"Christ came for the salvation of all, and undertook the redemption of all, inasmuch as he brought a remedy by which all might es- cape, although there are many who impute to themselves the causes of his death, who arc unwilling to he healed." (Ambrose of Milan, On Cain and Abel, Bk. 2, ch. 3)
(Johannes Hoornbeeck, Teshuvat Yehuda, sive, Pro convincendes et convertendis Judaeis, libri octo [Leiden, 1655], pgs. 57-80)
QUESTION I. Did Moses, while he was on Mount Sinai, receive, in addition to the written law, also the oral law or traditions of the law, which are to be taught by word of mouth?
In the beginning, there must always be a discussion about the foundation of any matter, as from this, everything else should be established and decided. In theological and religious matters, the Holy Scripture is crucial. It must first be examined to determine if and what controversy exists between Christians and Jews. It is agreed upon by both that the Sacred Scripture, Moses, and the Prophets, or, as Christians call it, the Old Testament, is of divine origin and authority. Simultaneously, there is consensus regarding the books that comprise it. Neither Jews nor Christians consider any other books as canonical apart from those that the Orthodox Church and Israel always recognized and venerated as such. But even though the Jews do not have any other books apart from the canonical ones, they allege the existence of a Law, not contained in writing but transmitted orally. This oral law is not only equated with the written one but also considered superior to it. This is a severe error in which the whole strength and significance of Judaism lies. Therefore, the discussion of our Disputations should start from this point. First and foremost, the Jewish perspective on this matter should be presented. Their belief is that Moses, during his forty days and nights in the presence of God on Mount Sinai, received not only the written law, which God himself engraved on the tablets and which Moses subsequently transcribed into the sacred scrolls, but also another law, unwritten, which was neither transmitted by God in writing nor entrusted by Moses in writing. This additional law is essentially a divine commentary on the written law, fully comprehensive, passed down by Moses to Aaron, Joshua, the Elders, and subsequently to the Prophets, and, in detail, to others. It was passed orally, from mouth to mouth, all the way until the final days of supreme Jewish desolation. During those times, to safeguard its survival, the Jewish sages finally committed this oral law to writing in the Mishnah and the Talmud.
To fully comprehend this, we must consider three aspects. First, we should delve into the acceptance of the oral law from God through Moses. Second, its perpetuation through the ages to the present. Third, the recording of this oral tradition in the Mishnah and the Talmud. This brings about a triple question concerning the oral law, Kabbalah, and the Talmud, which will be the focus of this book.Johannes Hoornbeeck
Regarding the threefold consideration of this oral law, it is known among the Jews by three names: Kabbalah, Masorah, and Talmud. Although these terms are sometimes understood more strictly or more broadly, particularly Kabbalah and Masorah, where the latter refers to sacred criticism, in which they meticulously count all the letters and words in the Scripture, especially those with any variations, the former pertains to a mystical art applied to the letters and words. More details on this will follow. This oral law's acceptance by Moses on the mountain is called Kabala, and the term Masorah represents the meticulous examination of the text. Kabbalah is not only an exposition but also an examination of the Hebrew Bible in a mystical sense. It seeks to reveal the hidden meanings in the text. The word Kabbalah itself means "received" or "tradition." It implies that this knowledge was handed down through generations. Masorah, on the other hand, refers to the system of notes in the margins of the Hebrew Bible, where the text was preserved with great precision. Masoretes, Jewish scribes and scholars, developed this system over centuries to protect the integrity of the biblical text. Talmud is a more comprehensive term that encompasses the whole body of Jewish law, tradition, and commentary, including both the written and oral laws, which we will explore further in the following sections.
Regarding how Moses received the oral law on the mountain from God, we hear it explained by the Jews themselves. According to Rabbi Eliezer in Capitulis, he said, "Moses' legs were standing in the mountain, but he was entirely within the heavens." Karcha, the son of Joshua, says the same in R. XLI, "Moses stood on the mountain with his legs, while he was wholly within the heavens. Just as when someone is in a tent, their feet touch and tread upon the ground, while their body is in the tent. In the same way, Moses was in the heavenly hall, perceiving all that could be seen in the heavens." Rabbi Joshua in Cap. XLVI states, "By day, during the forty days that Moses spent on the mountain, he read the Scriptures, but at night, he repeated the Mishna, which is the oral law." In general, the Jews respond that while Moses spent forty days on the mountain, he could write and read during the day, as it was well lit. However, they say that at night, he was learning and memorizing the oral law conveniently. Rabbi Tahana says in the same chapter that when Moses descended with the tablets after spending forty days on the mountain, he sat before the Holy One, blessed be He, just as a disciple sits before his master. He read the Scriptures during the day but repeated the Mishna at night. Rabbi Eliezer said in the same chapter that on the eve of the Sabbath, on the sixth day of the month, at the sixth hour of the day, the Israelites received the law, meaning the Decalogue. They wanted to be sanctified, adorned in all glory, more so than the angels themselves, the superior ones, as they call them.
At that time, the Israelites didn't need to relieve themselves like ordinary people, and no one among them suffered from any blood or female discharge. No type of lice infested them, and even the Angel of Death held no power over them because God descended to give them the law. He was accompanied by sixty myriads of angels, corresponding to the sixty myriads of mighty Israelites. Angels carried crowns in their hands with which the Israelites were to be crowned. You can find more details on this in the chapters of Rabbi Eliezer, specifically chapters XLI, XLVI, and XLVII. Now, instructed by both laws, Moses descended and entrusted them to the Israelites as their heritage. Ben Bethira said, "Moses spent forty-one days on the mountain, scrutinizing the words of the law, examining its letters. After forty days, he took the law down on the tenth day of the seventh month, the Day of Atonement. On this day, which Jews believe is their most atonement-filled holiday, he gave the law to the Israelites for eternal possession, as a perpetual monument.
However, how Moses delivered the law to the Israelites, especially the oral law we are discussing, is best explained according to the Jewish perspective. Rabbi Moses ben Maimonides, in the preface to his commentary on the Mishna, states: "Know that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave our teacher Moses orally the Torah with its explanation. It means every commandment given to Moses, our teacher, the servant of the Lord, was given to him with both the text and its interpretation. He first communicated to him the precept, and then its explanation. The manner in which Moses taught the Torah and its interpretation to the Israelites conforms to what is written, 'And He called Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting.' This means that God first revealed the commandments to Aaron, explaining their interpretation to him, and Aaron separated from Moses. Then Moses called Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron, and repeated to them what he had told Aaron. Eleazar stood to the left of Moses, and Ithamar to his right. Then the seventy elders came, and Moses instructed them as he had instructed Aaron and his sons. Then he approached the assembled multitude of the people, all devoted to religion. He explained the commandments to them until they all had heard. So, in this way, Aaron heard the same law four times: three times from Moses and once from his sons. The sons heard it four times: twice from Moses, once from Aaron, and once from each other. Then the elders instructed the rest of the people, and, in the same way, the whole congregation heard the same law four times: once from Moses, once from Aaron, once from his sons, and once from the elders. Once this was done, everyone departed, and each person taught their neighbor what they had heard from Moses." This is how the law, both the written and oral, became known to all at the time of Moses, as described in their own traditions.
During the feast of succession, which pertains to transmitting this derived law to future generations, it is said in the Mishnah, specifically in Pirkei Avot, Chapter 1: "Moses received the law at Mount Sinai and passed it on to Joshua. Joshua passed it on to the elders, the elders to the prophets, and the prophets gave it to the men of the Great Synagogue. So, this is how it is explained sequentially: Moses transmitted this law to Joshua, who was always his intimate servant. Joshua passed it on to Phinehas, the son of Eleazar. Phinehas to Eli, Eli to Samuel, Samuel to David, David to Ahijah, Ahijah to Elijah, Elijah to Elisha, Elisha to Jojada, Jojada to Zachariah, Zachariah to Haggai, Haggai to Zechariah, Zechariah to Malachi, and Malachi to Joel. Joel to Nahum, Nahum to Habakkuk, Habakkuk to Zephaniah, Zephaniah to Jeremiah, Jeremiah to Baruch, Baruch to Ezra, who, according to the details, transmitted the same law to Simeon, called Simeon the Just. These Simeon figures as follows: Simeon, the son of Shethach, the son of Joseph. He is said to have received the law from Simon the Righteous, who is the last in the line of the remaining members of the Great Synagogue, and is generally believed to be the same Simeon who, as an elderly man, embraced the Messiah, as mentioned in Luke 2:25, where he is referred to as a just man. However, it is incorrect to conflate the two, as Selden has explained in his book on the Successions in the Priesthood of the Hebrews, Chapter VII.
So, these individuals we mentioned, as well as those who followed them (whose catalog Maimonides organized in the preface to his "Mishneh Torah"), adhered to the oral law known as Kabbalah. This continued until Rabbi Judah the Saint, who, with the counsel of his colleagues, gathered traditions from various sources and compiled these aphorisms or laws in written form. He consolidated them into a single volume, which he called "Mishnayot." In this work, the oral law is organized systematically according to its topics. As for the argument behind this oral law, the response is straightforward. For there is no one, no matter how unfamiliar they are with Jewish matters, who does not know that this group of people has many remarkable observances and doctrines beyond the written law. These are said to be contained in the oral law, given to Moses by God, as we have learned. Consequently, they are eager to demonstrate that all of these are based on the oral law.
The Jews distinguish between two laws, one they call "Scripta" or written law, and the other they term "Orale," which contains traditions to be retained by memory and passed down solely by word of mouth. Philo Judaeus, in the beginning of his book on the Decalogue, speaks of other laws as "Scriptas" (written) and others as "Non Scriptas" (not written), and many others do the same. This oral law is considered of great importance among the Jews. To the extent that it is frequently taught that the oral law, or "non Scripta," is included as a fundamental article of the Jewish faith, alongside the written law. Phrases like "מועתקת השם מאת מועתקת," although properly referring to the written law, are commonly understood to encompass the oral law as well. This is expressed in the ninth article of the Jewish faith in which they affirm that the law is from God, and the word "השם מאת מועתקת" includes both the written and the oral law. Maimonides, in his commentary on the Mishnah, Code of Sanhedrin, Chapter 10, provides separate explanations for both the oral and written laws. After affirming that the law is from God and that nothing can be added to or subtracted from it, he says this applies to both the written and the oral law. Isaac Abarbanel similarly provides distinct explanations for both laws in his book on the Principles of Faith, Chapter 8. Maimonides, in his Mishneh Torah, in the section titled "Foundations of the Law," Chapter 9, Section 8, says that someone who uproots something from the words we have received through tradition is considered a false prophet, worthy of being strangled. He also relates this to deniers of the explanation, i.e., the oral law. In his book "Teshuva," Chapter 3, and in "Avodah Zarah," Chapter 12, and "Mamrim," or "Rebels," Chapter 3, he states that any denier of the oral law can and should be executed without any legal process or examination.
And this is the Jewish belief regarding their oral law, which they claim was given by God to Moses on the mountain, distinct from the written law, and preserved through a long chain of transmission, ultimately recorded in writing. We, however, deny this. So, the current debate is whether their second oral law, as narrated by the Jews, and which they firmly believe to be divine, is indeed true. There are no questions about the first written law, which Moses received and passed on, whether moral, ceremonial, or political. We acknowledge that Moses was divinely instructed about its interpretation more than others. However, we deny that: 1) The interpretation of the law constitutes another, second, and distinct law.
2) The oral law, as claimed by the Jews, is the same one that Moses received from God on the mountain.
3)Moses received it separately from God on the mountain.
4) Moses subsequently passed this distinct law to others, entrusting it to them.
5)Moses forbade its written documentation.
6) The Talmud eventually encompasses it. Moses indeed received the interpretation of the law given to him, but the meaning of the law itself, through specific oracles, was not separately revealed by God in the mountain. And this law was gradually explained by God's own legislation in the mountain. It was not committed to writing.
We present the following arguments against the existence of that oral law: First Argument: There is no mention of the orally transmitted law in the history of legislation. There is no account of Moses learning another or second law at night, no mention of him explaining this supposed second law to Aaron, his sons, the elders, and the entire people. There is nothing in the entire Scripture that shows Moses passing on the same law in an unbroken chain to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, and so forth. Therefore, the Jewish fables about this law are unfounded and reveal extreme credulity. If we can imagine and say whatever we like without evidence, where does it end? How monstrous or absurd would a story need to be for people not to accept it without proof? This isn't a trivial dispute but concerns the foundations and articles of faith upon which all of Jewish superstition and theology depend. The Scripture doesn't usually omit matters of great importance; it includes and emphasizes them. If there was a second law for Moses to receive, one not committed to writing, surely the Scripture would have at least alluded to it, even if it couldn't record it. God gives us no reason to believe that such an oral law was ever given. He has given us more certain proof regarding other matters. Indeed, the question of the divine origin of the oral law cannot be doubted by anyone who considers the evidence God provides from the Scripture, even if they wanted to, no evidence exists that God provided any testimony or document for this supposed second law. To believe in a law handed down by God but never once testified to by God Himself is to place unwarranted trust in human tradition. God frequently attests to the written law in Scripture, but nowhere does He testify to the existence of such an oral law, which no one is ever referred to for guidance in the Scriptures, unlike the written law.
Second Argument: What we previously stated about the transmission of the law is particularly pertinent to the history and condition of the given law. A comparison of both laws reveals the certainty of the written law and the falseness of the oral law. It must be noted that when the king Joshua rediscovered the lost book of the law, the Scripted law, it was a remarkable event recorded in the sacred history. Yet, there is complete silence concerning what happened to the oral law. Can we assert, in this case, that it remained intact? Would it not have been better had its condition mirrored that of the written law? Furthermore, in a world where people misplace written records due to various circumstances and carelessness, what assurance is there that oral traditions can be preserved? Once the Scripted law is lost, can the oral law be safeguarded? The oral law would only survive under these circumstances if it were well-preserved, but since it's not recorded in the written law, it remains questionable. If the oral law were ever forgotten, a new revelation would be necessary to restore it, leading to the production of legal volumes larger than the entire written law, such as the Talmud. Anything you say in this regard would be unconvincing, as it lies outside the realm of history and relies solely on imaginative invention. No one would be persuaded that another mention of the law was not made, especially when various references to the written law are scattered throughout Scripture, and these different situations concerning the written law should have been documented. Indeed, the Jews tell stories, as found in Tractate Temura, Chapter 11, that the Israelites, at the time of Moses' death, forgot three thousand traditions. They assert that Othniel, the son of Kenaz, later produced these traditions from his own ingenuity. It is hard to believe that so many traditions were forgotten and then, as if by a stroke of luck, brought forth by Othniel. So, Othniel defeated Kiriath-sepher (see Joshua 15:16-17). Isn't this an elegant and firm proof? But who, during Joshua's time and the loss of the law, would have preserved the oral law in his heart? How did this law fare during the Babylonian captivity? And when the public reading of the law was reinstated through Ezra, what happened to the periods of neglect and revival of the oral law? Would the Holy Spirit have allowed such a rich history of sacred events to be recorded, without mentioning anything about this precious and highly valuable law if it were truly in existence? Why would the Holy Spirit, against its own custom, not take note of something so valuable and beneficial to the people, such as the law is? Therefore, the silence of the Holy Spirit on this matter strongly argues against the existence of the oral law.
Argument Three. Furthermore, they claim that writing this law is prohibited. I beseech you, who will prove this? Where, who said this? Who prohibited it? Is it the written law? Let the tablets be produced. Is it the oral law itself? Where and when? And why, then, was it recorded a thousand years later and read today? In Gittimme 1, they say, "One is not permitted to say the words of the written law by heart." Similarly, Solomon Jarchi in Exodus 34:27 says, "Mahya nın aın, one is not permitted to write down the oral law." But how do they prove this? God has always interacted with His law in various ways, promoting and instructing people in its teachings and observance. Among other methods, writing plays a vital role in this. Thus, it would seem more prudent for the oral law, supposedly delivered to the people from the beginning and passed on to the entire community, not just the prophets, to be recorded and preserved in writing, or at least it should not have been forbidden in this way, as was later suggested by the Talmud's elaboration. Yet, they were not allowed to write it down. Either a law was enacted about this, or it was not. If it was, it was not a sin to write it down at any time. However, if not, then the Talmudic rabbis sinned. By imposing restrictions due to the circumstances of the time, they treated it as a sin for some but not for others, despite the fact that others in the past also suffered the same severity, and it was not considered a sin. But we are arguing here from the opponent's perspective, as an assumption made by them. However, as nothing can be proven about what does not exist, we must assume that the prohibition of writing down the written law is baseless unless shown otherwise, particularly since it was the Talmudic rabbis who maintained such prohibitions.
Argument Four. Whatever laws Moses received from God and delivered to the people, he also wrote and was commanded to write. In Exodus 24:3-4, it is recorded, "And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord and all the rules. And all the people answered with one voice and said, 'All the words that the Lord has spoken we will do.' And Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord." Moses descended from the mountain instructed in the entire law he had received from God on the mountain, with all the words, as is commonly stated in sacred phrases, and immediately wrote down all those things as part of the tradition. It is reasonable to believe that he didn't withhold or exclude anything among those things that God entrusted to him for transmission to the people. Thus, nothing was omitted in his writing. These three actions are described here, each following the other: receiving the entire law from God, delivering it to the people, and writing it down. We believe in Moses's faithfulness throughout. What do you deny? That he received the whole law here? For this very reason, he was called up to the mountain by God and ascended. He acted on the mountain, and he related to the people. Here in the text, all words are mentioned, and all judgments. And what he received from God, he faithfully related. This is why the people say, "Not your words, but God's words, and indeed all these." And Moses wrote down all the words. Despite the fact that today Jews explicitly deny Moses wrote in the face of God, Christians recognize this, uphold it, and defend it. In verse 7, it is said, "And he took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people." Then, in verse 9, after he ascended again, it is said, "Moses entered the cloud and went up on the mountain." There, in verse 12, he received the stone tablets, the law, and the commandment. So, it is written: "which I have written," says God, "for their instruction." God willed to have His laws written down so much that He deigned to write them Himself. He also used Moses as an example in this regard, showing him how to write. Hence, Moses knew that the things God had spoken to him afterward should be written. Thus, he wrote all the law that Moses received from God and delivered to the people and later wrote down for the posterity. Regarding how the Author intended to fulfill this in the legislation, He Himself testifies elsewhere in Deuteronomy 29:14-15: "It is not with you alone that I am making this sworn covenant, but with whoever is standing here with us today before the Lord our God, and with whoever is not here with us today." To what end should writing be applied better than this? Therefore, He expressly commanded this: Exodus 34:27-28: "And the Lord said to Moses, 'Write these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.' So he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights. He neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments." Observe that the writing must correspond to the law, for both God and Moses wrote it. Moses finally delivered the written law to the priests for faithful and holy safekeeping. Deuteronomy 31:9: "And Moses wrote this law and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and to all the elders of Israel." The same law he gave to them, he also wrote. Regarding the other unwritten law, there is no testimony or evidence anywhere. Verse 24: "When Moses had finished writing the words of this law in a book to the very end," Don, that is, all their words. He instructed the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord to place the book of this law at the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God. Let it remain there as a witness for you. The law, thus written, is a witness. It's not of a different kind. Indeed, whatever else should be examined and judged in accordance with the testimony and guidance of this law, whether it is an act or a teaching or another fabricated law, such as the oral law, should be refuted and rejected by this law. This is also taught in Isaiah 8:20: "To the law and to the testimony!" Joshua followed Moses, serving as his example in writing the law and in observing it. This is why in Deuteronomy 8:32, it is stated that he inscribed the law on stones according to the law of Moses, as God instructed, saying, "Let not the Book of this law depart from your mouth." 2 Kings 17:13 states that the Lord testified against Israel and Judah through every prophet and every seer, saying, "Turn from your evil ways and keep my commandments and my statutes, according to all the law that I commanded your fathers and that I sent to you by my servants the prophets." The law, when God mentions it, adds that it is written, and it requires and examines observance. It's not taught in a different way than what is written. 2 Chronicles 17:9 states, "And they taught in Judah, having the Book of the Law of the Lord with them, and they went about through all the cities of Judah and taught the people." Nehemiah 8:3, 4, 6, 9, and 13, along with Nehemiah 11:1, all speak of teaching the law. Tell me, where was the unwritten law taught? You can't say it was done but not narrated in Scripture. Moreover, besides the fact that, apart from this expressed opinion and hypotheticals, it doesn't align with the sense of truth or the mind that can establish something as a fact and not be indicated in the abundant and copious history that is so full of all legal matters? It would never have stated when another law, if it did indeed exist, was kept or taught by people. When the Law of Moses and its observance are mentioned, it is always implied or understood to be written, its precepts, its duties. Hence the customary scriptural phrase "As it is written in the Law of Moses."
Argument Five: The written law is perfect in such a way that nothing can or should be added to or removed from it. Consequently, oral law is unnecessary and null. In Psalm 19:8, it is stated, "The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple." To this verse, I add the words of Joseph Albo, a Spaniard in the 25th chapter of his third book, as translated by Genebrard: "It is also false and clearly contrary to the truth to say that the law, in terms of its form, is imperfect, for in all its parts, it is complete in every kind of perfection." He continues, affirming that the perfection of our law is attested by David when he commends it in four ways. The law of the Lord, he says, is perfect, turning the soul. Furthermore, we add to this the passage in Deuteronomy 4:1-2, which emphasizes the perfection of the written law: "And now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the rules that I am teaching you, and do them, that you may live, and go in and take possession of the land that the Lord, the God of your fathers, is giving you. You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you." The same sentiment is repeated by Moses in Deuteronomy 12:32: "Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it." Nowhere is the oral law mentioned. If it were indeed superior to the written law, it should have been mentioned first. But God never spoke of this oral law, either explicitly or by command. In fact, when God made sure to emphasize that nothing should be added to or subtracted from the written law, He clearly condemns and nullifies the oral law. This is because adding a new law is a significant addition, and God would have preferred or prioritized it. Proverbs 30:5-6 reiterates the same principle: "Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you, and you be found a liar." Isaiah 8:20 is explicit about what the law and the testimony entail, and that indeed is about the written law: "To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn."
Let's assume a person comes forward with another law, a new one. Shouldn't one of the arguments against this new law be that the law we already have is perfect, and nothing should or can be added to it? And if this argument applies elsewhere, why wouldn't it be valid against the oral law too? Let's contemplate the perfection of the law, in every way. It's so perfect that nothing essential for salvation or religion, or anything for that matter, can be or should be learned from a source other than the Scripture. Why, then, do we need another law, an unwritten law, when the written one is complete and perfect in every respect?
For someone who keeps this law, orders their life and conduct in accordance with it, wouldn't you say they are living religiously enough and, in terms of salvation, adequately? Why, then, another law? Let the Jews list what they consider essential for religion and salvation, things not found in the written law. We will demonstrate that either these things aren't essential, perhaps not even true, or if they are, they are indeed taught by the written law.
They should always examine closely what is required by them, the doctrines that are deemed necessary but aren't mentioned or included in the law. Whatever nature these laws may have, as they include many things, all of which, even though not expressly stated, pertain to the same core. Indeed, no greater breadth is found in any scripture than that of the laws.
It's not correct for them to say that we Christians, in addition to the law, also have and follow the Gospel. The Gospel isn't another law. Some individuals, quite improperly and inaccurately, refer to it as a law. All the teachings and commandments, that's the law; the Gospel delivers the promise of grace and salvation. However, whatever pertains to the law, related to moral conduct, can be applied to a particular subject, something that the law itself might not explicitly mention. Scripture itself is the Gospel. We've shown this in the tablets that have come from the same Spirit of God as the rest of Scripture, not something that is passed down orally from human mouths or minds.
Argument Six: In all the observance that God demands of us, He never requires any other observance than that of the written law. This is an argument that there is no other law or that it should not be observed. If it's not to be observed, it's not a law. Let them bring forth one law, one jot of the law that speaks of another oral law and commends it. Throughout all of Scripture, we see obedience being limited to the written law. Deuteronomy 11: the statutes and ordinances that I give you today, clearly referring to the written law, as these are terms used extensively, and these were given to the people. Moses then proceeds to write them down. These statutes and ordinances you shall keep and do. In Deuteronomy 10:12-13, it is emphasized that loving and serving God is what is required. To fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways, to love Him, and to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. To keep the commandments of the Lord and His statutes, which I command you today for your good. Loving and serving God as needed, observing His commandments, all of this is sufficiently explained in the Scripture, and all that is necessary for religion and salvation is contained within it. Deuteronomy 28:1 says, "If you fully obey the Lord your God and carefully follow all His commands I give you today." The words written here, "fully obey," are clearly in reference to the written law. The requirement for complete obedience to the written law is evident in this scripture. Deuteronomy 30:20 reinforces this idea of loving and serving God, according to His written commandments. Deuteronomy 32:45 describes how Moses wrote down all the words of the law, and similarly, he had spoken these words. This law should be observed, no other. Parents should commend this law to their children and impress upon them the importance of observing it. In this manner, the oral law is nowhere to be found. God does not mention it, nor does He demand obedience to it, for it would have existed in nature if it were so vital, considering how thoroughly and seriously God safeguarded the written law and its observance. No one can rightly claim otherwise unless they are obstinately in error. Joshua 1:7-8: "Only be strong and very courageous, being careful to do according to all the law that Moses, my servant, commanded you. Do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, that you may have good success wherever you go." And it then explicitly states that "this Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it." 2 Chronicles 23:6 urges to observe and do what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, not turning to the right or to the left. All obedience, whether it's a rule or a formula for observance, is about doing as it is written in the Book of the Law. Therefore, it's rightly concluded that since obedience always requires adherence to the written law, and that alone, any other law is put forth or fabricated in vain.
And these are our arguments, both against the law claimed by the Jews, the oral law, and in favor of the perfection of the written law. But in this matter, we have entire support, not only from among the Jews but also among their sects, not to mention their scholars and rabbis. It's only the Pharisees who uphold traditions, and they emerged after the Maccabean period, following the schools of Hillel and Shammai. Therefore, Hieronymus wrote in Isaiah 8: Sammai and Hillel, from whom the scribes and Pharisees arose. And then Sammai and Hillel, not long before the birth of the Lord, originated in Judea: the former being called a strict interpreter and the latter as profane, as they distorted the precepts of the law by their traditions.
The Sadducees, on the other hand, were completely against the Pharisees, having rejected all traditions in favor of adhering solely to the Scriptures. Even earlier than the Pharisees, the Samaritans held the same opinion, as did the Essenes. Anyone who is called a Karait or Karai, as if a reader and a man of the Scriptures, does not necessarily mean they are all Sadducees, even though they share the same view as the Karaites. The term Karait or Karai signifies a profession of sticking to the Scriptures, just as the Sadducees, Samaritans, Cuthites, and Essenes do. It does not imply a distinct sect separate from the Jewish Pharisees or different from the Sadducees and other sects. There has always been a considerable number of Jews who have followed this path. The first opponents of the Pharisees were the Sadducees. What applied to the Sadducees also applied to the Samaritans.
After them, the Essenes or Essenes adopted the same approach. Maimonides, in Abbot, Chapter 1, speaks about the Sadducees, and the discussion began to contradict them. In his work Kabbalah, Josephus also talks about them. He writes in Antiquities, Book XVIII, Chapter II, describing their belief that they only need to observe the law, thinking nothing else needs to be kept. In Book XIII, Chapter XVIII, he narrates a story from which you can draw a clear understanding of the Sadducees' beliefs and their number and faction.
Jonathan did not hesitate to add fuel to the fire to such an extent that he withdrew from the furious Pharisees, abandoned their customs, and punished those who observed their rules. This led to him and his sons being somewhat popular among the general public, as it is commonly told. Now it must be noted that many traditions received from the elders by the hands of the Pharisees have been handed down to the people, which are not written in the Mosaic laws. Therefore, the Sadducees abrogate these traditions, saying that only what is written should be observed, as the Pharisees added these traditions. This gave rise to a significant controversy between them, as the wealthier classes supported the Sadducees, while the Pharisees relied on the favor of the rest of the populace. We can see the views of the Sadducees and what part of the people stood with them.
Josephus, in his work "Gorionides Judaicarum Historiarum," in Book IV, Chapter VI, according to the Munster edition or the Venice edition, chapter XXXIX, states that the Pharisees said: "We keep the law as it was transmitted to us by the sages who explained the Torah for us through the tradition of the oral law." On the other hand, the Sadducees said: "We believe and follow only the law of Moses, without any tradition or exposition."
In those days, the Cuthites followed the Sadducees, making them one part of Israel. However, only the Chasidei, along with the people who followed them, formed the other part. In the same book, Chapter XIII, Queen Alexandra appointed her son Aristobulus as the head of the Sadducees and the leader of the military. She also sent and released all the Pharisees who were imprisoned, confirming their entire law and all of their traditions, which Hyrcanus, her father-in-law, and her husband Alexander had nullified.
Elias the Tishbite, known as Pry, in the text negates the oral law, stating, "They only believe what is written in the written Torah." They reject the oral law, and their faith is solely in the written law. Some have misunderstood that the Sadducees received only the written law and rejected other scriptural books. This is an error, as they are said to have accepted the written law only in contrast to the Pharisaic traditions, not to other scriptural books. This has been pointed out by others and noted by Joseph Scaliger in "Elenchus Trihæreseos," Chapter XLVI, and by John Drusius in "De Tribus Sectis," Book III, Chapter IX.
Menasseh ben Israel, in his book "de Resurrect." Chapter VI, makes it clear that the Karaites did not reject the authority of the prophetic books, as is evident from the Talmud. Vossius, in Book 1 of "de Idolol," Chapter X, suggests that they did not reject the prophetic books but considered them of lesser importance and authority compared to the Mosaic ones.
Regarding the Samaritans, we have some information from Josephus Gorionides about their association with the Sadducees in their disputes with the Pharisees. Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela, in his travelogue, distinguishes between the Rabbanim or Rabbanites who adhere to traditions, the Karaites who focus solely on scripture, and the Cuthaites or Samaritans who, according to him, observe only the Mosaic law. John Morinus, in his exercises on the Samaritan Pentateuch, notes that the Samaritans tenaciously adhere to the written law and reject all traditions, aligning with certain Jews known as Opfeu or Scripturarii by their people.
Although the Opfeu or Scripturarii consent to the Samaritans, they are not Karaites. Benjamin of Tudela makes this distinction in more than one place.
The Karaites are different from the Sadducees, as was taught by Serarius Scaliger. Drufius, in his work on Sects, and in Matthew 22:23, discusses this distinction. Buxtorf, in his Talmudic Lexicon, under the entry for p, provides information about the Karaites. Theodoric Hackspan, in his work addressed to R. Lipmann, page 249, Hottinger, in his Philological Treasury, page 40, explains that the Karaites detest traditions to the extent that they do not allow vocal points (vowel markings) to be added to their books, considering them part of the oral law, as the author of Cosri, Part III, suggests.
In fact, Karaites are so averse to traditions that they do not admit anyone else into their synagogues and communities. Even when someone from outside seeks to join them, they do not accept them right away. Instead, they direct them first to the Turks or Christians, as mentioned in the book Iezira, page 33. They require this person to stay among the Turks or Christians for some time to purify themselves from the influence of Karaism, which is very hard to eradicate.
They regard the Zadokites (Sadducees) in a derogatory manner. Victor à Carbe, in his book "contra Judæorum errores," Chapter III, notes that those among you who are called Coraym teach and observe Moses' precepts in a way far different, and possibly better, than you do. Therefore, they are believed to be Zadokites.
Menasseh ben Israel, in his book "de Resurrect." Chapter VI, makes it clear that the Karaites did not reject the authority of the prophetic books, as is evident from the Talmud. Vossius, in Book 1 of "de Idolol," Chapter X, suggests that they did not reject the prophetic books but considered them of lesser importance and authority compared to the Mosaic ones.
Regarding the Samaritans, we have some information from Josephus Gorionides about their association with the Sadducees in their disputes with the Pharisees. Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela, in his travelogue, distinguishes between the Rabbanim or Rabbanites who adhere to traditions, the Karaites who focus solely on scripture, and the Cuthaites or Samaritans who, according to him, observe only the Mosaic law. John Morinus, in his exercises on the Samaritan Pentateuch, notes that the Samaritans tenaciously adhere to the written law and reject all traditions, aligning with certain Jews known as Opfeu or Scripturarii by their people.
Although the Opfeu or Scripturarii consent to the Samaritans, they are not Karaites. Benjamin of Tudela makes this distinction in more than one place.
The Karaites are different from the Sadducees, as was taught by Serarius Scaliger. Drufius, in his work on Sects, and in Matthew 22:23, discusses this distinction. Buxtorf, in his Talmudic Lexicon, under the entry for p, provides information about the Karaites. Theodoric Hackspan, in his work addressed to R. Lipmann, page 249, Hottinger, in his Philological Treasury, page 40, explains that the Karaites detest traditions to the extent that they do not allow vocal points (vowel markings) to be added to their books, considering them part of the oral law, as the author of Cosri, Part III, suggests.
In fact, Karaites are so averse to traditions that they do not admit anyone else into their synagogues and communities. Even when someone from outside seeks to join them, they do not accept them right away. Instead, they direct them first to the Turks or Christians, as mentioned in the book Iezira, page 33. They require this person to stay among the Turks or Christians for some time to purify themselves from the influence of Karaism, which is very hard to eradicate.
They regard the Zadokites (Sadducees) in a derogatory manner. Victor à Carbe, in his book "contra Judæorum errores," Chapter III, notes that those among you who are called Coraym teach and observe Moses' precepts in a way far different, and possibly better, than you do. Therefore, they are believed to be Zadokites.
The Karaites are found in significant numbers in Poland, Russia, Turkey, and even Africa, as Leo Africanus attests in Book II. In their rejection of the oral law and traditions, the Essenes aligned with the Sadducees. Menasseh ben Israel in "Conciliat. in Exod." page 177 confirms this. While the Pharisees followed traditions alone, the Zadokites and Essenes, also known by another name, "Baytofim" (as discussed by R. Natan in "Abot" Chapter V and R. Selomph in "Baba Batra" Chapter VIII), rejected these traditions. This is reported in the Talmudic references in Gemara Soma, Chapter 1, Megilat Tahamit, Chapters 1, IV, and X, and Kidufin Chapter III. The "Cuzari" in Book III, written by R. Moses in his commentary on "Abot" Chapter I, provides additional support, as does "Nahalat Abot" by Isaac Abravanel. It is surprising that the highly learned Joseph de Voisin, in his Observations on the Preface to Martin Raymundus' work, refers to the Pharisaic traditions as "sanctus" (holy) and subtly criticizes Christ's role in disputing with the Pharisees about traditions. While he rejects the Sadducees and their errors in other matters, he seems to side with Christians, implying that they want to follow Christ and his frequent controversies with the Pharisees on the issue of traditions. Yet, it should be noted that Christ strongly criticized the Pharisees not only for adding some impious traditions to the law or contradicting what is true but also for teaching other things beyond the written law of Moses. It's worth mentioning that Voisin's aim is to advocate for Jewish traditions, perhaps to show that the Roman Church's traditions could be treated in a similar way. In this context, he cites Matthew 23:2, where Christ says, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you." But what are these true traditions? Those that are outside the written Mosaic law? This is untrue. Christ mentioned that the scribes and the Pharisees sat on Moses' seat. Does this refer to the chair of traditions falsely attributed to Moses? Absolutely not; it pertains to the chair of Mosaic teaching, which they were profaning with their own traditions. Voisin's intentions become more apparent when he states that, just as the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem was the foundation for legitimate traditions in the Old Law, the Roman See is the foundation for our traditions. This connection between the Roman Pontiffs and their succession with the succession of Roman Pontiffs is quite absurd, to say the least. A better discussion on this matter is presented by Finus in his "Flagellum in Judaeos," Book IX, Chapter II. He states that Christians believe that Moses received only one law, although God gave it to him in two forms, partly in writing on two stone tablets and partly through spoken words. Still, this law is one and the same. Even though Moses proclaimed the part that came solely through spoken words, he did so in the same manner as it had been given to him. This happened in various places and at various times, as the situation demanded. However, the entire law, including both the written part and the spoken part, has been recorded in his law book. Thus, he asserts that everything, including the written and spoken aspects of the law, is contained in the written volume of the law, the Pentateuch, which Moses is known to have authored and which contains the entire law.
Lastly, we need to examine whether the Jews can present anything in their favor based on their own beliefs. We observe that they rely on certain scriptural passages for support. We will scrutinize each one of these passages and evaluate them in the most fitting order. First, they point to a place in Scripture where some mention of the oral law seems to be made. They cite Exodus 34:27: "And the Lord said to Moses, 'Write these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.'" They argue that here there is a reference to both the written law, "Write these words," and the oral law, "in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you." This argument is found in the Gemara Gittin, Chapter 5, and Temura, Chapter 2, and is supported by Menasseh ben Israel in "Conciliat. in Exod." Question 50, page 168, and R. Isaac Carbeles in "Ammude Gola," a small book of commandments, folio 39. However, they say, "Do not think that the foundation is the written law; rather, the foundation is what was handed down orally. For it was through the oral law that the covenant was initiated, as it is written, 'for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.' These are the treasures of the Holy One, blessed be He." For they knew that it would come to pass that the Israelites would be scattered among other peoples, and they would take up the writings of these other nations. Therefore, they did not want the oral law to be handed down in writing. This is their first and indeed strongest argument, but, to confess the truth, I am ashamed of it, for it should not be considered the firm foundation of their law. In response: Let it be proven by the Jews that "by" signifies "no bann," for we deny this outright, and they must demonstrate it. "By" is simply a preposition meaning "according to" and is not a distinct noun. The Spanish Jews translate it as "pordicho de las palabras," meaning "according to the words," in line with the saying of the words. "By" means "according to," as seen in Leviticus 27:8: "according to what his hand can attain." The same chapter, verse 18, uses it as "juxta annos reliquos." In Spanish, they read it as "àfegun," which means "according to." In Proverbs 22:6, "instruct the youth according to his way." The Hebrew uses it in the same sense, and it does not carry the sense of "according to the oral law." "By juxta verba ifta" refers to the previous part: "What are these words?" Namely, the words that were said, "Write these words."
Second Objection: Exodus 24:12. And the Lord said to Moses, "Come up to me on the mountain, and be there, and I will give you the stone tablets and the law and the commandment which I have written, that you may teach them." In Massecheth Berachoth, folio 5, they explain it as follows: What does it mean when it is written, "I will give you the stone tablets and the law and the commandment which I have written that you may teach them?" The stone tablets refer to the Ten Commandments; that is, the Holy Scriptures. The commandment refers to the Mishnah, which is what I wrote, namely, the Prophets and the Hagiographa. To teach them this, the Gemara is used. They argue that through this, we are taught that all these were given to Moses on Mount Sinai. But I respond: They need to prove these points they boldly and fruitlessly claim, as these are disputed matters. They need to demonstrate that the Mishnah and the Gemara are what the phrase "præceptum Mischnam" refers to, which we firmly deny, and these points are easily rejected. Regarding "præceptum," does it mean the Mishnah? Absolutely not. It is never used in this way. Although it is frequently used in Sacred Scripture, in the general sense, it refers to what God commands. Are the written precepts of the law excluded here? There's a significant difference between "et legem" and "et præceptum." The "et" can be copulative, meaning "both the law and the precepts," or it can be disjunctive, meaning "either the law or the precepts." In the text, it explicitly states "præceptum, quod fcripfi," which means "the precept which I have written." Therefore, it does not refer to the oral law, which is not written. 1 Kings 17:34 speaks of the Samaritans not keeping the law and the commandment which the Lord God of Israel commanded. The explanation for this is given in the following verse. The Lord had made a covenant with them, saying, "You shall not fear other gods, nor bow down to them, nor serve them, nor sacrifice to them. But the Lord, who brought you up from the land of Egypt." So, "præceptum" here refers to the Ten Commandments and what God wrote, just as in Exodus, where it speaks of "the law and the commandment which I have written." Deuteronomy 30:10 also uses "præcepta" as the written precepts of the law, showing that "præceptum" refers to the written commandments.
Third Objection: they present Exodus 18:16 where Moses says to his father-in-law Jethro: "When they have a dispute, it comes to me, and I judge between a man and his neighbor and make known the statutes of God and His laws." Similarly, in Deuteronomy 17:8, 9, 10, 11: "If any case is too difficult for you... then you shall arise and go up to the place which the Lord your God chooses... And you shall come to the Levitical priests and to the judge who is in office in those days and you shall inquire, and they will declare to you the verdict in the case... According to the law which they teach you... you shall do; you shall not turn aside to the right or to the left." As Menasseh ben Israel points out in his Conciliat. in Exod. qu. 1. on page 177, there is no doubt that traditions, or oral law, are most necessary. This is why, in Exodus 18:16, the Israelites are instructed to consult Moses in grave matters. This would not have been necessary if everything in the law were clear. However, since not everyone correctly understood it, it is said to be necessary, in Deuteronomy 17:9, for everyone to consult a prophet of their time. Therefore, Moses handed down the law to the Levitical priests so they could interpret it for others. He did not want to write down these interpretations because they are better understood when spoken, while written interpretations often have ambiguous meanings. This is how the Jews conclude that these scriptural passages support their oral law
I respond: This argument does not establish the point the author proposed. While the author initially aimed to prove the absolute necessity of oral law, the argument concludes something quite different: that not everything in the law is clear. This is not the same as proving the existence of oral law. We willingly admit the former, but not the latter. The argument that not everything in the law is clear might justify the necessity for legal interpretations but does not establish a second law. We can agree that not everything in the law is clear, while still not accepting another law alongside the written one. This argument does not directly challenge the clarity of the law because God, in numerous places, testifies that the law is clear. The law is often likened to light and a lamp in the Psalms. It is indeed clear enough, although not everything in it is equally clear. Matters essential to salvation and religion are presented clearly. The necessity for interpretation doesn't compromise the clarity of the law. Even the clearest and most manifest subjects require explanations due to human ignorance and the fact that some things may not apply straightforwardly to human minds. So, does tradition make the law clearer? It should be noted that Mishnah, a major part of Jewish tradition, does not make the law itself clearer; rather, it is often considered more intricate. Furthermore, if tradition supposedly clarifies the law, why does the Gemara, another part of Jewish tradition, remain so vast, complex, and contentious, necessitating extensive commentary? Moses was consulted by the people on serious and ambiguous matters as a divine teacher. However, this did not imply that he possessed an additional law beyond the written one. Even today, Jewish rabbis are consulted on matters related to the sense of the law, which they call oral, but they do not profess to have another law in addition to the written one.
Indeed, if everything in oral law were already perfectly clear and explained, contrary to the written law, there would be no need for scholars, commentaries, or interpretations. However, this is not the case among the Jews themselves. As evidence, even though the people frequently approached Moses with various questions and doubts concerning the law, Moses himself had to seek singular responses from God in many of these cases. This implies that he did not receive a law from God's mouth that would clarify everything in the law in the clearest manner. We do not deny that during the time of Moses and the Prophets, not everyone understood the law equally, and people often had to consult the Prophets or Priests to interpret the law properly. Nor do we deny that not all of these interpretations were written down. However, we do deny that in addition to the written law and its corresponding interpretation according to its meaning, there was another oral law given by God to Moses or left by the Priests or Prophets, and that it was forbidden to be written down. It's not always the case that orally transmitted information is clearer or more certain than what's written. Quite often, orally transmitted information is less clear and can have more ambiguous meanings. Now, it is claimed that the oral law is written in the Talmud. But does this mean that it is better understood now? Speaking plainly, it is asked whether it doesn't have far more difficulties and ambiguities than the written law ever had. Finally, in the book of Deuteronomy, the Priests are said to respond not "according to the oral law" but rather "according to the law or the mouth or the sense of the law," not the oral law, as we have mentioned earlier.
This article is a florilegium, if you will, of quotes from the most eminent divines of the Reformed church regarding the extent of Christ's death, as interpreted in light of the scholastic Peter Lombard's famous formula: "sufficient for all, efficient for some." I will present materials from differing sides within the Reformed tradition: strict (Owenian) limited atonement and English hypothetical universalism. I'll categorize each section by the author, and include the author in each citation. Though it seems redundant, I wish to do it for the purpose of making copying and pasting easier (for the theological keyboard warriors reading this article who wish to make a quote-mine; we're all guilty of it at some point or another). I'll also include the judgment of Reformed synods and divines as to whether Amyraldianism is considered within the bounds of confessional orthodoxy.
Peter Martyr Vermigli
“They [the anti-predestinarians] also grant that “Christ died for us all” and infer from this that his benefits are common to everyone. We gladly grant this, too, if we are considering only the worthiness of the death of Christ, for it might be sufficient for all the world’s sinners. Yet even if in itself it is enough, yet it did not have, nor has, nor will have effect in all men. The Scholastics also acknowledge the same thing when they affirm that Christ redeemed all men sufficiently but not effectually.” (Peter Martyr Vermigli, Predestination and Justification, trans., by Frank A. James, [Kirksville, Missouri: Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies, 2003], pg. 62)
Zacharias Ursinus
"The reason why all are not saved through Christ, is not because of any insufficiency of merit and grace in him–for the atonement of Christ is for the sins of the whole world, as it respects the dignity and sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made–but it arises from unbelief; because men reject the benefits of Christ offered in the gospel, and so perish by their own fault, and not because of any insufficiency in the merits of Christ." (Zacharias Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, trans., G.W. Willard [Philipsburg, New Jersey: P&R, 1994], pg. 215)
Willam Bucanus
"Q: Unto whom is the death and passion of Christ profitable? Ans: Although he might have been a sufficient price for the sins for all men, yet actually and effectually he died for his elect only, who receive him and believe him, Matt. 1:21. “He will deliver his people from their sins.” Joh. 10:15. “I lay down my life for my sheep.” and Chap. 17:19 “I sanctify myself,” for otherwise it would follow that Christ died profit, and to no purpose in regard of many, and that the efficacy of Christ’s death could be made void by men." (William Bucanus, Institutions of Christian Religion, Framed Our of God’s Word, and the Writings of the Best Divines, Methodically Handled by Questions and Answers, Fit For All Such as Desirous to Know, or Practice the Will of God, trans., by Robert Hill [Printed in London by George Snowden, 1606], pg. 235.)
"His death was sufficient for all, say the Schoolmen, but effectual only for the Elect and them that are faithful. If we respect the virtue and force of Christ’s blood, it is sufficient for the redemption of all: but if we look upon the purpose and eternal counsel of God, and the goodwill of the Mediator, he died for the elect only. Joh. 10:15, I lay down my life for my sheep, says Christ, and 17:9, I pray not for the world, but I pray for them whom thou have me. Therefore he neither offered sacrifice for it, neither did he redeem it. And vers. 19 For their sakes who believe, and whom the Father has given me, I sanctify myself. And Matt. 26:28, My blood which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (William Bucanus, Institutions of Christian Religion, Framed Our of God’s Word, and the Writings of the Best Divines, Methodically Handled by Questions and Answers, Fit For All Such as Desirous to Know, or Practice the Will of God, trans., by Robert Hill [Printed in London by George Snowden, 1606], pgs. 433-434)
David Paraeus
"It is in the same may, that is, by making the same distinction that we reply to those who ask concerning the purpose of Christ, Did he will to die for all? For just as he died, so also he willed to die. Therefore, as he died for all, in respect to the sufficiency of his ransom; and for the faithful alone in respect to the efficacy of the same, so also he willed to die for all in general, as touching the sufficiency of his merit, that is, he willed to merit by his death, grace, righteousness, and life in the most abundant manner for all; because would not that any thing should be wanting as far as he and his merits are concerned, so that all the wicked who perish may be without excuse." (David Paraeus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Q 40; pp., 223-224 [Williard translation])
The Hague Conference of 1611
"That to this end He has first of all presented and given to them his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ, whom He delivered up to the death of the cross in order to save his elect, so that, although the suffering of Christ as that of the only-begotten and unique Son of God is sufficient unto the atonement of the sins of all men, nevertheless the same, according to the counsel and decree of God, has its efficacy unto reconciliation and forgiveness of sins only in the elect and true believer." (“The Counter Remonstrance (1611)” in, Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, ed., James T. Dennison, [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014], 4:46-47)
William Ames
“The sufficiency of [Christ’s] death does not refer in the same way to reprobate mankind as to devils. . . . He paid a sufficient payment price [lytron] for all human beings whosoever, if only they would embrace it, but not for devils.” (William Ames and Nicholaus Grevinchovius, Dissertatio Theologica de Duabus Quaestionibus [Rotterdam: Matthias Sebastiani, 1615], pg. 55)
Pierre du Moulin
“We acknowledge that Christ died for all; but we deny that by his death salvation and forgiveness of sin is obtained for all men: or that reconciliation is made for Cain, Pharaoh, Saul, Judas, etc. Neither do we think that remission of sins is obtained for anyone whose sins are not remitted; or that salvation was purchased for him, whom God from eternity hath decreed to condemn: for this were a vain purchase…And when we say that Christ died for all, we take it thus, to wit, that the death of Christ is sufficient to save whosoever do believe, yea, and that it is sufficient to save all men, if all men in the whole world did believe in Him: and that the cause why all men are not saved, is not in the insufficiency of the death of Christ, but in the wickedness and incredulity of man.” (Pierre du Moulin, The Anatomie of Arminianism [London, 1635], pg. 198)
William Twisse
“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?” (William Twisse, The Doctrine of the Synod of Dort and Arles Reduced to the Practice [Amsterdam, 1631], 3rd Part, 1st Section, p. 165)
John Davenant
"The most learned Belgic Professors, in their judgment exhibited at the Synod of Dort, confess the same thing (Act. Synod. Dordt. p. 88). “We confess, say they, that the merit and value of the death of Christ is not only sufficient to expiate all, evert the greatest sins of men, but also those of the whole posterity of Adam, although there should be many more to be saved, provided they embraced it with a true faith.” But it would not be sufficient to save all, even if all should believe, unless it be true that by the ordination of God this death is an appointed remedy applicable to all. If it be denied that Christ died for some persons. it will immediately follow, that such could not be saved by the death of Christ, even if they should believe. What is usually answered to this argument by some, viz. “That God has not commanded his ministers to announce that Christ died for every individual, whether they believe or not, but only for believing and penitent sinners, and therefore it cannot be demonstrated from the universality of the call, that the death of Christ is. according to the ordination of God, an universal remedy applicable to all” seems to me to be said very inconsiderately. For faith is not previously required in mankind, as a condition, which makes Christ to have died for them, but which makes the death of Christ, which is applicable to all from the Divine loving-kindness to man, actually applied and beneficial to individuals. The death of Christ was a sacrifice established in the Divine mind, and ordained for men from the beginning of the world; nor could it profit any one if he should believe, unless it had been offered for him before he believed. When therefore we announce to any one, that the death of Christ would profit him if he believed, we presume that it was destined for him, as applicable before he believed. (John Davenant, Dissertation on the Death of Christ, 358-359.)
“The death of Christ is acknowledged as the universal cause of human salvation, and Christ himself has died for all sufficiently, not on account of its mere sufficiency or its intrinsic value, according to which the death of God is a price more than sufficient to redeem a thousand worlds; but on account of the evangelical covenant established by the merit of this death with the whole human race, and of the divine ordination depending upon this covenant, according to which remission of sins and eternal life is, on account of the merits of Christ having died, declared to be exhibited before whoever will believe, under the possible condition of faith.” (John Davenant, A Dissertation on the Death of Christ, pgs. 401-402)
“But granting the intrinsic sufficiency of the ransom to redeem a thousand worlds, at the same time it must be granted that this same ransom is not yet offered in any way for many men, nor yet offered up sufficiently. For as ten thousand pounds are enough, and more than sufficient to liberate five debtors, who each owe two hundred pounds; yet if this entire sum should be offered and paid to the creditor for two only by name, the other three being excluded, the sufficiency and superabundance of this ransom in itself will not effect, that it may be said to be given and paid sufficiently for those three: thus, in this common cause of the human race, although the precious blood of Christ be a ransom more than sufficient for blotting out the debts of every individual, yet it cannot be from thence inferred that he was sufficiently offered for them, who, in the very act of offering, are openly excluded.” (John Davenant, A Dissertation on the Death of Christ, pg. 408)
“When Davenant says that Christ died for all sufficiently, he understands the sufficiency to be a conditional ordained sufficiency, because the death of Christ does not immediately liberate any, except on condition of faith.” (Michael J. Lynch, John Davenant's Hypothetical Universalism: A Defense of Catholic and Reformed Orthodoxy [Oxford University Press: 2021], pg. 115)
William Perkins
“We willingly admit that Christ died for all (as the Scriptures assert the same thing), but we absolutely deny that Christ died equally for each and every one with respect to God, or that he died for the damned in the same way as for the elect, and that also effectually on God’s part.” (William Perkins, On the Manner and Order of Predestination)
“The exhibiting of the Mediator is that whereby the Son of God, being born man in the fullness of time, does pay the price of redemption (λύτρον) to God for the sins of men. The virtue and efficacy of this price being paid in respect of merit and operation is infinite; but yet it must be distinguished, for it is either potential or actual. The potential efficacy is whereby the price is in itself sufficient to redeem everyone without exception from his sins, albeit there were a thousand worlds of men. But if we consider that actual efficacy, the price is paid in the counsel of God and as touching the event only for those which are elected and predestinated. For the Son does not sacrifice for those for whom He does not pray, because to make intercession and to sacrifice are conjoined.” (William Perkins, On the Manner and Order of Predestination)
Leiden Synopsis
"Moreover, the end, object, and “for whom” of satisfaction is only the Elect and true believers of both the Old and the New Testament. For although with respect to the magnitude, dignity, and sufficiency of the price, considered in itself, it may be extended to all people, yet it is particularly a payment for those whom the Father has chosen and given to the Son, who by the gift of God will believe in God and his Son. Wherefore Scripture everywhere says that he spent himself “for his own,” and “for us,” “for the sheep,” and “the Church.” Matthew 20:28, 26:28; 1 John 3:16; Acts 20:28 etc." (Synopsis Purioris Theologiae, [Leiden: 1642], pg. 356)
Johannes Wollebius
"Of course, if we take into consideration the magnitude and worthiness of the merit, we admit that it would suffice for the redemption of ten worlds; but if we take the plan of God and the intention of Christ into consideration, then it is false to say that Christ died for every person. For this reason others say that his death was sufficient for all, but not effective for all; that is, the merit of Christ, because of his worthiness, is sufficient for all, but it is not effective for all in its application, because Christ did not die with the intention that his death be applied to all." (Johannes Wollebius, Compendium Theologiae Christianae trans. John W. Beardslee in Reformed Dogmatics [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House: 1965], pg. 105)
Francis Turretin
“Hence the state of the question is easily elicited…It is not asked with respect to the value and sufficiency of the death of Christ–whether it was in itself sufficient for the salvation of all men. For it is confessed by all that since its value is infinite, it would have been entirely sufficient for the redemption of each and every one, if God had seen fit to extend it to the whole world. And here belongs the distinction used by the fathers and retained by many divines–that Christ ‘died sufficiently for all, but efficiently for the elect only.’ For this being understood of the dignity of Christ’s death is perfectly true (although the phrase would be less accurate if referred to the will and purpose of Christ).” (Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 14th Topic, Q. 14, section 9)
Amyraldianism: An Error, but not a Heresy
“Also, it should be pointed out again that the doctrinal difference between the Saumur theologians and Turretin do not involve any of the fundamental tenets of the Reformed faith. Turretin himself mentions this fact in a letter to Jean Claude which we shall consider later in this thesis. As we have seen various times in this chapter, Turretin refers to the Salmurians as fellow Reformed pastors and theologians, and the Salmurians certainly view themselves as being within the Reformed tradition. In fact, Amyraut goes to great lengths in attempting to prove that the orthodox Reformed theologians are in agreement with him. Thus, even though this controversy was a serious and lengthy one, nevertheless it was entirely an internal dispute within the Reformed churches concerning non-fundamental matters.” (Donald Davis Grohman, “The Genevan Reactions to the Saumur Doctrines of Hypothetical Universalism: 1635-1685,” Th.D. diss, pg. 120)
“Nor indeed is there a reason for the honorable foreign brothers, whom we otherwise cherish and fraternally esteem as having obtained a faith of equal standing (ίσοτιμον πιστιν λαχοντας), to be angry with us about a disagreement that has been brought to light for good and weighty reasons, or to keep saying that we are furnishing anyone with an opportunity for schism. For on both sides, by the grace of God, the foundation of the faith remains, and in both cases, gold and silver and not a few precious stones have been built upon it out of the Word of God. The unity of the mystical body and of the Spirit is secure, “Just as we were called in one hope of our calling; for us there is one Lord, one special faith”–and in that same faith a holy concord and bond of hospitality is to be preserved–”one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all things, and in all of us” (Eph 4:4-6). Accordingly, among us the chain and bond of a most tender love will always remain secure, and, by the grace of God, the most sacred obligations of the communion of the saints will remain in a state of good repair.” (“Preface” to the “Formula Consensus Helvetica” in, Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, ed., James T. Dennison, [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Reformation Heritage Books, 2010], 4:518-519)
