard, with some exhortations to them (see the record of their transactions below).

Nicole’s works “argue that his [Amyraut’s] thought was a highly problematic deviation from the fundamental message of Calvin as well as from the orthodoxy of his time.” – Richard Muller, Theology of the French Reformed Churches, pp. 197-8

Armstrong, Brian G. – Calvinism & the Amyraut Heresy; Protestant Scholasticism & Humanism in Seventeenth-Century France (Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1969)

This work is not wholly trustworthy, as Armstrong was a main proponent of the Calvin vs. the Calvinists thesis, though the book has much valuable information in it.

Grohman, Donald Davis – The Genevan Reactions to the Saumur Doctrines of Hypothetical Universalism: 1635-1685 Th.D. diss. (Knox College in cooperation with Toronto School of Theology, 1971)

Pope, John M. – Aspects of Controversies concerning the Doctrine of Grace Aroused by the Teachings of Claude Pajon a PhD disseratation (St. Andrews, 1974)

Nicole, Roger – Moyse Amyraut: Bibliography with Special Reference to Universal Grace Ref (New York: Garland, 1981)

van Stam, F.P. – The Controversy over the Theology of Saumur, 1635-1650. Disrupting Debates among the Huguenots in Complicated Circumstances (Amsterdam: APA-Holland Univ. Press, 1988)

“Frans Pieter van Stam, whose comprehensive historical study of the Amyraut controversy leans heavily in favour of the Amyraldians…” – Martyn J. McGeown, ‘A Critical Examination…’

French Articles

Saigey, Charles Edmond – ‘Moise Amyraut, Life & Writings’ (Strasbourg, 1849) 50 pp.

Sabatier, Andrew – ‘A Historical Study on the Hypothetical Universalism of Moise Amyraut’ (Toulouse, 1867) 45 pp.

On the History of Non-Amyrauldian Hypothetical Universalism

Articles

Muller, Richard – ‘Dating John Davenant’s De Gallicana controversia sententia in the Context of Debate over John Cameron: A Correction’ (2015) 12 pp.

Denlinger, Aaron Clay – ‘Scottish Hypothetical Universalism: Robert Baron (c.1596-1639) on God’s Love & Christ’s Death For All’ in Reformed Orthodoxy in Scotland, ed. Aaron Clay Denlinger (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015) See an extended excerpt at CalvinandCalvinism.

Crisp, Oliver – Ch. 7, ‘Hypothetical Universalism’ in Deviant Calvinism: Broadening Reformed Theology (Augsburg Fortress, 2014), pp. 175-212

Lynch, Michael – ‘Richard Hooker & the Development of English Hypothetical Universalism’ in Richard Hooker & Reformed Orthodoxy, eds. W. Bradford Littlejohn & Scott N. Kindred-Barnes (Bristol, CT: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017), pp. 273-293

Books (in order of the subject matter in the 1600’s)

Moore, Jonathan – ‘Christ is Dead for Him’: John Preston (1587-1628) and English Hypothetical Universalism (Univ. of Cambrdige, 2000) This was the dissertation that formed the basis for Moore’s published book.

Moore gives evidence that the phrase ‘Christ is dead for him’, which Preston used in the gospel call, meant, ‘Christ died for him’, relating to a universal aspect of Christ’s death. The English phrase appears to come from the Latin, which might be translated either way.

The later Marrow Men in the Church of Scotland in the early-1700’s distinguished the meanings of the two phrases, using the first phrase in the sense that Christ is offered as crucified to you, the gospel-hearer, and yet most of them held to a limited atonement with respect to the latter phrase, which was reserved for those expressing saving faith. It appears that the Marrow Men, in referencing Preston, did not realize that they were drawing on a phrase that originally bore a hypothetical universalist meaning.

Kang, Hyo Ju – The Extent of the Atonement in the Thought of John Davenant (1572-1641) in the Context of the Early Modern Era a Masters thesis (Univ. of Aberdeen, 2018)

Abstract: “The contention of this thesis is that Davenant’s views of predestination, the atonement and free-will were the main factors that affected his twofold-intention view, and they differed from the positions of John Cameron…

Davenant’s position on the universal aspect of the atonement was based on the universal proclamation of the gospel. Davenant stressed the immutability of God’s will for the elect. Cameron’s view on the universal aspect of the atonement depended on the divine will for the salvation of every individual which could be frustrated due to human free choice. Since the decree of sending Christ preceded the decree of of election according to Cameron’s view on the order of the divine decrees,

Cameron’s view was different from Davenant’s. Cameron held to a distinction between moral and physical ability and intellectual persuasion of the Holy Spirit upon the human mind. These things were not shared by Davenant… Thus this study substantiates the claim that Davenant was not a forerunner of Amyrauldianism and his view was situated within the boundary of confessional orthodoxy codified in the Canons of Dort.”

Lynch, Michael J. – John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism: a Defense of Catholic & Reformed Orthodoxy Pre (Oxford Univ. Press, 2021)

Packer, J.I. – The Redemption & Restoration of Man in the Thought of Richard Baxter (Regent College Publishing, 2001) 432 pp.

Amyrauldian Writings

In English

1600’s

John Cameron

‘Certain Theses, or, Positions of the Learned John Cameron, Concerning the Threefold Covenant of God with Man’ as appended to Samuel Bolton, The True Bounds of Christian Freedome… (London, 1656)

“Every history of French Protestant theology in the seventeenth century should begin with a systematic study of his [Cameron’s] work.” – Francois Laplanche

The three covenants for Cameron are the Covenant of Nature (Works), Covenant of Grace and a mixed, Mosaic, Subservient Covenant. Cameron does not explicitly teach hypothetical universalism in this early work, though the work laid a foundation for that later teaching.

Cameron’s most distinctive element in this work (besides the subservient covenant, which was not wholly unprecedented) is in theses 3-5, which speak of primary, antecedent and conditional (or ‘hypothetical’, though Cameron does not use this word) covenants, which proceed from the antecedent love of God, and a secondary, absolute and consequent covenant of God which fulfills the former’s condition, bringing about the blessings offered in the former conditional promises.

For background to, and an analysis of this work, see Richard Muller ‘Divine Covenants, Absolute & Conditional: John Cameron & the Early Orthodox Development of Reformed Covenant Theology’ (2006) Mid-America Journal of Theology 17 (2006): 11-56.

pp. 92-105 of Robert Wodrow, Collections upon the Lives of the Reformers… of the Church of Scotland, vol. 2 (Glasgow, 1834), Pt. 2, ‘Mr. John Cameron’

Wodrow surveys and translates substantial portions of Cameron’s letters in Latin (below) to Cappel from 1610-12, which first expressed his HU. Gootjes says that there are some inaccuracies in the translation.

2000’s

Clifford, Alan C. – Amyraut Affirmed or ‘Owenism, a Caricature of Calvinism.’ A Reply to Ian Hamilton’s ‘Amyrauldianism–is it modified Calvinism?’ (Norwich: Charenton Reformed Publishing, 2003)

Clifford has been the leading contemporary advocate of Amyrauldianism in the British Isles, and has held conferences promoting Amyrauldianism.

Latin

John Cameron

Letters, pp. 569-588 in Lectures in Some Select Places of the New Testament, held in Salmur, vol. 3 (Saumur, 1628)

Most of these letters from 1610-12 were written to Louis Cappel, and were the first explicit expression of Cameron’s HU. The first letter, on the order of the decrees is a systematic overview of Cameron’s view and is undated. The second letter ‘established the main import of Cameron’s universalism’ (Gootjes) and the following ones ‘address and clarify particular issues’.

For an overview in English of these letters, see Gootjes in Theology of the French Reformed Churches, pp. 181-7. Gootjes gives Cameron’s ‘outline’ of his four divine decrees as follows:

“1. The first decree, then, is about restoring the divine image upon the creature, in a way wherein the justice of God remains intact.

2. The second is about sending the Son who saves each and every one of those who believe in him, that is, who are his members.

3. The third is about rendering men fit to believe.

4. The fourth is about saving those who believe.”

Gootjes notes that, according to Cameron’s thought, the first two decrees are universal while the latter two are particular, while though the first three are absolute and the last is conditional.

On Heb. 2:9 in Responses to Questions in the Epistle to the Hebrews in Lectures in Some Select Places of the New Testament, held in Salmur, vol. 3 (Saumur, 1628), pp. 196-7

This and the letters above appear to constitute all of the HU passages in Cameron. They were only first published a few years after his death, which was in 1625.

“The death of Christ belongs, under the condition of faith, equally to all men.” – Opera, p. 389 on Heb. 2:9, as trans. Turretin, Institutes 2.457-8

Testard, Paul – A Peace Token [Eirenikon]: or a Synopsis of the Doctrine of Nature & Grace (Blois, 1633) ToC

Testard (1599-1650) was one of John Cameron’s closest disciples and was a French pastor.

Testard: “The design of giving Christ for a propitiation in his blood was the making of a new covenant with the whole human race and the possible call to salvation and the salvation of all men, justice no longer resisting… In this sense, indeed, no one can deny that Christ died for each and everyone, that his faith may stand in the word of God.” – Eirenikon, theses 77, 79, pp. 54, 56, as trans. Turretin, Institutes 2.457-8

“Frans Pieter van Stam has convincingly argued that it was with Amyraut’s work, and not with Paul Testard’s earlier Eirenikon seu Synopsis dotrinae de natura et gratia… which also propounded a Cameronian universalism, that the controversy broke out…” – Gootjes in Theology of the French Reformed Churches, pp. 188-9, fn. 66

“…Testard had presented the doctrine of hypothetical universalism as early as 1633, but he was seen as a less significant figure than Amyraut. He was called with Amyraut to defend their teaching before the National Synod of Alencon in 1637.” – R. Jane McKee in Theology of the French Reformed Churches, p. 294, fn. 271

Amyraut, Moses

A Specimen of Animadversions on Exercitations on Universal Grace [by Frederik Spanheim] (Saumur, 1648)

Spanheim responded to this work (below) in 1649.

“In the preface to this treatise addressed to the ministers in France, Amyraut vented some of his hostilities toward his opponents, especially [Andrew] Rivet. Already an old man at the time, Rivet was not amused and, in July 1648, he in turn reached for his pen and wrote an open letter to his brother, Guillaume Rivet, titled Epistola apologetica [1648], in which he defended himself against Amyraut’s accusations [Riveti Opera Theologica, 3:878-893].

Together with his brother-in-law, Pierre du Moulin, professor of theology at Sedan, and Spanheim, first professor at Geneva and thereafter at Leiden, he sharpened his theological knife in order to combat Amyraut. For this purpose, he also used an abstract of Amyraut’s ideas, which he had composed in 1635 at The Hague. It contained fifty theses and was followed by his comments on them, divided into ten chapters, and then a conclusion (Synopsis doctrinae de natura et gratia, excerpta ex Mosis Amyraldis… in Riveti Opera Theologica, 3:830-851).” – van Asselt in Theology of the French Reformed Churches, p. 270

Six Theological Dissertations… (Salmur, 1660)

‘A Defense of the Doctrine of Universal Grace, and that Explicated from the Orthodox’, pp. 119-236

Amyraut: “The redemption of Christ is to be considered in two ways: either as absolute, inasmuch as some truly embrace it; again as it is affected by a condition, inasmuch as it is offered on these terms–that if anyone will embrace it, he shall become partaker of it. In the former mode, it is particular; in the latter, universal. In like manner, its destination is twofold: particular, inasmuch as it has a decree to give faith connected with it; universal, inasmuch as that decree is separated from it.” – Dissertationes Theologicae Quatuor (1645), pp. 37-8 as trans. Turretin, Institutes 2.458

‘A Defense of the Doctrine of Particular Grace, & so Explicated from Calvin’, pp. 237-310

Cappel, Louis – Pt. 1, Theses 32-34 of Theological Theses on Election & Reprobation in Cappel, Amyraut & La Place, An Arrangement of the Theological Theses Disputed at Various Times in the Academy of Salmur, vol. 1 (2nd ed. Saumur, 1664-5), pt. 2, p. 107

Cappel (1570-1624) was first, apparently, exposed to HU, through Cameron’s letters to him in 1610-12 (above), which he had an initial reservation about. In this piece Cappel gives an order of five decrees, which are similar to those of Cameron and La Place, but slightly different.

“Cappel, like Amyraut and La Place, thus explicitly addresses what had only been implicit in Cameron’s writings… Cappel’s exposition, just like with La Place, leaves us with a more balanced and refined structure than found in Cameron’s De ordine decretorum Dei.” – Gootjes, in Theology of the French Reformed Churches, pp. 194-5 For an overview of this section of Cappel, see Gootjes, pp. 191-5.

“At Saumur la grace universelle became a part of the regular curriculum, as evidenced by theses Cappel had a student defend for the regular disputation cycle in which he openly posited it. After studying there in the mid- to late 1640’s, [Claude] Pajon too left the academy a convicted universalist.” – Gootjes in Theology of the French Reformed Churches, p. 300

Josue de La Place – Theses 17 & 28-30 of A Defense of Judgement on the Order of the Decrees of God (undated) in All the Works... vol. 1 (Franeker, 1699), pp. 489 & 492-3

La Place (c.1596-1655) was a French theologian who was born at Saumur. He became pastor at Nantes in 1625 and was a professor of theology at the Academy of Saumur from 1633 till his death.

“Whereas Cameron’s contact with Cappel stretched back to his time at Sedan, it was during his professorate at Saumur–alongside Cappel, who held the chair in Hebrew–that Cameron became acquainted with Amyraut (1596-1664) and Josue de La Place (cs. 1596-1655) who eagerly adopted his views as well.” – Gootjes in Theology of the French Reformed Churches, p. 172

La Place gives an order of four decrees in this piece which are similar to, but slightly different from Cameron’s four decrees. For a survey of this piece by La Place, see Gootjes in Theology of the French Reformed Churches, pp. 189-191.

French

Amyraut, Moses – A Brief Tract on Predestination, and of its Principal Dependencies (Saumur, 1634) ToC See also the 1654 edition with a treatment of Calvin and matter on grace and other questions of theology.

“The Protestant ‘Civil War’ was launched in 1634 with the publication of Amyraut’s Brief Traitte de la predestination et de ses principales dependences. In this work, Amyraut revealed his distinctive doctrine of hypothetical redemption. The battle lines were drawn. Saumur and Paris were aligned against Geneva and most cities of the Netherlands. For the next fifty years, the Reformed constituency was divided, with synods, books and formulae hurled into the fray.” – James T. Dennison, Jr., ‘The Life and Career of Francis Turretin’ in Turretin, Institutes, vol. 3, p. 643

“Amyraut’s universalism as he laid it out in his Brief traitte clearly followed the patter of Cameron’s. While chapters six and seven unfold God’s decree to send Christ to all on the condition that they believe, chapter nine treats election or predestination by which God decreed to fulfill the condition of faith in particular people. The intervening chapter eight functions as a bridge between these decrees, explaining that due to humanity’s corruption none will fulfill the condition of faith that is part of the universal decree regarding the sending of Christ on their own. With this eighth chapter, Amyraut made explicit what was only implicit in Cameron’s works.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that Amyraut appears never actually to have expressed himself on the order of the decrees. In fact, he at one time remarked that the Holy Spirit has not revealed any order in the Word, adding that one will only end up in a maze of difficulties if one tries to penetrate this mystery.” – Gootjes in Theology of the French Reformed Churches, p. 189

“Since the misery of man is equal and universal, and the desire which God has to free them from it by so great a Redeemer proceeds from the mercy which he has towards us as his own creatures fallen into so great ruin, in which his creatures equally lie, the grace of redemption, which he has procured for and offers to us, should be equal and universal, provided we are equally disposed to receive it.” – Brief Traitte de la Predestination 7, p. 77, as trans. Turretin, Institutes 2.458

Hypothetical Universalist Writings

English

Articles

Twisse, William

‘William Twisse (1578–1646) on [Martin] Bucer on Conditional Predestination’ excerpted from The Riches of God’s Love unto the Vessels of Mercy, consistent with his absolute hatred or reprobation of the Vessels of Wrath, (Oxford, 1653), 1:175-176

Twisse was a Westminster divine.

The webmaster David Ponter notes: “While much of what Twisse says here is complex, one thing that is obvious is that the language of conditional predestination can be traced as far back as Bucer, and so is not original to Amyraut. What is more, the conditional ‘decree’ [for Twisse] speaks to the revealed will, rather than the secret will…”

Compare this passage of Twisse with a similar passage in The Doctrine of the Synod of Dort… (1631), pp. 170-171

The Doctrine of the Synod of Dort and Arles Reduced to the Practice… (Amsterdam, 1631), 3rd Part, 1st Section, p. 165

“The truth is, we deny that Christ died for all, in as much as he died not to procure the grace of faith and regeneration for all, but only for Gods elect; and consequently neither shall any but God’s elect have any such interest in Christ’s death, as to obtain thereby pardon of sin and salvation, for Arminians themselves confess that this is the portion only of believers.

But seeing pardon of sin and salvation are benefits merited by Christ, not to be conferred absolutely but conditionally, to wit, upon condition of faith; we may be bold to say that Christ in some sense died for all and every one, that is, he died to procure remission of sins and salvation unto all and every one in case they believe; and as this is true, so may we well say, and the Council of Dort might well say, that every one who hears the Gospel is bound to believe that Christ died for him in this sense, namely, to obtain salvation for him in case he believe.

But what think Arminians; are we bound to believe that Christ died for us in such a sense, as to purchase faith and regeneration for us?”

Books

1600’s

Davenant, John – A Dissertation on the Death of Christ, as to its Extent & Special Benefits, containing a Short History of Pelagianism, and showing the Agreement of the Doctrines of the Church of England on General Redemption, Election and Predestination with the Primitive Fathers of the Christian Church, and above all, with the Holy Scriptures (d. 1641; 1650) as appended to An Exposition of Colossians, vol. 2 ed. Josiah Allport (London, 1832), pp. 310-569 ToC Questions Treated

Polhill, Edward – Essay on the Extent of the Death of Christ (d. 1694; Berwick, 1842) 55 pp. This is an excerpt from The Divine Will Considered in Its Eternal Decrees and Holy Execution of Them (London, 1673) This was reprinted, per the Preface, in the context of the new light, double-reference theory of the atonement in the Scottish Secession Churches.

Baxter, Richard – Universal Redemption of Mankind, by the Lord Jesus Christ, Stated & Cleared… whereunto is added a short account of Special Redemption by the same author (London, 1694)

See J.I. Packer, The Redemption & Restoration of Man in the Thought of Richard Baxter (Regent College Publishing, 2001) for a survey and particularist critique of this work.

2000’s

Shultz, Gary Lee – A Biblical & Theological Defense of a Multi-Intentioned View of the Extent of the Atonement PhD diss. (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2008)

This dissertation argues not only for a multi-intentioned view of the atonement (which may be consistent with Limited Atonement,ª per Turretin), but argues for a general atonement (Christ undertaking as a legal substitute for all), with a ‘particular intention in the atonement: securing the salvation of the elect.’

ª Note that the national French synod of Alancon (below) did not have an issue with a multi-intentionality, but only that Amyraut & Testard used the language of Christ dying ‘equally’ for all. Note also that limited atonement advocates such as Du Moulin, Kimedoncius, Byfield et al., who were against a general atonement, did not shy away from affirming that Christ died to make a sufficient atonement for all.

The dissertation provides some historical material about ‘Augustine, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Jacob Arminius, Moïse Amyraut, Richard Baxter, John Owen, and John Wesley, as well as the views of the ninth century, medieval scholasticism, and modern evangelicalism’ in ch. 2. See the abstract for an overview of the whole work.

Websites

Calvin & Calvinism by David Ponter

The webmasters of these two websites hold to forms of Hypothetical Universalism. These two sites are probably the largest repository for H.U. writings on the net (with meticulous documentation), though many of the theologians quoted on their sites simply held to Limited Atonement, the Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel and Common Grace. Many of the sources quoted cannot otherwise be found online.

Theological Meditations by Tony Byrne

Latin

Daille, Jean – A Defense of the [French] Synods of Alancon [1637] & Charenton [1645], vol. 2, in which the Universal Grace of God, which Frederic Spanheim opposes in his Exercitations, is defended by the authority of 120 Older Theologians & 63 More Recent Theologians (Amsterdam, 1655) We are not able to find vol. 1 on the net.

The synods of Alancon and Charenton cleared Amyraut and Testard (see below), though controversy continued.

Maresius responded to this work of Daille, below. Daille responded to that with some Vindications. Maresius then responded with some Brief Strictures, below.

Hypothetical Universalism & the Synod of Dort

That the Canons Prohibit Hypothetical Universalism

1600’s

Leiden Professors: Polyander, Wallaeus, Thysius, Trigland – ch. 29, ‘The Testimonials of Diverse Doctors and Universities, unto the Treatise of Monsieur Rivet, Against the Books of the Sieurs Amyraud and Testard’ in John Quick, Synodicon, vol. 2, The Synod of Alancon (1637), pp. 405-7. Including testimonials by the 4 Leiden professors, Bogerman, Sertaunus, Majomus and Henry Alting.

The Leiden professors, in agreeing with Andre Rivet, imply that Amyraut’s writings were not allowable within the scope of the Canons of Dort:

“To… Andrew Rivet… your remarks on the writings of Monsieur Amyraud… we have found them exactly agreeing, both with the Holy Scripture in all articles of faith, and those wherein our national Synod of Dort had declared its judgment…”

1800’s

George Smeaton

The Apostles’ Doctrine of the Atonement, p. 540

“[Amyraldianism is] a revolt from the position maintained at the Synod of Dordt, under the guise of an explanation.”

That the Canons Allow for Hypothetical Universalism

1600’s

The English Delegation to Dort

Primary Source

‘The Collegiate Suffrage of the Divines of Great Britain, Concerning the Five Articles Controverted At the Synod of Dort’ from George Carleton, [et al.], The Collegiat Suffrage of the Divines of Great Britaine, Concerning the Five Articles Controverted in the Low Countries… (London: 1629), ‘The Suffrage Concerning the Second Article’, pp. 43–64

Secondary Sources

Articles

Dewar, M.W.

‘The British Delegation at the Synod of Dort–1618-1619’ The Evangelical Quarterly 45.2 (April-June 1974), pp. 103-116

‘The British Delegation at the Synod of Dort:
Assembling and Assembled; Returning and Returned’ Churchman 106/2 (1992) 16 pp.

Book

ed. Milton, Anthony – The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) Pre (Boydell Press / Church of England Record Society, 2005)

Twisse, William

The Doctrine of the Synod of Dort and Arles Reduced to the Practice… (Amsterdam, 1631), 3rd Part, 1st Section, p. 165

But what think Arminians; are we bound to believe that Christ died for us in such a sense, as to purchase faith and regeneration for us?”

Baxter, Richard – ‘On the Synod of Dort & the Death of Christ’ from Richard Baxter’s Confession of Faith (London: 1665), pp. 25-26

1900’s

Strehle, Stephen – ‘The Extent of the Atonement and the Synod of Dort’ Ref Westminster Theological Journal 51.1 (Spring 1989): pp. 1-23

2000’s

Moore, Jonathan – ‘On Hypothetical Universalism & the Synod of Dort’ from ‘The Extent of the Atonement: English Hypothetical Universalism versus Particular Redemption’ in Drawn into Controversie, ed. Michael A.G. Haykin & Mark Johns (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), pp. 144-48

Grohman, Donald Davis – ‘On Dort & the 1649 Genevan Articles’ from The Genevan Reactions to the Saumur Doctrines of Hypothetical Universalism: 1635-1685 Th.D. diss. (Knox College in cooperation with Toronto School of Theology, 1971), pp. 231-5, 254-6, 280

Godfrey, Robert – ‘The Path to Compromise at Dort’ from Tensions within International Calvinism: The Debate on the Atonement at the Synod of Dort, 1618-1619 (Ph.D diss., Stanford University, 1974), pp. 252-264, 266, 268

Fesko, J.V. – ‘On Hypothetical Universalism and the Westminster Confession and Synod of Dort’ being pp. 189-203 of The Theology of the Westminster Standards (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014)

Crisp, Oliver – ‘On Hypothetical Universalism and the Synod of Dort’ Deviant Calvinism: Broadening Reformed Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014), pp. 178-181

The French Reformed Synods

Below are the three times the Amyrauldian controversy prominently came to the fore before national synods. The first, the Synod of Alancon, is the most important and substantial.

The Synod of Alancon, 1637

in John Quick, Synodicon, vol. 2, pp. 352-357

Ch. 15, Articles 12-30

This section makes clear that Testard and Amyraut believed that they were with the bounds of the Canons of Dort. Article 18 says:

“…explaining their opinions about the universality of Christ’s death, they declared, that Jesus Christ died for all men sufficiently, but for the elect only effectually: and that consequently his intention was to die for all men in respect of its quickening and saving virtue and efficacy…

Whereupon, although the assembly were well satisfied, yet nevertheless they decreed, that for the future, that phrase of Jesus Christ’s dying ‘equally’ for all, should be foreborn, because that term ‘equally’ was formerly, and might be so again, an occasion of stumbling unto many.”

It is noteworthy that the Canons of Dort affirm the first paragraph above, and so did Pierre Du Moulin in his Examination of Arminianism, who was a strong opponent of the Amyrauldians.

Articles 19-22 have been transcribed here. Article 19 says that they used the term ‘conditional decree’ simply as an anthropopathism with respect to God’s revealed will in regard to the conditional gospel offer. Article 20 says that they only used the ‘name of universal or conditional predestination’ by way of concession to their opponents, and that ‘there is none other decree of predestination of men unto eternal life and salvation, than the unchangeable purpose of God’.

Article 21 says that they denied any ordering of God’s decrees, except for ‘accommodating it unto that manner and order, which the spirit of man observes in his reasonings for the succor of his own infirmity’. Article 22 says that the synod:

‘…enjoined them and all others to refrain from those terms of conditional, frustratory, or revocable decree; and that they should rather choose the word ‘will’, whereby to express that sentiment of theirs, and by which they would signify the revealed Will of God, commonly called by the divines Voluntas Signe.’

Article 23 says that, whereby they:

‘ascribed unto God, as it were, a notion of velleity, and strong affections, and vehement desires of things which he has not, nor ever will effectuate; they having declared that by those figurative ways of speaking, and anthropopathical, they designed, to speak properly, none other thing than this, that if men were obedient to the commandments and invitations of God, their faith and obedience would be most acceptable unto Him…’

Articles 24-29 clear Amyraut and Testard in matters relating to the call and invitation of God through general revelation, man’s impotency and conversion. The synod at times exhorts them to use more careful language in order to prevent the scandal of the weak. Article 30 says:

‘…Testard and Amyraud, having acquiesced in all [the synod’s exhortations], as above declared, and having sworn and subscribed to it, the Assembly gave them the right hand of fellowship by the hand of their moderator, and they were honorably dismissed to the exercise of their respective charges.’

The Third Synod of Charenton 1645

in John Quick, Synodicon, vol. 2, p. 455

Ch. 10, sections 6-7

The Synod of Loudon 1659

in John Quick, Synodicon, vol. 2, p. 545

Ch. 9, section 21, p. 545

This section speaks to the controversy and libels aroused by Amyraut’s published writings, and clears Amyraut.

Ch. 10, section 24, pp. 554-61

This section speaks of ‘sundry provinces’ complaining that Amyraut and Daille broke the exhortations and restrictions made at the synods of Alancon (1637) and Charenton (1645). The synod of Loudon heard their defense, were satisfied with it, and cleared them, and then provided extracts from those two previous synods, upholding them.

At Westminster

That the Westminster Standards Prohibit Hypothetical Universalism

Besides the passages from the Westminster Confession that Murray references below, see also Larger Catechism, #59 & 66-68.

Articles

1800’s

William Cunningham – pp. 325-31 of Historical Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1863), vol. 2

“The Confession, therefore, must be regarded as teaching, that it is not true of any but the elect only that they are redeemed by Christ, any more than it is true that any others are called, justified, or saved. Here I may remark by the way, that though many modern defenders of a universal atonement regard the word redemption as including the application as well as the impetration of pardon and reconciliation, — and, in this sense, disclaim the doctrine of universal redemption, — yet a different phraseology was commonly used in theological discussions about the period at which the Confession was prepared, and in the seventeenth century generally. Then the defenders of a universal atonement generally maintained, without any hesitation, the doctrine of universal redemption, — using the word, of course, to describe only the impetration, and not the application, of spiritual and saving blessings; and this holds true, both of those who admitted, and of those who denied, the Calvinistic doctrine of election. Of the first of these cases (the Calvinists) we have an instance in Richard Baxter’s work, which he entitled Universal Redemption of Mankind by the Lord Jesus Christ; and of the second (the Arminians) in Dr. Isaac Barrow’s sermons, entitled The Doctrine of Universal Redemption Asserted and Explained.” – p. 327

2000’s

Rehnman, Sebastian – ‘A Particular Defence of Particularism’
Journal of Reformed Theology, vol. 6, issue 1 (Jan., 2012), pp. 24-34 Ref

Abstract: “This paper defends the received account—that the Westminster Assembly maintained that all salvific actions of God are particular in intention—against a revisionist argument that it allowed that some salvific actions of God may be universal in intention.”

“…the Westminster Assembly consistently maintains particularism. I deny that the universalists at Westminster ‘were able to restrain the final codification sufficiently for there to be some significant ambiguity at crucial places’ (148). I do not deny that the issue of particularism versus universalism was debated at Westminster nor that contemporary universalists claimed their teaching compatible and remained active at the synod. But the mere presence of a plurality of views in session does not imply a plurality of views in confession. Clearly, the final formulation should interpret (the outcome of) the earlier discussion and not the earlier discussion the final formulation. Although WCF could be ambiguous or alternatively rendered on this subject (as on some other ones), it is actually precise and clear about the strictly particular divine intention.” – Rehnman

Quotes

1800’s

Robert Shaw

Exposition of the Westminster Confession, pp. 112-113, commenting on WCF 8.8, “To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same:”

“What language, then, could affirm more explicitly than that here employed, that the atonement of Christ is specific and limited — that it is neither universal nor indefinite, but restricted to the elect, who shall be saved from wrath through him.

The sacrifice of Christ derived infinite value from the dignity of his person; it must, therefore, have been intrinsically sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole human race had it been so intended; but, in the designation of the Father, and in the intention of Christ himself, it was limited to a definite number, who shall ultimately obtain salvation.”

A. A. Hodge

The Confession of Faith, p. 151, commenting on WCF 8.5, “purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him:”

“This proves, therefore — (1.) That Christ did not die simply to make the salvation of those for whom he died possible — i.e., to remove legal obstructions to their salvation — but that he died with the design and effect of actually securing their salvation and of endowing them gratuitously with an inalienable title to heaven.

(2.) It proves, in the second place, that the vicarious sufferings of Christ must have been, in design and effect, personal and definite as to their object. Salvation must be applied to all those for whom it was purchased. Since not the possibility or opportunity for reconciliation, but actual reconciliation itself was purchased: since not only reconciliation, but a title to an eternal inheritance was purchased, it follows (a.) That “to all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same.” Conf. Faith, ch. 8 § 8. And (b.) That he who never receives the inheritance, and to whom the purchased grace is never applied, is not one of the persons for whom it was purchased.”

1900’s

Benjamin B. Warfield

‘The Westminster Assembly and Its Work’ in The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, 6:142 & 143), examining the historical debate surrounding WCF 3.6, “Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only:”

“The weight of the debate was clearly on the side of the proposition proposed, and on that score alone we cannot feel surprise that it was retained in the Confession.”

“…the natural sense of the clause is clearly that no one of the transactions here brought together is to be affirmed of the non-elect. And this impression is increased by the broader context, not to speak of the parallel passages in 8.3 and 5. It might seem somewhat more to the point, possibly, to recall that in this section the language is so ordered as to seem to deal with the actual ordo salutis rather than directly with the ordo decretorum. It is asserted that the ordo salutis is the result of the decreeing of the means by which the elect are brought to glory. But what is subsequently asserted is that none but the elect are (actually) redeemed by Christ, effectually called, etc…”

John Murray

Collected Writings of John Murray (Edinburgh: Banner, 1982), vol. 4, pp. 255-256

“It has been maintained that the [Westminster] Assembly formulated at least one section so as to allow for an Amyraldian doctrine of the atonement. The Minutes of the Assembly give no support to this contention. There are three principles enunciated in the [Westminster] Confession that exclude the Amyraldian view.

The first is that redemption has been purchased for the elect. ‘The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself… purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him’ (8:5).

The second is that impetration and application are coextensive. ‘To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same’ (8:8). This excludes any form of universal atonement. The redemption purchased includes, as the preceding quotation implies, the purchase of an everlasting inheritance, and this is therefore said to be communicated to all for whom redemption was purchased. If all were included then all would be the partakers of the everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, a position clearly denied in the Confession elsewhere.

The third principle is the exclusiveness of redemption. ‘Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only’ (3:4). In the preceding sentence the elect are said to have been ‘redeemed by Christ’; now it is said that they alone are redeemed.

Other lines of argument could be elicited from the Confession to show that it allowed for no form of universal atonement, not even the hypothetical universalism propounded on the floor of the Assembly. But the foregoing principles are sufficient to show that the particularism in terms of which the whole doctrine of salvation is constructed is not sacrificed at the point of the atonement.”

2000’s

Robert Letham

The Westminster Assembly, p. 182

“Warfield is correct in claiming that the clause was intended to exclude hypothetical universalism by ensuring that each element in the ordo salutis (order of salvation) was recognized as intended only for the elect, and was not merely a description of the fact that only the elect receive the benefits.”

That the Westminster Standards Allow Hypothetical Universalism

Articles

1600’s

On William Twisse’s H.U., see above under Dort.

Baxter, Richard – ‘The Westminster Confession was not Written to Preclude Universal Redemption: By Way of Personal Testimony’ from Certain Disputations of Right to Sacraments and the true nature of Visible Christianity (London: 1657), Preface, vi-xvi; pages numbered manually

1800’s

Mitchell, Alexander & J.P. Struthers – ‘On Hypothetical Universalism and the Westminster Confession’ from Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster Assembly of Divines (London: William Blackwood & Sons, 1874), liii-lxi

2000’s

Moore, Jonathan – ‘On Hypothetical Universalism and the Westminster Confession of Faith’ from ‘The Extent of the Atonement: English Hypothetical Universalism versus Particular Redemption’ in Drawn into Controversie, ed. Michael A.G. Haykin & Mark Jones (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), pp. 148-152, 154-155

Van Dixhoorn, Chad – pp. 106-107 of ‘Unity and Disunity at the Westminster Assembly (1643—1649): A Commemorative Essay’ The Journal of Presbyterian History (1997-), vol. 79, No. 2 (Summer 2001), pp. 103-117

Gatis, Lee

”Shades of Opinion within a Generic Calvinism’. The Particular
Redemption Debate at the Westminster Assembly’ Reformed Theological Review, vol. 69, no. 2 (Aug. 2010), pp. 101-119

‘A Deceptive Clarity? Particular Redemption in the Westminster Standards’ Reformed Theological Review, vol. 69, no. 3 (Dec. 2010), pp. 180-196 This article follows the one above in the link above.

Fesko, J.V. – ‘On Hypothetical Universalism and the Westminster Confession and Synod of Dort’ being pp. 189-203 of The Theology of the Westminster Standards (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014)

Crisp, Oliver – ‘On Hypothetical Universalism and the Westminster Confession’ from Deviant Calvinism: Broadening Reformed Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014), pp. 181-183

Lynch, Michael – ‘Confessional Orthodoxy & Hypothetical Universalism: Another Look at the Westminster Confession of Faith’ in Beyond Calvin: Essays on the Diversity of the Reformed Tradition, eds. Bradford Littlejohn & Jonathan Tomes (2017, The Davenant Trust), ch. 5

Lynch Compares John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism with the Westminster Confession of Faith, and finds it consistent therewith. He also analyzes William Cunningham.

Hypothetical Universalist, Documentary Websites

Calvin & Calvinism

This site is run by David Ponter, a librarian at RTS, and initially served as preparatory work to a dissertation. He is very scholarly in his presentation and documentation. Many of the excerpted divines on his site held to limited atonement. Many of the sources he documents are not found anywhere else on the net, and would be hard to get a hold of otherwise.

Theological Meditations

This site is run by Tony Byrne, who is very careful in sourcing his excerpts, many of which are not found elsewhere on the net. A major value of these two sites (whether one agrees with their leading themes or not) is their documentation, and getting a fuller historical picture of the theological climate in the Post-Reformation era.

Contra Amyrauldianism & H.U.: Articles & Books

For the most part only works treating of H.U. specifically are included below. See our Limited Atonement page for further works against a general atonement.

English

1600’s

Perkins, William – ch. 54, ‘Concerning a new divised doctrine of predestination [hypothetical universalism], taught by some new and late [especially German] divines’ in A Golden Chain, or the Description of Theology… (John Legat, 1600), pp. 167-75

The Leiden professors, in agreeing with Andre Rivet, imply that Amyraut’s writings were not allowable within the scope of the Canons of Dort:

The Swiss Reformed Churches – Canons 6, 13-17, 19 of The Formula Consensus Helvetica [The Swiss Form of Consensus] 1675 trans. Martin I. Klauber, Trinity Journal 11 (1990): pp. 103-23 In Latin

See Wikipedia for background.

Brown, John – ‘Arguments Against Universal Redemption’ appended to The Life of Justification Opened… ([no place] 1695), p. 526-563

Turretin, Francis – Institutes of Elenctic Theology

vol. 1

4th Topic, ‘The Decrees of God…’, 17th Question, ‘Can there be attributed to God any conditional will, or universal purpose of pitying the whole human race fallen in sin, of destinating Christ as Mediator to each and all, and of calling them all to a saving participation of his benefits? We deny.’, pp. 395-417

vol. 2

12th Topic, ‘The Covenant of Grace…’, 6th Question, ‘The Extent of the Covenant of Grace: Was the covenant of grace ever universal, either as to presentation or acceptance? We deny.’, pp. 205-216

14th Topic, ‘The Mediatorial Office of Christ’, 14th Question, ‘The Object of the Satisfaction. Did Christ die for each and every man universally or only for the elect? The former we deny; the latter we affirm.’, pp. 455-482.

See especially sections 6-8, pp. 457-8 for Turretin’s sketch defining Amyrauldianism. The whole section interacts with Amyrauldianism and not just Arminianism.

1800’s

MacGregor, James – ‘Amyraldism’ (1868) in The Master’s Trumpet, Issue 3 (2006), pp. 17-36 being The Question of Principle Now Raised in the Free Church Specially Regarding the Atonement (Edinburgh 1870)

MacGregor was a minister and professor of systematic theology in the Free Church of Scotland.

“James MacGregor (1830-1894), resting on the foundations laid by his mentor William Cunningham, presses the inadequacy of Amyraldianism both as theology and as a method of gospel presentation. In the course of doing this, he unravels the subtleties involved in Amyraldianism, gives a sharp definition of the position, comments on its reemergence in Scotland, and defends the orthodoxy of the earlier Secession tradition in its attachment to the Marrow theology.

He notes that Amyraldianism loses its appeal when it is seen that the difficulties it seeks to resolve have been successfully addressed by various commonplaces of old school Calvinism, such as God’s sincere invitation to all men to believe and be saved. MacGregor holds forth the same doctrine as M’Cheyne, though with different terminology, speaking of a divine complacency in the sense of a delight in man’s holiness and happiness so that God sincerely mourns over the misery of the unbelieving impenitent as lost. MacGregor speaks of this complacency (using the word in the sense found in Turretin, Institutes, III.15.8 & 11) as inherent in God’s nature, and presenting to all unconverted men alike the same motive and encouragement to faith.

In 1868, MacGregor succeeded James Buchanan in the chair of systematic theology at New College, Edinburgh, and soon took up his pen in opposition to a theologically uncircumspect Union movement.” – From the Editors

2000’s

Hamilton, Ian – Amyraldianism—Is it Modified Calvinism? (Great Britain: EPCEW, 2003)

“Hypothetical universalism reduces the propitiation of the Son of God to a potentiality. The cross actually achieves nothing, it only makes sinners potentially salvable. Definite atonement, or better simply ‘atonement,’ truly glories in the ‘finished work’ of Christ.” – p. 20

Hamilton was responded to by Alan C. Clifford above.

Stewart, Angus – ‘Amyraldianism & the Formula Consensus Helvetica (1675)’

Stewart is a Protestant Reformed minister in Northern Ireland. This is a lengthy and substantial article with many quotes and some historical material, which is aggressively anti-Amyrauldian.

McGeown, Martyn J. – ‘A Critical Examination of the Amyraldian View of the Atonement’

McGeown writes in the context of the Protestant Reformed Church.

Clark, R. Scott – ‘Resources On Amyraut, Amyraldianism & Hypothetical Universalism’

Clark provides excerpts (apparently) against H.U. & Amyrauldianism from: the Canons of Dort, the Helvetic Consensus, Heidegger, Owen, Turretin, A Brakel, A.A. Hodge, Bavinck, Warfield & R. Nicole. He also provides a bibliography on the topic with 30 sources.

Latin

1600’s

Trigland, Jacob – Meditations on Various Opinions on the Will of God & Universal Grace, where yet is Something on Middle-Knowledge (Leiden, 1642) ToC

Trigland was one of the professors of theology at Leiden and an author of the Synopsis of Pure Theology.

Table of Contents

Of the Will of God, & of its Object & Distinctions 1

Whether Evil as Evil is able to be the Object of the Divine Will 17

Whether the Evil of Guilt, as such, is able to be the Object of the Divine Will Decreeing 20

Whether the Evil of Misery is able to be the Object of the Divine Will 65

Whether God is able to Afflict Innocent Creatures or Torture them for Pleasure 69

Whether God does Not will Misery? 85

A Conciliation of the Conflicting Places of Holy Scripture out of the Fundamentals Posited, with respect in specific to these Acts of the Divine Will 88

Whether God is able to Forgive Sins Completely Unpunished? [No] 123

Of the Will of Sign & of the Will of Good-Pleasure 158

Of an Absolute Will & Conditional Will 165

Of an Antecedent Will & Consequent Will 174

Of Universal Grace which Flows from an Antecedent Will 216

Of Universal Redemption 237

The First Argument for Universal Redemption Cut in Pieces 255

The Second Principle Argument is Examined 281

The Third Principle Argument is Subjected to Examination 292

The Fourth Principle Argument is Examined 308

The Fifth Principle Argument is Cut in Pieces 320

An Additional Four of Others’ Arguments are Ventilated 332

Some other Arguments are Briefly Pressed 337

The True Judgment on Redemption is Asserted & Explicated 345

Of Universal, so they say, Calling 358

Of Sufficient Grace & Efficacious Grace 384

Whether the Human Will is Determined by God? where yet is of Congruent Calling 400

An Interpolated Examination of a Certain Judgment on Universal Grace, as also of those things of Fundamental Import Supporting it, which it Leans on 421

Of Middle Knowledge, & what is to be Judged Concerning it 440

The Reasons for Middle Knowledge are Examined 468

Spanheim, Frederic

Exercitations on Universal Grace…, vol. 1, 2, 3 (Leiden, 1646) ToC

Spanheim (1600-1649). Amyraut responded to this work (above) with his A Specimen of Animadversions. Jean Daille also responded to this work of Spanheim (above).

Table of Contents

vol. 1

Dedicatory Epistle 2
Preface to the Reader 5
Judgment of the Theological Faculty in the Leiden Academy on the Doctrine of Universal Grace… with a judgment of the same faculty on this refutation
Polyander to River 1
Rivet to Spanheim 3
Testimony of the Westminster Assembly ‘against this expostulation’ of Amyrauld 1645
Elegy of Caspar Barlaeus
Elegy of Franciscus Plante

Dissertation on the Occasion of the Exercitations on Universal Grace 1

A Theological Disputation on Universal Grace held in Leiden 1

1. Of the Causes & Manner of the Defense Set Forth 21

2. Other Orthodox Writers on the Difference of the Judgment of that most Learned Man [Amyraut] from the Errors of others between some old and recent sectaries. So and of the way and sense by which theologians have been called with respect to him ὁμόψηφοι [persons having an equal right to vote] by the author of the disputation 46

3. On the establishment of the State of the Question. Whether in the disputation on universal grace that has been well proposed 60

4. Of the judgment of the learned man, and of those things which with him are constructed of theologians 71

5. Of the way of proceeding in use in the disputation; and whether the particular purpose to have mercy everts the universal 108

6. Of the first promise, Gen. 3:15, and of its sense and also latitude 177

7. Of the complement of the first promise and its establishment, even also loss in the posterity of Adam 267

8. On the laying open of the first promise to the family of Noah 322

9. Of the dispensation of grace and of the first promise around the family of Abraham and outside it 339

10. Whether a universal will to have mercy is able to be concilliated with the wisdom of God or his goodness 384

11. Of the sufficiency of the means given by God unto salvation 430

12. On the distinction between natural and moral impotency 493

13. Of the defects of man and of their remedies 518

14. Of the rule of the collated precepts of God with each judgment 557

15. Of the rule of the mercy of God in respect of the gentiles, whether infants or adults 617

16. Whether universal mercy everts the decree of election and reprobation, and so of the order of the decrees of God 674

17. Of the will to redeem all and every single person, out of Jn. 3:16 & 10:26-29 718

18. Of the promise and mission of the Redeemer, whether both were particular 775

19. On the particularity of redemption from Christ being given forth 794

Vol. 2

20. On the revelation of redemption 849

21. On the impetration [accomplishment] and application of redemption 862

22. On the impetration of redemption under under the condition of not being available [praestabili, or perfect], and in what way Christ made satisfaction for infidelity 941

23. Of the necessary conditions or means to salvation 969

24. On the distinction of various ways by which Christ accomplished it, is assessed. The learned man: the ways He impetrated 992

25. Whether something may be said to have been impetrated by Christ by the way of the final cause 1021

26. Of the third kind of things of things impetrated 1093

27. Of the confusing and distinguishing of the laying open of the will of God to redeem all and every particular person 1110

28. How the sins of those having died in unbelief were expiated, and how the satisfaction has been revealed to them; further, how He satisfied for unbelief 1128

29. On the principle of the redemption of the saved and the damned 1151

30. Whether a universal calling is destroyed by the places: Ps. 19-20 & Mt. 11:25 1198

31. A vindication of Mt. 22:14 etc. 1214

32. Of the true sense of the words, Acts 14:16-17 ff. in which God did not leave himself without a witness 1225

33. Of the true sense ‘of the knowledge of God’ in Rom. 1:14 1299

34. Of the sense and application of the places, Mt. 10:15 & Acts 14:7 1382

35. Of the universal calling, whether that truly may be particularly proved out of Rom. 10:11-14 ff. 1401

36. Of the calling of infants in their majority 1437

37. Of the sufficiency of a universal calling 1345

38. The conclusion of the defense of the Author 1471

Additions
& Vindications of Them

1. The assertors of a particular and efficacious grace more greatly commend the goodness of God than those of a universal and inefficacious grace 1501

2. The dogma of universal grace conflicts with the economies and experiences of all times 1509

3. Solidity is given to consciences being calmed and built up to comfort without the position of universal grace 1513

4. His fairness remains unchanged in reprehensions of infidelity and the judgments of God against infidels even without universal grace 1538

5. It is false that all are commanded to believe that Christ died for them, and nothing is weaker than this Achille of the adversaries 1556

6. The dogma of universal grace is not only adverse to Scripture, but also to the canons of the Synod of Dort 1587

7. The covenant of a gracious salvation was not in Adam with all and every single man in the beginning, nor was it confirmed with Noah with all and every single person, nor was it sanctified in the death of Christ with all and every single person 1679

8. A universal mercy, redemption & calling, without a universal indifference of will unto each opposite, is to no purpose erected 1703

Vol. 3

50 Theses for Universal Grace [of Amyraut] Weighed & Shattered, & 100 Antitheses Opposite Universal Grace Defended

Intro 1717
1st thesis of Amyraut, then a summary of Spanheim’s response, and then the response or defense itself 1719
2 1731
3 1738
4 1748
5 1764
6 1789
7 1800
8 1820
9 1829
10 1840
11 1847
12 1855
13 1868
14 1877
15 1885
16 1898
17 1907
18 1927
19 1949
20 1965
21 1976
22 1987
23 1992
24 1998
25 2003
26 2010
27 2017
28 2035
29 2056
30 2088
31 2103
32 2115
33 2131
34 2136
35 2145
36 2151
37 2158
38 2167
39 2177
40 2189
41 2212
42 2223
43 2240
44 2248
45 2279
46 2288
47 2294
48 2304
49 2322
50 2329

Miscellaneous Antitheses of Spanheim

Intro 2345
1-9 2345
10-19 2350
20-29 2357
30-39 2362
40-49 2370
50-59 2378
60-69 2389
70-79 2399
80-89 2408
90-100 2420

ToC
Index of Scripures
Errata

Two Parts, Posthumous, of Vindications for his Exercitations on Universal Grace Against the Specimen of Animadversions of Moses Amyrauld [1648], with a Preface by Andrew Rivet… (Amsterdam, 1649)

The work of Amyraut, which this work responds to, is above. Spanheim died in 1649.

Miscellaneous Theological Disputations, vol. 1 (Geneva, 1652)

32. ‘Of Predestination, the Extent & Efficacy of the Death of Christ, of the Cause of our Conversion to God and its mode, and of the Perseverance of the Saints’, pp. 208-229

33. ‘Of Universal Grace’, pp. 230-7

Rivet, Andrew & William – Apologetic Epistles to the Accusations & Calumnies of Moses Amyraut, in the Virulent Preface to the Reverend Pastors of the Reformed Churches of France Prefixed to the [his] Animadversions on Universal Grace (Breda, 1648)

“In the preface to this treatise addressed to the ministers in France, Amyraut vented some of his hostilities toward his opponents, especially [Andrew] Rivet. Already an old man at the time, Rivet was not amused and, in July 1648, he in turn reached for his pen and wrote an open letter to his brother, Guillaume Rivet, titled Epistola Apologetica [1648], in which he defended himself against Amyraut’s accusations [Riveti Opera Theologica, 3:878-893].” – van Asselt in Theology of the French Reformed Churches (RHB, 2014), p. 270

Rivet, Andrew – A Synopsis of the Doctrine of Nature & Grace, excerpted out of the Tract on Predestination [1634] and Six Edited French Sermons of Moses Amyrauld, Professor of Sacred Theology at Salmur, and the published, Latin, Eirenikon [A Peace Token] of Paul Testard, Pastor of Blois, with… (Amsterdam, 1649)

Testard’s Eirenikon is above.

“Together with his brother-in-law, Pierre du Moulin, professor of theology at Sedan, and Spanheim, first professor at Geneva and thereafter at Leiden, he [Rivet] sharpened his theological knife in order to combat Amyraut. For this purpose, he also used an abstract of Amyraut’s ideas, which he had composed in 1635 at The Hague. It contained fifty theses and was followed by his comments on them, divided into ten chapters, and then a conclusion (Synopsis doctrinae de natura et gratia, excerpta ex Mosis Amyraldis… in Riveti Opera Theologica, 3:830-851).” – van Asselt in Theology of the French Reformed Churches, p. 270

Maresius, Samuel – A Theological Judgment on the Questions of Grace & Universal Redemption, Partly Refutative, containing 10 Exercitations, Against the Apology of John Daille, published in Belgium, contra the Common & Constant Judgment of the Reformed Churches & Schools of the Belgic Federation, and All Others, to which is Appended Brief Strictures to the Recent Vindications of the Same Daille, which are Most Wordy & Contumacious… (Groningen, 1658) 913 pp. ToC

Daille’s Apology is above.

Table of Contents

Dedication
Prolegomena
Epistle of Blondel to Maresius
Response of Maresius

Exercitation 1. The First Part of the Apology [of John Daille], in which is viewed: Jn. 3:16 is weighed, then 1 Tim. 2:3, in which kinds of individuals ought to be understood; The Objections of the Apology to the contrary are satisfied; 2 Pet. 3:9 is weighed, to the effect that Calvin in no way favors universalism; also Eze. 33:11, in which the common explanation is vindicated; refutations to the contrary are opposed 1

Exercitation 2. Places customarily used to support universal redemption are weighed: 1 Tim. 2:6, the distinction between the sufficiency and efficacy of the death of Christ; Rom. 5:18; Heb. 2:9, ‘every man’, what it is; Jn. 1:9 & 1 Jn. 2:2, in which the true sense is propounded and vindicated: other testimonies on the term ‘world’ 58

Exercitation 3. Proceeds to other places for universal redemption, the judgment of the Arminians on this head; the disparity of the affection of Christ towards the elect and reprobates to die for both (2 Cor. 5:14-15; Rom. 14:8-9; Mt. 18:11; Mk. 11:17; Lk. 5; 1 Tim. 1:15; Lk. 9:56, and many others are viewed) to placate the Father through the blood of Christ; Tit. 2:11, the testimony of Gomarus is elucidated and vindicated. What of this dogma the reformed churches and schools of Belgium judge. The judgment of Twisse on Molina. The judgment of the Rev. Apologist, by which he differs from Remonstrantism, and by which inconvenient things he draws away from them. The Janists, on the view of the Apology and some on Blondel 102

Exercitation 4. The Second Part of the Apology, in which is viewed: Whether God wills all them to be saved to whom his Word is externally announced: the first reason for the affirmative is weighed and refuted: on the end and means: the command made to Abraham; the precept of the Law ought to save; it ought to work repentance and belief. That command to Pharaoh, also God having willed the slaying of his Son, or his will to save the reprobate hearers of the Gospel: various places of Scripture having been brought on that, and similar ones customarily brought by Remonstrants and Jesuits are weighed; and the genuine sense of them is profusely expounded 147

Exercitation 5 proceeds in an examination of the first argument; Prov. 1:5 & Lk. 7:30 are weighed; the twofold counsel of God is taken up; in what way that is resisted, out of Acts 7:51; on that most vexed place, Mt. 23:37 which is discussed by many; the reasons by which the Apologist seeks to prove that God always intends that to be that which He commands to men, are clearly refuted; the whole conclusion of the first argument 217

Exercitation 6. The refutation of the Second Argument of the Apologist from the divine promisses; it concides with the first; the third from divine calling; the fourth from the parable of the marriage feast; the fifth from the invitation to the perishing unto repentance and faith; places specially brought to that effect are disected, namely Isa. 55:1-3; Jn. 7:37; Prov. 9:4-6; Mt. 11:18-19; on the Galatians out of Gal. 3:1; the place Jn. 6:32, Christ is really offered to the unbelieving, and whether that of the minister is to be distinguished from God; the sixth argument from that which is incumbent upon ministers from the command of God; the means unto salvation, of what kind and how far they are admitted with respect to reprobates; the end of pastors in preaching the gospel; whether reprobates are called through that which is falling out [accidens] 253

Exercitation 7. The remaining arguments of the revered man are dissected; the seventh from the foolishness of the unruly; it is falsely supposed that they are minimally called; the penitence of demons and the damned; what and in what way it is offered to reprobates. Eighth, on times assigned to sinners. Ninth, in what way we may hold to the first thing of the Gospel, whether the hearing or the preaching; Tenth, ‘Do this and you will live’. The Principles in which we come together. So to proceed onto the Arminian disputation, the judgment of Cameron 323

Exercitation 8. The second member of the second part of the Apology, on the universality of the death of Christ. What of Cameron on that? The first argument of the apology is disected out of Rom. 14:15 & 1 Cor. 8:10-11. The second taken out of 1 Pet. 2:1, and so proceeding to sieze it from the Remonstrants, and sufficiently refute them from [Daniel] Chamier. Gomarus and Calvin on this place. Third, out of Heb. 10:29. A sacramental sanctification is there denoted, so it is proved by multitudes. The fourth and fifth grasp at a false supposition [sophisma] of the Remonstrants, that whatever one holds to believe, that is true. The absurd supposition of the Apologist, whether he implicates a contradiction? This sophism is accurately refuted 361

Exercitation 9. The sixth argument from absurdities and the play-acted Catechism, which, through the Jesuit and Remonstrant slander, is attributed to our reformed Apologist. Repentance, whether it is prior to faith? The seventh dissected, and it is showed in what way unbelief is the cause of damnation. The eighth and ninth are of the same sort with the seventh. The tenth is far more absurd, from the salvation of believers. The eleventh, of the same scaly stuff. The twelvth, out of which the Apologist wills for no one to believe that Jesus is the Christ, except that he would believe that He died for him. The thirteenth and fourteenth contain a seventh Cocceianism 430

Exercitation 10. Of the salvation of adults which are destitute of the Word, and of Christ’s death for them. The doctrine of the Apologist fights in many ways with the Synod of Alencon: many places of Scripture are examined, having been brought forth by it, out of Acts 17:26-27; 14:16-17; Rom. 2:4; 1:18-21. The same reason from the examples. Whether to that end the knowledge of God is from Himself manifested to pagans, so that through it they may repent and be saved? It is proved that God has intended their inexcusability, and this from the distinct end of the thing, from the end of God, as the event of it shows from this having been intended. Christ did not die for the ethnics without the Word. God does not will their premature infants, having been snatched away in death, to have been saved, nor did Christ redeem them 493

Brief Strictures upon the Most Verbose Vindications of John Daille, recently opposing the first three of the preceeding exercitations, for the defense of their errors on Universal Grace & Redemption 568

ToC of the Exercitations 908
Omissions that ought to be Adjoined 914
Errata 915

Grebenitz, Elias – A Theological Tract on the Denial of Universal, Divine Grace (Frankfurt, 1665) 87 pp.

Grebenitz (1627-1689) was a reformed professor of logic, metaphysics and theology at Frankfurt, Germany.

Burman, Francis – 17. ‘Of the Subject of the Covenant of Grace. Where is Treated of its Latitude & of Universal Grace’, pp. 499-506 in A Synopsis of Theology, and especially of the Economy of the Covenant of God, from the beginning of ages to the consummation of all things, vol. 1 (Utrecht, 1671)

Burman (1628-79)

1700’s

Vitringa, Sr., Campegius – Ch. 19, ‘Of the Covenant of Grace, which has an Eternal Superstructure & Various Dispensations of it’, ‘Of the Extent of the Covenant of Grace’, pp. 247-249 in The Doctrine of the Christian Religion, Summarily Described through Aphorisms, vol. 4 (d. 1722)

Vitringa, Sr. (1659-1722) was a professor in Franeker and a Hebraist. “…Vitringa… maintained a fairly centrist Reformed position… Vitringa and De Moor serve as codifiers and bibliographers of the earlier tradition, the former from a federalist, the latter from a nonfederalist perspective.”

Hottinger, Johann Jacob – A Theological Disquisition on Evangelical Consolation in Trials: Wherein is Drawn out Whether Grace is More Complete & Unimpaired being Universal or Particular? (Esslingae, 1723)

Hottinger (1652-1735) was a professor of theology at Zurich and was the son of Johann Heinrich Hottinger (d. 1667).

van den Honert, Jan – Dissertations on the Grace of God, not Universal, but Particular, & even on the Essence & Existence of God (Leiden, 1725) 671 pp. Subject Index

Honert (1693-1758) was a professor of theology at Utrecht and Leiden.

French

Du Moulin, Pierre – A Clarification on the Controversies of Salmur, or a Defense of the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches on the Immutability of the Decrees of God, the Efficacy of the Death of Christ, the Universal Grace, the inability to Convert Oneself & on other matters (Leiden, 1648) ToC with a preface by Frederic Spanheim and a letter to the same by Andrew Rivet.

Quotes Against Amyrauldianism & H.U.

Most of the quotes below were gratefully gleaned from Angus Stewart, ‘Amyraldianism and the Formula Consensus Helvetica (1675)’.

1600’s

Melchior Leydecker

De Veritate Religionis Reformatae et Evangelicalae (1688), lib. ii., cap. 6, sect. 82; quoted in George Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Great Britain: Banner, rep. 1958), pp. 363-364

“The learned Amyraldus did not service to the cause of the Reformation by his distinction between A PHYSICAL AND MORAL POWER OF BELIEVING IN CHRIST. He supposed the sinner to have the former, but not the latter.

He held that Christ died for all men according to a decree of God, by which salvation was secured to sinners on condition of faith; which general decree, according to him, was to be considered as going before the particular decree about giving faith to the elect. When it was mentioned to him that his notion of the general decree now mentioned was absurd, as it suspended the end of Christ’s death on an impossible condition, he denied that the condition was impossible. ‘For,’ said he,

‘though I do not, with the Arminians, deny the impotence of fallen man, or his inability to believe (I allow him to be morally impotent), yet I hold that man has still a physical or natural power of believing, as he possesses the natural faculties of the understanding and the will.’

Herein Amyraldus has given a sad example of the abuse of great parts. Shall we suppose that when Christ undertook for sinners in the covenant of grace, He considered them any otherwise than as most miserable, lost, dead in sin, utterly impotent (Rom. 5:7; 8:3); or that the wisdom of God gave Christ to die for this end, that sinners might attain salvation by a natural power of believing—a power which Amyraldus confesses could never be exerted?

Further, is not faith a most holy and moral act, and, as it takes place in the sinner, [a] purely supernatural act? And shall we allow that a principle which is not moral, but merely physical, can be productive of such a moral and supernatural act? Ought not an act and its principle to correspond with one another? Let the same thing be said of love which Amyraldus has said of faith, and the Pelagians will triumph who used to speak so much about a natural faculty of loving God above all things.

Indeed, upon this scheme there will be no keeping out of the Pelagian opinion about the powers of pure nature, and about physical or natural faculties in man of doing what is morally good. For, in confuting that opinion, our divines still maintained that the image of God was requisite in the first man, in order to his exerting such morally good acts as those of loving and seeking true blessedness in the enjoyment of Him.

But Amyraldus overthrows this doctrine, while he is led, by the distinction he makes between natural and moral power, to hold that the conception of man’s rational nature necessarily includes in it a power of exerting acts morally good, such as those of desiring and endeavouring to obtain the restoration of communion with the infinitely holy and blessed God.

The tendency of this scheme became more manifest when Pajonius—a disciple of Amyraldus—began to deny the necessity of the Spirit’s work in the internal illumination of sinners, in order to their saving conversion. For, said Pajonius, nothing more is necessary to that end than that the understanding which has in itself a sufficiency of clear ideas (according to the language of the Cartesian philosophy then in vogue) should only be struck by the light of external revelation, as the eye is struck by the rays of light coming form a luminous object”

John Owen

Works (Great Britain: Banner, rep. 1967),

vol. 10, p. 235; the italics are Owen’s.

“Christ did not die for any upon condition, if they do believe; but he died for all God’s elect, that they should believe, and believing have eternal life…”

vol. 12, pp. 48-49

“Amyraldus (whom I look upon as one of the greatest wits of these days) will at present go a middle way between the [Reformed] churches of France and the Arminians. What hath been the issue? Among the churches, divisions, tumult, disorder; among the professors and ministers, revilings, evil surmisings; to the whole body of the people, scandals and offences; and in respect of himself, evidence of daily approaching nearer to the Arminian party, until, as one of them saith of him, he is not far from their kingdom of heaven.”

1700’s

Wilhelmus a Brakel

The Christian’s Reasonable Service, trans. Bartel Elshout (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, rep. 1992), vol. 1

pp. 222-223

“Amyraut, and all who follow him, maintain to have found a middle position whereby the offense of the true doctrine can be removed…”

pp. 598-599

“…we must do battle against Roman Catholics, Arminians, and Amyraldians…”

1800’s

George Smeaton

The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, p. 361, 363

“By those who were competent to take the measure of Amyraldianism—such as Rivetus, Maresius, and Spanheim—it was regarded as a subtle form of Arminianism.”

“Spanheim, [Pierre] Jurieu, [Jacques] Saurin, and others regarded [Amyraldianism] as an Arminian leaven [Gal. 5:9] which had destroyed the French Protestant Church.”

The Apostles’ Doctrine of the Atonement (Great Britain: Banner, repr. 1991), p. 540-541

“[Amyraldianism is] a revolt from the position maintained at the Synod of Dordt, under the guise of an explanation…

When we examine the [Amyraldian] theory minutely, it will not hang together. Its advocates speak of a Universal Decree, in which God was supposed to have given Christ as a Mediator for the whole human race; and of a Special Decree, in which God, foreseeing that no one would believe in his unaided strength, was supposed to have elected some to receive the gift of faith. Unquestionably it differs form the Arminian positions in this respect, that the faith was not referred to man’s free will, but was supposed to be derived form God’s free grace.

The theory acknowledged the sovereign election of God, according to His good pleasure. But it laboured under the defect of supposing a double and a conflicting decree; that is, a general decree, in which he was said to will the salvation of all, and a special decree, in which He was said to will the salvation of the elect. To Christ also it ascribed a twofold and discordant aim, viz. to satisfy for all men, and to satisfy merely for the elect. As a reconciling system, and an incoherent one, it aimed to harmonize the passages of Scripture, which at one time seem to extend Christ’s merits to the world, and at another to limit them to the church; not to mention that God is supposed to be disappointed in His purpose”

Charles Hodge

Systematic Theology, vol. 2, p. 322

“[Amyraldianism] was designed to take a middle ground between Augustinianism and Arminianism.”

A. A. Hodge

The Atonement (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,1953), pp. 374-375

“Their own system was generally styled Universalismus Hypotheticus, an hypothetic or conditional universalism. They taught that there were two wills or purposes in God in respect to man’s salvation. The one will is a purpose to provide, at the cost of the sacrifice of his own Son, salvation for each and every human being without exception if they believe—a condition foreknown to be universally and certainly impossible. The other will is an absolute purpose, depending only upon his own sovereign good pleasure, to secure the certain salvation of a definite number…

This view represents God as loving the non-elect sufficiently to give them his Son to die for them, but not loving them enough to give them faith and repentance… It represents God as willing at the same time that all men be saved and that only the elect be saved. It denies, in opposition to the Arminian, that any of God’s decrees are conditioned upon the self-determined will of the creature, and yet puts into the mouths of confessed Calvinists the very catch-words of the Arminian system, such as universal grace, the conditional will of God, universal redemption, etc. The language of Amyraldus, the ‘Marrow Men,’ Baxter, Wardlaw, Richards, and Brown is now used to cover much more serious departures from the truth.

All really consistent Calvinists ought to have learned by now that the original position of the great writers and confessions of the Reformed Churches have only been confused, and neither improved, strengthened nor illustrated, by all the talk with which the Church has… been distracted as to the ‘double will’ of God, or the ‘double reference’ of the Atonement. If men will be consistent in their adherence to these ‘Novelties,’ they must become Arminians. If they would hold consistently to the essential principles of Calvinism, they must discard the ‘Novelties’.”

R. L. Dabney

Systematic Theology (Great Britain: Banner, rep. 1985), pp. 235-236

“If the idea of a real succession in time between the parts of the divine decree be relinquished, as it must be; then this scheme is perfectly illusory, in representing God as decreeing to send Christ to provide a redemption to be offered to all, on condition of faith, and this out of His general compassion. For if He foresees the certain rejection of all at the time, and at the same time purposes sovereignly to withhold the grace which would work faith in the soul, from some, this scheme of election really makes Christ to be related, in God’s purpose, to the non-elect, no more closely nor beneficially than the stricter Calvinistic scheme.

But second and chiefly, it represents Christ as not purchasing for His people the grace of effectual calling, by which they are persuaded and enabled to embrace redemption. But God’s purpose to confer this is represented as disconnected with Christ and His purchase, and subsequent, in order, to His work, and the foresight of its rejection by sinners. Whereas Scripture represents that this gift, along with all other graces of redemption, is given us in Christ, having been purchased for His people by Him (Eph. 1:3; Phil. 1:29; Heb. 12:2)”

1900’s

John Macleod

Scottish Theology, pp. 61-62

“John Cameron [the teacher of Amyraut] set the tendency in motion which in different lands has tried to mediate between the consistent scheme of the Reformed Faith and the Arminianism which was set aside by the findings of the Synod of Dordt… The issues of his mongrel compromising teaching were far reaching. The church of his adoption felt the effects of his teaching to such an extent as that the Theology of the later Huguenots was to a large extent revolutionised.

Their influence in turn told on Richard Baxter and on all the varieties of teaching that can be traced back to his type of doctrine. It affected the thinking of New England; and as a return tide on its way back over the Atlantic it determined the teaching of the English Edwardians, both Independent and Baptist. The force of the current that was thus changing the older Calvinism beat at last on the Reformed teaching of Scotland in circles other than those of the Neonomians.

It found more channels than one in which to flow. New England Revivalism did its share of the work; and the influence of modern Calvinism in English Nonconformity also contributed its quota. Along with the disintegrating work of the New Light movement, which was of home [i.e., Scottish] growth and which spoke of an uneasy spirit of dissatisfaction with long accepted truth and of a restlessness that was in quest of something new, the various streams of influence that derived remotely from Cameron are responsible for the collapse of the Confessional orthodoxy which had for ages found a home in his native country.”

B. B. Warfield

The Plan of Salvation (USA: Simpson Publishing Company, rep. 1989), pp. 96-97

“[Amyrauldianism] is not… an acceptable form of Calvinism, or even a tenable form of Calvinism. For one thing, it is a logically inconsistent form of Calvinism and therefore an unstable form of Calvinism…

…it is impossible to contend that God intends the gift of his Son for all men alike and equally and at the same time intends that it shall not actually save all but only a select body which He Himself provides for it. The schematization of the order of decrees presented by the Amyraldians, in a word, necessarily implies a chronological relation of precedence and subsequence among the decrees, the assumption of which abolishes God, and this can be escaped only by altering the nature of the atonement. And therefore the nature of the atonement is altered by them, and Christianity is wounded at its very heart… A conditional substitution being an absurdity, because the condition is no condition to God, if you grant him even so much as the poor attribute of foreknowledge, they necessarily turn away from a substitutive atonement altogether…”

Richard A. Muller

Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation

“…the equation of application with efficacy was not so much the problem as the identification of sufficiency with impetration or accomplishment. That Christ’s death was sufficient for all did not imply that it had actually and intentionally accomplished salvation for all. In none of these theologies, Du Moulin notes, does this universal, general redemption involve the bestowing of faith on any individual—and yet there is no salvation apart from faith.[137] This general decree, which does not involve the gift of faith, also can be framed, Du Moulin indicates, quite absurdly, to mean that Christ has died for the reprobate according to divine “intention” but not according to “outcome [evenement].”[138]

In a line of argument that cuts against Davenant’s version of hypothetical universalism as well as Amyraut’s, Du Moulin concludes that it is also quite unconvincing to argue that God might have a truly universal “intention” to save all human beings but also not will to save all: if God wills to save only some, it must clearly be the divine intention only to save some.”

Jonathan Rainbow

The Will of God and the Cross (Allison Park, PA: Pickwick Publications, 1990), p. 62

“In fact it seems much more accurate to say that Amyraut was the real Reformed “scholastic,” and “Reformed Thomas Aquinas,” the balancer, the synthesizer, the creator of new categories, and structures. And Reformed orthodoxy, with its insistence on limited redemption, was actually a primitive throwback to the rigorous and markedly non-rationalistic particularism of Augustine and Gottschalk. Under whatever label, John Calvin, as a limited redemptionist, belongs historically with Augustine, Gottschalk, Bucer, Beza and Reformed orthodoxy–not with Amyraut.”

Robert L. Reymond

A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1998), p. 478; The italics are Reymond’s.

“When [Amyraldianism] urges that the Bible teaches that both by divine decree and in history Christ’s death, represented by it as unrestricted regarding its referents, was intended to save all men without exception (the doctrine of universal atonement), Amyraldianism must necessarily join forces with Arminian universalism which… shares this aspect of its vision and turn away altogether from a real substitutionary atonement…”

2000’s

Roger Nicole

Standing Forth: Collected Writings of Roger Nicole (Mentor, 2018), p. 326

“The doctrine of hypothetical universalism acted as a corrosive factor in the French Reformed Church. Tolerated at first because it was felt that an outright condemnation would lead to schism, it slowly undermined respect for the confessional standards and disrupted internal unity and cohesion… it did provide a bridge toward Arminianism and perhaps toward the Semi-Pelagian tendencies of the Church of Rome. The advantages that Amyraut had envisioned failed to materialize, and the dangers against which his opponents had warned did in fact eventuate.”

Related Pages

Limited Atonement

Reformed Books Online

The Best, Free, Biblical, Reformed Books & Articles Online

On Amyrauldianism & Hypothetical Universalism