# Jonathan D. Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 17, 2019)

_English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology_, by Jonathan D. Moore. Pp xx, 304. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.

This monograph is a well-written and carefully researched study into the hypothetical universalism of John Preston. I will lay my cards on the table at the beginning and admit that the author is a friend of mine and that I agree with him (in substance, if not semantics) on the issues of hypothetical universalism and the well-meant offer, as I am a strict particularist in the mould of William Perkins, John Owen, and Francis Turretin.

To cut a long story short, Jonathan Moore's thesis is that Preston was a theologian in the same mould as James Ussher and John Davenant. While adhering to Reformed soteriology in opposition to the Arminian notion that the death of Christ was not efficient for the salvation of the elect as it merely made salvation possible, Preston also maintained that the atonement was, in some sense, made for all men so that if they repented and believed the gospel Christ's death would be sufficient to save them. According to Dr Moore, this view needs to be carefully distinguished from the more radical opinions of the Amyraldians, and especially the Amyraldian concept of the order of the divine decrees, which essentially results in God having two wills.

Dr Moore's understanding of theology and even of New Testament Greek grammar means that he avoids mistakes that other historians could easily fall into. For instance, he argues from the Greek New Testament, the Geneva Bible, and the Authorised Version that Preston's statement that "Christ is dead for you" is substantially the same thing as saying "Christ died for you", though it would be tempting for modern readers to attempt to go down this route in explaining away Preston's hypothetical universalism.

Significantly, Dr Moore sees the hypothetical universalism of Preston, Ussher, and Davenant as a softening of Reformed theology. He does so in the intellectual context of seeing William Perkins as representative of the high-water-mark of Elizabethan particularism, with Preston softening the strict particularist emphases of Perkins and other notable contemporaries (including some prominent bishops of the Church of England).

I think that this argument is a weak point in the author's thesis, not so much because it is fundamentally wrong but because it reflects the author's own suppositions that his branch of Reformed theology is the gold-standard by which all else is to be measured against. I am also not convinced that he has done adequate justice to the possibility of the existence of hypothetical universalism within the English Reformed Church and among the Continental Reformed both at and subsequent to the Reformation. As a result, the author tends to treat hypothetical universalism as an embarrassing uncle at a party rather than as another legitimate branch of Reformed orthodoxy alongside his own.

Furthermore, it would also have helped had the author acknowledged more clearly that the hypothetical universalists adhered to a definite atonement as per the Canons of Dort, while also recognising Christ's death had a universal reference. These caveats aside, the book is an important contribution to Reformed history and is well worth your time in reading.

[This review is a slightly revised version of one that I wrote on Goodreads in December.]

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------

