The Extent of the Atonement

Background

Dort (1618-19) had taught that Christ's death was 'sufficient for all, efficient for the elect' (Canons II.3 and II.8), language broad enough to accommodate both strict particularists (who said Christ died with intent and design only for the elect) and hypothetical universalists (who said Christ died sufficiently and with conditional intent for all, and efficaciously for the elect). John Davenant, the British delegate at Dort, had developed the hypothetical-universalist line in *Dissertatio de Morte Christi* (1650, but lectures from the 1620s). At Westminster the question came up because the Assembly had to draft the clause on Christ's purchase in WCF III.6 and the chapter on Christ the Mediator (VIII), and the two parties did not agree on what language to use.

The Assembly’s handling

In a famous session in January 1646 Edmund Calamy the Elder, one of the most senior London Presbyterians and a Pembroke Cambridge man trained under Davenant, defended hypothetical universalism on the floor: Christ's death is sufficient for all, intended conditionally for all (if they believe), and efficaciously for the elect. Richard Vines, Lazarus Seaman, John Arrowsmith, and Stephen Marshall held similar positions. Samuel Rutherford and George Gillespie pressed strict particularism. The Assembly's majority were particularists, but the hypothetical-universalist bloc was substantial enough that the drafters again chose language broad enough to accommodate both. WCF III.6 and VIII.5, 8 secure that Christ 'purchased' redemption only for the elect — the strict particularist requirement — while not excluding the wider intended-sufficiency reading.