Pierre Du Moulin on the Sufficiency and Efficiency of Christ’s Death

Du Moulin (hypothetical universalist, heretic):

VIII. We do very much differ from this opinion: 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, &c. Neither do we think that remission of sins is obtained for any one, whose sins are not remitted; or that salvation was purchased for him, whom God from eternity has decreed to condemn: for this were a vain purchase. We deny that election is after the death of Christ, as for many other causes, for also because Christ in the very agony of death gave a notable proof of election in these, whose heart he affected, and enlightened his mind after an immutable manner; the other these being left and neglected. And seeing that Christ does every where say that he died for his sheep, and for those whom his Father gave him, he does sufficiently declare that he died for the elect.

IX. 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 men. Finally Christ may be said to reconcile all men to God by his death, after the same manner, that we say that the Sun does enlighten the eyes of all men, although many are blind, many sleep, and many are hid in darkness: Because if all and several men had their eyes, and were awake, and were inn the midst of the light, the light of the Sun were sufficient to enlighten them. Neither is it any doubt but that it may be said, not only that Christ died for all men, but also that all men are saved by Christ, because among men, there is none saved but by Christ: After the same manner, that the Apostle says, 1 Cor. 15.20, that, “all men are made alive by Christ,” because no man is made alive but by him. 

Peter Du Moulin, The Anatomy of Arminianism (London: Printed for Nathanael Nevvbery, at the signs of the star in the Popes-Head-Alley, 1635), 198-199. [Some spelling modernized and underlining mine.] [The "mine" here is NOT me; neither are the "Notes" 1, 2, 3, and 4 below. See my attributed "SOURCE" link at the end of this post--CD]

[Notes: 1) This work was originally published in 1619. It reflects Du Moulin’s engagement with the Arminians. His work, Esclaircissement (1648), on the other hand, reflects his interaction with the Saumur theologians. 

2) Du Moulin’s language in Anatomy, represents a transitional development in his expression and understanding of the sufficiency of the satisfaction. Here, it is as if he, himself, had not yet caught up to the new language of the contrary-to-fact hypothetical sufficiency, even though he had embraced (that is, caught up with) the newer theological developments and substance of hypothetical sufficiency and limited satisfaction. In other words, relative to the doctrine of Christ’s sufficiency, strictly speaking Du Moulin, either consciously or unconsciously, is using the older language and expression in his attempt relate this to the new theological paradigm. Or stated another way simply, formally, his language reflects Lombard, but materially, his theology reflects Beza (contra Lombard), and the emerging limited satisfaction trajectory. 

3) If there is any uncertainty regarding Du Moulin’s overall theological position on the nature and extent of the satisfaction, a quick read of the next chapter (chapter 28) will clearly dispel any doubts. Chapter 28, alone, silences any thoughts that Du Moulin held to a meaningful or even a nominal version of hypothetical universalism. 

4) Further, in his later work, Esclaircissement (1648), Du Moulin tightened his wording regarding the sufficiency of the death of Christ, by removing all “died for all” language1 (as found in the original Lombardian formula), and, it would appear, by also introducing the more explicit and standard language of the contrary-to-fact hypothetical sufficiency, as is found in so many of the Protestant Scholastic Orthodox in this period.]
1For Beza and others, any language of “died for” entails proper substitution and representation with regard to bearing sin and punishment. For this reason, Beza rejected the Lombard formula outright. [SOURCE]