John Davenant (1572-1641) was an English delegate during the Council of Dort (1618-19). He was a defender of “hypothetical universalism” with respect to the extent of the atonement. The following objections (followed by his responses) are two very common objections one hears from modern defenders of Limited Atonement (AKA Particular Redemption) by James White et al.:
Objection 1. First, therefore, it
may be objected, That at the time when Christ suffered death, many had been adjudged
to hell, and tormented there, but there is no redemption from hell: How then
can we content that the death of Christ was ever applicable in any way to these
condemned persons? Some, influenced by this argument, have concluded that the
innumerable multitude of the wicked, who lived from the beginning of the world
until the coming of Christ, and who, on account of their impiety, were cast
into hell, had no more right in the benefit of redemption, before the sacrifice
of Christ was offered up on the cross, than the devils themselves. Thus the
Leyden Fathers speak in a writing which is extant in Vol. 9. Biblioth. Patrum, As
the Lord Jesus Christ is by no means said to have suffered for the wicked and
condemned angels, so it is not to be believed that he suffered all things for
these impious and condemned men.
Reply 1. But I answer, When we
affirm the death of Christ according to the ordination of God, and the nature
of thing, to be a remedy applicable to every man, we consider not merely the
outward passion of Christ endured at the appointed moment of time, but the
eternal virtue of the death of Christ, bringing salvation to mankind in every
age. For Christ, as to the intention of God, was a Lamb slain from the foundation
of the world, and the efficacy of this propitiatory sacrifice could extend
itself as much to those who lived before Christ suffered, as to us who live
after his passion. If therefore they only mean, that those could not be
relieved by the death of Christ in time, who before his death were by an
irrevocable decree adjudged to infernal punishment, we confess the same;
because they had then ceased to be living in this world, and therefore were not
capable of repentance and faith; but if they mean to contend further, that the
eternal virtue of the death of Christ was not applicable to such persons while
they were alive in this world, because the passion of Christ did not regard
them any more than the wicked and condemned angels, that we deny. For it may be
truly said of Cain, Esau, or any man who died before Christ suffered, that he might
have been absolved from her sins, and saved through the virtue of the sacrifice
to be offered up by the Messiah, if he had believed in him; which cannot be said
of the condemned angels: because the universal covenant of salvation under the
condition of faith, embraces the whole human race, btu does not embrace the fallen
angels. It is therefore worthy of observation, that God would not that the
death of his Christ should either be applied or applicable under any condition to
any of the fallen angels: to all these, therefore, God conducted himself alike
and equally. But not equally to mankind; for as to these, although he determined
and declared that the death of his Son was applicable to any one under the condition
of faith, yet he did not determine to cause it by the benefit of his special
mercy to be applied equally to every one. We do not deny therefore what is evident,
namely, that the difference between devils and men Consists in this, that from
the ordination of God, the death of Christ is a thing ordained for and applicable
to mankind; but neither ordained for, not applicable to devils; although after
this life, to men placed in hell there is no further possibility of application
remaining. Therefore this Consequence is faulty; viz. The death of Christ was
not applicable to the damned after their condemnation; Therefore it was never
and in no way applicable to them. (John Davenant, A Dissertation on the
Death of Christ As To Its Extent and Special Benefits: Containing a Short
History of Pelagianism, and Shewing the Agreement of the Doctrines of the
Church of England [Militant Thomist Press, 2021], 54-56)
Objection 17. The last objection
is derived from those passages in which the death of Christ is expressly
referred to certain persons; from which they infer, that they have no regard to
others. The passages which are relied on are these, Matt. 1:21, Thou shalt call
his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins. John 10;15, I
lay down my life for my sheep. John 11:5, Jesus died, that he should
gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad; and
such like.
Reply 17. From the aforesaid
testimonies, and others which are similar, it is well concluded that the death
of Christ, according to the will of God, in sending his Son, and of the Son in
offering himself, pertains in a special manner to the peculiar people who are
known only to God, that is, to the elect. But that special mode is of this
kind, that he cannot be said to have died for these alone, but he died for
these only with the certain, eternal, gratuities purposes of infallibly saving
them, through the free gift of his special mercy flowing from some special
providence, which we call predestination. But from testimonies of this kind,
which refer to certain persons, the death of Christ, not considered simply, but
complicated with the decree of secret predestination, it is wrongly inferred,
that this death does not pertain to all men in some general way. But the
general mode is of this kind, that we should acknowledge that Christ died for
the whole human race, with an evangelical covenant, and that a most sure one, concerning
expiating sins and conferring eternal life on each and every man, provided that
they should embrace this Redeemer of the world with a true faith. And hence it
is, that although some passages occur in the holy Scriptures, in which Christ
is said to have died for the elect, or for his own peculiar people, yet none
occur in which it is denied that he died for any persons, many occur in which
it is asserted that he died for all. For the Spirit of God was willing to shew
to those that believed in the death of Christ the special privilege of the elect,
but he was unwilling to overwhelm in silence the common privilege of the human
race in the same death of Christ, It is our part, therefore, to leave to God
the decree of his secret predestination, according to which he determined how
far, and to whom, he will effectually apply this death of Christ by the gift of
his special grace; and in the meantime, to acknowledge with grateful minds the
sun of his revealed Gospel, which promulgates That one died for all, that whosoever
should believe in him may have eternal life. On this subject Ambrose says
(In Luc. lib. vi. cap. 7), Although Christ suffered for all, yet he suffered
especially for us, because he suffered for his Church. (Ibid., 91-93)