What do you think?
Rate this book
On the Death of Christ & Other Atonement Writings
For whom did Christ die?
John Davenant’s Death of Christ remains the most significant and comprehensive example of English hypothetical universalism. Coming on the heels of the Synod of Dordt, Davenant’s Death of Christ is a scholastic treatise dealing with the question of the extent of Christ’s atonement-for whom did Christ die? Avoiding both the Scylla of Arminianism and Charybdis of certain strands of Reformed theology, Davenant employs Scripture, reason, and testimonies from ecclesiastical history in defense of the so-called Lombardian formula: Christ died for all people sufficiently; efficaciously for the elect alone.
John Davenant’s On the Death of Christ, a classic of English Reformed thought on the atonement, is now available in a new translation by Dr. Michael Lynch -- the first in modern English. This book also features two shorter letters which Davenant wrote on this topic to both the French Reformed churches and to Herman Hildebrand.
John Davenant’s Death of Christ remains the most significant and comprehensive example of English hypothetical universalism. Coming on the heels of the Synod of Dordt, Davenant’s Death of Christ is a scholastic treatise dealing with the question of the extent of Christ’s atonement-for whom did Christ die? Avoiding both the Scylla of Arminianism and Charybdis of certain strands of Reformed theology, Davenant employs Scripture, reason, and testimonies from ecclesiastical history in defense of the so-called Lombardian formula: Christ died for all people sufficiently; efficaciously for the elect alone.
John Davenant’s On the Death of Christ, a classic of English Reformed thought on the atonement, is now available in a new translation by Dr. Michael Lynch -- the first in modern English. This book also features two shorter letters which Davenant wrote on this topic to both the French Reformed churches and to Herman Hildebrand.
428 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1650
3 people are currently reading
65 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
July 6, 2025
Easily my favorite book of the year.
Davenant, who was an English delegate at the Synod of Dort, presents a more moderate Reformed view of the atonement.
He spends different sections combatting both the Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants.
He uses Scripture, quotes from early church fathers/medieval writers and fellow reformed contemporaries to make his case. He does so with legal precision.
His case is one in which Christ died sufficiently for every human being in the whole world, but that he died specially for his elect people to procure faith and eternal life.
Toward the end of the book, he (to the best of my analysis) affirmed the popular understanding of limited/definite atonement after painstakingly proving there is a Reformed understanding of universal satisfaction.
I truly loved this book, and while I’m not sure I can get on board with 100% of it, I think all serious Christian thinkers would do themselves well to read this book. It’s captivating for all who want to consider the death of Christ.
Davenant, who was an English delegate at the Synod of Dort, presents a more moderate Reformed view of the atonement.
He spends different sections combatting both the Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants.
He uses Scripture, quotes from early church fathers/medieval writers and fellow reformed contemporaries to make his case. He does so with legal precision.
His case is one in which Christ died sufficiently for every human being in the whole world, but that he died specially for his elect people to procure faith and eternal life.
Toward the end of the book, he (to the best of my analysis) affirmed the popular understanding of limited/definite atonement after painstakingly proving there is a Reformed understanding of universal satisfaction.
I truly loved this book, and while I’m not sure I can get on board with 100% of it, I think all serious Christian thinkers would do themselves well to read this book. It’s captivating for all who want to consider the death of Christ.
November 22, 2025
Davenant represents a view that's all but disappeared from the contemporary scene: Hypothetical Universalism within a Calvinistic framework. His position could be summarized as follows: Christ truly died for all people in the sense that, if anyone (elect or non-elect) were to meet the condition of faith, the benefits of the atonement would be applied to their account. The medicine is truly available to all sick persons; those who die in their illness only have themselves to blame. However, Jesus died with a special intention that his death would benefit those who had been predestined to salvation before the foundation of the world. This isn't four-point Calvinism; it's a sort of gentler approach to Limited Atonement.
As far as Davenant's arguments go, I'm not sure he succeeds at demonstrating his thesis is certainly correct. I don't think everybody who reads this book is going to be convinced. In fact, a lot of the argument rests on the assumption of a straightforward reading of those passages of Scripture that seem to extend the atonement to the whole world (e.g., 1 John 2:2). If you disagree there, I doubt anything Davenant says qill change your mind. But I think he does remove any doubt that this position is perfectly consistent with the Reformed system, and that it has a catholic (small-C) pedigree.
The strongest points of the book, in my opinion, are his refutations to objections; his quotations from Patristic, medieval, and Reformed sources (though I think he could have done better by not leaning quite so heavily on Augustine, Propser, and Fulgentius); and his case that only someone who agrees with this position can legitimately use the classic sufficient-efficient distinction.
I'm inclined to agree with Davenant, but I'd like to read Owen on the subject before I declare my own position.
As far as Davenant's arguments go, I'm not sure he succeeds at demonstrating his thesis is certainly correct. I don't think everybody who reads this book is going to be convinced. In fact, a lot of the argument rests on the assumption of a straightforward reading of those passages of Scripture that seem to extend the atonement to the whole world (e.g., 1 John 2:2). If you disagree there, I doubt anything Davenant says qill change your mind. But I think he does remove any doubt that this position is perfectly consistent with the Reformed system, and that it has a catholic (small-C) pedigree.
The strongest points of the book, in my opinion, are his refutations to objections; his quotations from Patristic, medieval, and Reformed sources (though I think he could have done better by not leaning quite so heavily on Augustine, Propser, and Fulgentius); and his case that only someone who agrees with this position can legitimately use the classic sufficient-efficient distinction.
I'm inclined to agree with Davenant, but I'd like to read Owen on the subject before I declare my own position.
November 1, 2024
I’m still not convinced, but I must admit that Davenant makes a good case for an unlimited atonement. He does this not only by hammering on the normal passages, but also by fully embracing those texts which speak of Christ’s special intent in dying/saving the elect. Since he would agree with most of the texts I would put forward for LA, his case becomes strong in a cumulative way.
He makes a great argument that people who hold to a strict view on limited atonement can’t affirm the Lombardian formula (sufficient for all, efficient for the elect alone).
The problem I have is that Davenant doesn’t address the main argument for LA(except for in a few brief places). That is, he doesn’t explain how the non-elect’s sins could be imputed to Christ without complete satisfaction being made for the sins (a version of the double-payment argument). Davenant doesn’t talk much about the imputation of sins. Instead, he constantly puts forward analogies of Christ as a sufficient medication for the sick—a fount of copious merit that could cover any and all. However, because it doesn’t take into account imputation (2 Cor. 5:21), that analogy just doesn’t paint the whole picture.
I will have to read Owen and do more thinking
He makes a great argument that people who hold to a strict view on limited atonement can’t affirm the Lombardian formula (sufficient for all, efficient for the elect alone).
The problem I have is that Davenant doesn’t address the main argument for LA(except for in a few brief places). That is, he doesn’t explain how the non-elect’s sins could be imputed to Christ without complete satisfaction being made for the sins (a version of the double-payment argument). Davenant doesn’t talk much about the imputation of sins. Instead, he constantly puts forward analogies of Christ as a sufficient medication for the sick—a fount of copious merit that could cover any and all. However, because it doesn’t take into account imputation (2 Cor. 5:21), that analogy just doesn’t paint the whole picture.
I will have to read Owen and do more thinking
September 14, 2025
Masterful, thorough, convincing. The doctrine of Limited Atonement in modern reformed circles needs a serious overhaul.
One of the most interesting things about it is the breadth of theologians that Davenant draws on, making use of everybody from Fulgentius, Augustine, and Prosper, to Aquinas, Scotus, and Suarez. The simple fact of the matter is that (as far as western theology is concerned,) strict limited atonement is a novelty minority position with scant biblical or rational grounds. Christ died for the sins of the world, and with a special intention for the elect, but to lose sight of the fact that he died with an intent to make available to any and every man the free offer of the gospel is to undercut our very ability to preach the gospel freely.
Distinctions are like a marlinpike for picking apart the tight knots. One of the most helpful on this topic is the classical distinction between God’s antecedent will, his providence, the fact that he wills that none should perish, and his consequent will, his predestination of a chosen people to whom he freely and graciously gives the infallible application of Christ’s merits.
The secret things belong to the Lord, but the revealed things belong to us and our children. Worrying about election is useless when proclaiming the gospel. Election is a secret thing. The revealed thing is that “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.”
PS - The Double Payment argument is retarded, and contrary to some claims, he does treat it in here, on page 78.
One of the most interesting things about it is the breadth of theologians that Davenant draws on, making use of everybody from Fulgentius, Augustine, and Prosper, to Aquinas, Scotus, and Suarez. The simple fact of the matter is that (as far as western theology is concerned,) strict limited atonement is a novelty minority position with scant biblical or rational grounds. Christ died for the sins of the world, and with a special intention for the elect, but to lose sight of the fact that he died with an intent to make available to any and every man the free offer of the gospel is to undercut our very ability to preach the gospel freely.
Distinctions are like a marlinpike for picking apart the tight knots. One of the most helpful on this topic is the classical distinction between God’s antecedent will, his providence, the fact that he wills that none should perish, and his consequent will, his predestination of a chosen people to whom he freely and graciously gives the infallible application of Christ’s merits.
The secret things belong to the Lord, but the revealed things belong to us and our children. Worrying about election is useless when proclaiming the gospel. Election is a secret thing. The revealed thing is that “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.”
PS - The Double Payment argument is retarded, and contrary to some claims, he does treat it in here, on page 78.
January 21, 2025
Davenant argues that God ordained the death of Christ with two intentions:
1. A general intention that all who trust in Christ be saved AND
2. A special intention that the elect particularly will trust and hence be saved
His argument is grounded on numerous texts of scripture, some that the support the first intention and some that support the second. Additionally he makes various logical arguments, draws support from a wide range of theologians who have affirmed these points AND presents and responds to numerous objections.
Analysis
This book is important as a historic witness to a more moderate calvinism. Davenant attended Dordt, affirmed the 5 points as agreed there BUT is happy telling an unbeliever "Christ died for you", though he will add that this will not benefit you unless you repent.
However, this book will be tedious for most people, Davenant labours his points with legal precision and painstaking detail; he's seeking to settle complex and long drawn debates and the result is not warm or devotional.
Additionally Davenant does not explore the mechanism of the atonement, he almost leaves the actual event of an atonement as a black a box and spends all his time considering the stated effects of it; whilst I find his case largely convincing I think this is a significant flaw, I think he takes the whole question backwards.
1. A general intention that all who trust in Christ be saved AND
2. A special intention that the elect particularly will trust and hence be saved
His argument is grounded on numerous texts of scripture, some that the support the first intention and some that support the second. Additionally he makes various logical arguments, draws support from a wide range of theologians who have affirmed these points AND presents and responds to numerous objections.
Analysis
This book is important as a historic witness to a more moderate calvinism. Davenant attended Dordt, affirmed the 5 points as agreed there BUT is happy telling an unbeliever "Christ died for you", though he will add that this will not benefit you unless you repent.
However, this book will be tedious for most people, Davenant labours his points with legal precision and painstaking detail; he's seeking to settle complex and long drawn debates and the result is not warm or devotional.
Additionally Davenant does not explore the mechanism of the atonement, he almost leaves the actual event of an atonement as a black a box and spends all his time considering the stated effects of it; whilst I find his case largely convincing I think this is a significant flaw, I think he takes the whole question backwards.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews