No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Reformulating redemption: A study of the two-powers distinction in Davenant and Owen and its implications for the extent of atonement
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 May 2025
Abstract
The distinction between God's absolute power and ordained power was a hallmark of medieval theology, yet its role within Reformed theology has rarely been considered. Even more importantly, consideration of the distinction in Reformed theology by historians is often restricted to theology proper or the nature and necessity of the atonement with little regard for how the concept can inform the question of the extent of the atonement. This paper seeks to fill this lacuna by considering two influential Reformed theologians of the seventeenth century: John Davenant and John Owen. While considerable attention has been given to the distinctly Thomist influence on these two theologians in particular, this paper seeks to qualify these legitimate assessments with the following conclusion: Davenant and Owen both understand the two-powers distinction in a way that differs from Aquinas and reflects a shift in the concept in late medieval theology.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
1 Oberman, Heiko, The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963), pp. 30–6Google Scholar.
2 Oakley, Francis, ‘The Absolute and Ordained Power of God in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Theology’, Journal of the History of Ideas 59/3 (1998), p. 89Google Scholar. Oakley, citing Bavinck, notes a positive use of the distinction can be found in Polanus, Turretin, Alsted and Heidegger, but does not explore their use further. For the two powers in the doctrine of God amongst the Reformed Orthodox, see Rehnman, Sebastian, ‘The Doctrine of God in Reformed Orthodoxy’, in Selderhuis, Herman J. (ed.), A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy (Leiden: Brill, 2013), p. 385Google Scholar.
3 Carl Trueman calls Owen ‘one of the most significant reformed orthodox thinkers of the seventeenth century’. Trueman, Carl, ‘Reformed Orthodoxy in Great Britain’, in Selderhuis, Herman J. (ed.), A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy (Leiden: Brill, 2013), p. 285Google Scholar.
4 Zahnd, Ueli, ‘Calvin, Calvinism, and Medieval Thought,’ in Gordon, Bruce and Trueman, Carl (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Calvin and Calvinism (Oxford: OUP, 2021)Google Scholar, p. 28.
5 Moonan, Lawrence, Divine Power: The Medieval Power Distinction Up to Its Adoption by Albert, Bonaventure, and Aquinas (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p. 379.
6 Resnick, Irvin, Divine Power and Possibility in St Peter Damian's De Divina Omnipotentia (Brill: Leiden, 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p. 2.
7 Lombard, Peter, The Sentences Book 1: The Mystery of the Trinity, trans. Silano, Giulio, 1st edn (Toronto: PIMS, 2007)Google Scholar, p. 237.
8 Otten, Willemien, ‘Modalities in Francis Turretin: An Essay in Reformed Ontology’, in Wisse, Maarten, Sarot, Marcel and Otten, Willemien (eds), Scholasticism Reformed: Essays in Honour of Willem J. van Asselt (Leiden: Brill, 2010)Google Scholar, p. 89.
9 Courtenay, William J., Capacity and Volition: A History of the Distinction of Absolute and Ordained Power (Bergamo: Pierluigi Lubrina, 1990)Google Scholar, p. 90.
10 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae 1.25.5.1; https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1025.htm#article5. See Moonan, Divine Power, pp. 292–3, for a list of the various ways Aquinas applied the two-powers distinction.
11 Oakley, ‘The Absolute and Ordained Power of God’, p. 446.
12 Helm, Paul, John Calvin's Ideas (Oxford: OUP, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p. 316.
13 Courtenay, Capacity and Volition, p. 92.
14 Oakley, ‘The Absolute and Ordained Power of God’, p. 442.
15 Oakley, Francis, ‘Voluntarist Theology and Early-Modern Science: The Matter of the Divine Power, Absolute and Ordained’, History of Science 56/1 (2018), p. 82CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
16 In addition to Hostiensis, Courtney surveys a few other reasons which account for the gradual shift to an operationalised view of the absolute power in late medieval theology. See his ‘The Dialectic of Omnipotence in the High and Late Middle Ages’, in T. Rudavsky (ed.), Divine Omniscience and Omnipotence in Medieval Philosophy (Dordrecth/Boston/Lancaster: Springer, 1985), pp. 257–85.
17 See Courtney for the canonist view, and Henri Veldhuis, ‘Ordained and Absolute Power in Scotus’ Ordinatio I 44’, Vivarium 38/2 (2000), pp. 222–30, in response. Cf. Di Cristo, Massimiliano Traversino, ‘The Classic Age of the Distinction between God's Absolute and Ordered Power’, Franciscan Studies 76 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p. 208. Gelber, Hester (It Could Have Been Otherwise: Contingency and Necessity in Dominican Theology at Oxford, 1300–1350 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), p. 318)CrossRefGoogle Scholar argues Scotus held a mediating position where he affirms God's establishing new ordained systems via absolute power but also through the use of simultaneous instants of nature.
18 Though, with Kennedy, it should be admitted that the operationalised account had a greater prominence amongst the Franciscans in the fourteenth century, and the Thomists of the fifteenth century were considerably more cautious than the nominalists and Scotists. Kennedy, Leonard, ‘Early Fourteenth Century Franciscans and Divine Absolute Power’, Franciscan Studies 50/1 (1990), pp. 197–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Idem, ‘The Fifteenth Century and the Divine Absolute Power’, Vivarium 27/2 (1989), pp. 125–52.
19 Steinmetz, David, Calvin in Context, 2nd edn (Oxford: OUP, 2010), pp. 42–4Google Scholar.
20 Marenbon, John, Medieval Philosophy: An Historical and Philosophical Introduction (Milton Park: Routledge, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p. 304.
21 Oakley, ‘The Absolute and Ordained Power of God’, p. 452.
22 Steinmetz, Calvin in Context, pp. 49–50.
23 Helm, John Calvin's Ideas, p. 332.
24 te Velde, R. T., The Doctrine of God in Reformed Orthodoxy, Karl Barth, and the Utrecht School: A Study in Method and Content (Leiden: Brill, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p. 238.
25 Vermigli, Pietro Martire, Philosophical Works: On the Relation of Philosophy to Theology (Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1996), p. 64Google Scholar.
26 Oakley, ‘The Absolute and Ordained Power of God’, p. 456. Robert Preuss, attempting to summarise the theology of Lutheran Orthodoxy from figures such as Abraham Calov, argues ‘God's power is said to be absolute when He works apart from the usual causae secundae. An example of such power is the creation of all things, but also God's preparing a virgin, His raising the dead, etc.’ The Theology of Post Reformation Lutheranism, vol. 2 (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1972), pp. 106–7. Johann Gerhard evidences an operationalised view of the absolute power as well in his Theological Commonplaces: On the Nature of God and on the Most Holy Mystery of the Trinity, trans. Richard Dinda, ed. Benjamin Mayes (St Louis, MO: Concordia House Publishing, 2007), p. 196.
27 Vermigli, Philosophical Works, p. 199.
28 In later Reformed orthodoxy, this power would come to be termed potentia extraordinaria as distinguished from the potentia ordinaria. Richard Muller notes other Reformed figures like Thomas Manton classify the potentia extraordinaria under the potentia ordinata, Richard Muller (Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 3 of The Divine Essence and Attributes (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), p. 537. In his later work, Richard Muller (Divine Will and Human Choice: Freedom, Contingency, and Necessity in Early Modern Reformed Thought (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017), ch. 7) has concluded Turretin and his contemporaries moved beyond all the early Reformed approaches to the distinction in their referencing of the law of non-contradiction. Vermigli stands as a notable exception to this claim.
29 Ames, William, The Marrow of Sacred Divinity, Drawne out of the Holy Scriptures … (London: Edward Griffin, 1642), p. 24Google Scholar.
30 Herman Bavinck, God and Creation, vol. 2 of Reformed Dogmatics, trans. John Bolt (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004), p. 249. Richard Muller has also concluded Polanus held to the non-operationalised account of the potentia absoluta. Richard Muller, Divine Will and Human Choice, ch. 7. Insofar as Bavinck is using the term ‘Augustinian and Thomist’ to describe a rejection of what he sees as the nominalist thesis that God could will even contradictions, he is correct to point to these Reformed theologians as rejecting such a view. Yet, according to the taxonomy laid out in this work, with respect to Aquinas’ rejection of an operationalised absolute power, Bavinck's historical claims need qualification. For example, unlike Aquinas, Polanus held to an operationalised account of God's absolute power in his Syntagma theologiae christianae (Geneva: Jacob Stoer, 1617), p. 1192: ‘Dicitur absoluta, quia non est limitata universali lege naturae, quasi praeter & supra ilam non posset Deus quicquam facere. Vocatur etiam omnipotentia Dei extraordinaria, quia per illam potest Deus agere praeter consuetum ordinem naturae, producendo se solo tam effecta secundorum agentium, quam alia, ad quae res creatae pertingere non possunt.’
31 Mastricht, Petrus Van, Theoretical-Practical Theology: Faith in the Triune God, vol. II (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2020)Google Scholar, p. 432.
32 Wendelin, Marcus, Christianae theologiae libri duo (Amstelodami: Jan Janssonius, 1657)Google Scholar, p. 87. Leigh, Edward, A Body of Divinity (London: William Lee, 1662)Google Scholar, p. 236. Ussher, James, A Body of Divinitie (London: Downes, 1645), pp. 47–8Google Scholar.
33 Goudriaan, Aza, Reformed Orthodoxy and Philosophy: 1625–1750: Gisbertus Voetius, Petrus Van Mastricht, and Anthonius Driessen (Leiden: Brill, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p. 199. See Beck, Andreas, Gisbertus Voetius (1589–1676) on God, Freedom, and Contingency: An Early Modern Reformed Voice (Leiden: Brill, 2022), pp. 421–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for a thorough analysis of Voetius’ account of the two powers, though surprisingly Beck does not engage with Voetius’ comments regarding miracles (noted by Goudriaan); nevertheless, on p. 427 he concludes, ‘In my view, the crucial question is not whether God can really act de potentia absoluta (neither Scotus nor Voetius deny this) but whether God can act inordinate, that is, contrary to his nature (this extremely nominalist position is excluded by Thomas, Scotus, and Voetius).’ See also Matthew C. Baines, ‘Gisbertus Voetius's (1589–1676) Doctrine of Participation: Its Scholastic and Mystical Sources’, Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh, 2023, p. 122, who details Voetius’ operationalised view of the absolute power while still acknowledging the utility of the older formulation.
34 Rehnman, Sebastian, Divine Discourse: The Theological Methodology of John Owen (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group, 2002)Google Scholar. Cf. Cleveland, Christopher, Thomism in John Owen (Farnham: Ashgate, 2013)Google Scholar.
35 Owen, John, Christologia: or A Declaration of the Glorious Mystery of The Person of Christ God and Man, vol. 1 of The Works of John Owen, ed. Goold, William H. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1850), p. 163Google Scholar.
36 John Owen, Discourse on the Holy Spirit, vol. 3 of The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1852), p. 610.
37 John Owen, Mortification of Sin in Believers, vol. 6 of The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1851), p. 277.
38 John Owen, A Display of Arminianism, vol. 10 of The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1852), p. 15.
39 John Owen, Truth and Innocence Vindicated, vol. 13 of The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1852), pp. 381–2, 438. Cf. John Owen, Some Considerations about Union Among Protestants, vol. 14 of The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1851), p. 522.
40 John Owen, True Nature of a Gospel Church, vol. 16 of The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1853), p. 111.
41 John Owen, A Dissertation on Divine Justice, vol. 10 of The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1852), p. 558.
42 Courtenay, Capacity and Volition, p. 91.
43 Trueman, Carl, ‘The Necessity of the Atonement’, in Haykin, Michael and Jones, Mark (eds), Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), pp. 204–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
44 Trueman, Carl, The Claims of Truth: John Owen's Trinitarian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2021)Google Scholar, p. 95.
45 Schendel, Joshua, The Necessity of Christ's Satisfaction: A Study of the Reformed Scholastic Theologians William Twisse (1578–1646) and John Owen (1616–1683) (Leiden: Brill, 2022), pp. 106–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
46 Here Schendel has in mind Twisse, William, The Riches of God's Love on Vessels of Mercy Consistent with His Absolute Hatred or Reprobation of the Vessels of Wrath (Oxford: L. L. and H. H, 1653)Google Scholar I, p. 150; and William Twisse, Vindiciae gratiae potestatis ac providentiae Dei (Amsterdam: Joannes Janssonius, 1648), I.II digr. 4, p. 180. Consider his treatment in Schendel, The Necessity of Christs Satisfaction, pp. 112–15.
47 Schendel, The Necessity of Christ's Satisfaction, p. 114.
48 Lynch, Michael, John Davenant's Hypothetical Universalism: A Defense of Catholic and Reformed Orthodoxy (Oxford: OUP, 2021)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p. 2.
49 Davenant, John, Animadversions Written by the Right Reverend Father in God John, Lord Bishop of Salisbury, Upon a Treatise Intitled Gods Love to Mankind (Cambridge: Roger Daniel, 1641)Google Scholar, p. 226.
50 Ibid., p. 518.
51 Davenant, John, Dissertationes Duae: Prima De Morte Christi, Quatenus ad omnes extendatur, Quatenus ad solos Electos restringatur. Altera De Praedestinatione & Reprobatione (Cambridge: Roger Daniels, 1650), p. 51Google Scholar: ‘Ea autem accipitur in ordine ad legem aliquam commune datam & promulgatam a Deo, secundum quam aliquid intelligitur possible fieri vel non fieri, aut etiam secundum commune cursum rerum naturalium vel moralium, ut recte Bannes.’
52 Ibid. ‘Ergo non solum juxta potentiam Dei absolutam sed secundum potentiam ordinariam quivis incredulus & impoenitens potest vera poenitentia & fide salutisera donari.’
53 Ibid., p. 49.
54 Ibid., p. 69, ‘Hisce duabus thesibus subjunximus tertiam, qua ostensum est, Posita hac universali virtute mortis Christi, atque hoc universali foedere Evangelico ad quemlibet hominem spectante, tamen hanc vel illam singularem personam habere quidem solo beneficio hujus mortis Deum obligatum ad pacem cum illo ineundam, vitamque illi donandum, si crediderit; non autem habere actualem justificationem aut reconciliationem, sive actualem statum gratiae & salutis, antequam credat.’
55 Lynch, John Davenant's Hypothetical Universalism, p. 120.
56 Owen, A Display of Arminianism, vol. 10 of The Works of John Owen, p. 68. See Foord, Martin, ‘John Owen's Gospel Offer: Well-Meant or Not?’, in Kapic, Kelly and Jones, Mark (eds), The Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen's Theology (Burlington: Ashgate, 2012), pp. 286–96Google Scholar; see especially p. 293, where Ford points out that Owen specifically denies ‘that God has a natural affection (an inclination according to his nature) that all people be saved’, as such would compromise on Owen's view, God's blessedness and omnipotence.
57 In relation to this, see Timothy Barnes, ‘A Great King Above All Gods: Dominion and Divine Government in the Theology of John Owen’, Ph.D. diss., University of St. Andrews, 2016, pp. 133–5. Cf. pp. 179–81, where Barnes points out Owen insisted God can have proper obligations to his creatures whereas Davenant merely affirmed God keeps obligations out of his faithfulness rather than justice.
58 Ballor, Jordan, Gaetano, Matthew and Sytsma, David (eds), Beyond Dordt and De Auxiliis: The Dynamics of Protestant and Catholic Soteriology in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Leiden: Brill, 2019), p. 8CrossRefGoogle Scholar, note that Owen even affirmed physical premotion.