The Soteriology of James Ussher: The Act and Object of Saving Faith by Richard

Snoddy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Pp.287. $74.00.

The recent publication of Richard Snoddys dissertation on the soteriology of James
Ussher offers a helpful corrective to the variety of Usshers presented in previous
scholarly literature particularly the High-Church Ussher represented by John Henry
Newman, which ultimately told us more about Newman than Ussher. While
demonstrating the Protestantism of Usshers soteriology, Snoddy also convincingly offers
an interpretation of Ussher that defies older Protestant theological paradigms such as
Calvinist or Arminian. Usshers soteriology blends the wider Reformed tradition
with the patristic and medieval theology that preceded him. Indeed, Ussher defies
pigeon-holing (p. 10), and Snoddy paints a nuanced picture of Usshers place in
Reformed orthodoxy.
Snoddys treatment, over and against other treatments of Usshers theology, goes beyond
published material and interacts with a variety of unpublished manuscripts including
sermon material. This methodological move allows Snoddy to present Ussher as a wellrounded churchman, both as a preacher and theologian.
The most intriguing (and longest) chapter touches on Usshers view of the nature and
extent of the atonement. Snoddy argues that Usshers view on the extent of Christs
satisfaction is something of a via mediawhich Snoddy terms hypothetical
universalismbetween certain Reformed approaches to the atoning work of Christ that
argued for a limited satisfaction (i.e., for the elect alone) and the view of the
Remonstrants which argued that Christ died equally for all human beings. Responding to
Jonathan Moores work on English hypothetical universalism, Snoddy demonstrates
convincingly that Usshers hypothetical universalism was anything but a softening of
the Reformed tradition. Usshers view is representative of a significant trajectory of
theological reflection on the atoning work of Christ culled not only from earlier
Reformed theologians such as Bullinger, Musculus, and Ursinus, but also medieval and
patristic theologians, most notably Augustine and Prosper. Ussher, in fact, saw his view
as nothing more than what was taught in the Thirty-Nine Articles (see Art. 31) and
consistent with the medieval Lombardian Formulaviz., Christs atoning work was
sufficient for all human beings, but efficient for the elect alone.
Snoddy also proves that Usshers doctrine of justification, while distinctly Protestant
according to early modern standards, was shaped by intramural debatese.g., eternal
justification, double imputationamong Protestants, especially the Reformed. Similar to
the previous chapter, Snoddy characterizes Usshers doctrine of justification as an
outgrowth of Usshers sense of continuity with the early church and his desire for
catholicity. Hence, possibly following Martin Bucer, Ussher is willing to speak of a
double justification and even deems as unsound doctrine the idea that both past and
future [sins] are remitted at the moment of justification (p. 111). Usshers doctrine of
justification is anything but simplistic, but Snoddy ably handles the material with the
necessary theological acumen required.

Snoddy underlines the various social, political, and theological factors that enhanced
Usshers doctrine of sanctification and his practical theology. Although hardly surprising
in light of other Reformed theologians in the seventeenth-century, Ussher often speaks of
the necessity of good works for salvation. Snoddy also notes that, contra certain
misconceptions about the ethics of Reformed scholasticism, Ussher is comfortable
speaking of infused righteousness, virtues, and habitslanguage which rather closely
resembles that of medieval theological ethics. Finally, Snoddys discussion of the
relationship between Usshers doctrine of justification and sanctification lends more
credence to Richard Gaffin and Mark Garcias understanding of the role of union with
Christ vis--vis the benefits of redemption. The doctrine of union with Christ plays
something of an architectonic role within Usshers soteriology.
The final chapter touches on the difficult question of the relationship between assurance
and faith in Usshers soteriology. Ussher defies easy categorization (202), says Snoddy,
and his theology undermines the two simplistic paradigms found in the work of the
earlier scholars R. T. Kendall and Joel Beeke. Snoddy portrays Usshers doctrine of
assurance as fundamentally resting not on ones own experience of sanctification but
rather on the reflex act of faith (see Ussher, A Body of Divinitie (1645), 200). However,
he suggests that Usshers doctrine of assurance shifted over time, moving towards an
increasing emphasis on assurance as gained through the inward gaze of experimental
piety (232).
If one were to nitpick with a book that has very little to quibble with, one might be
skeptical of Snoddys suggestion that Ussher was an infralapsarian based on the evidence
presented. Also, Snoddys characterization of Usshers distinction between Christs work
of satisfaction and intercession as a radical disjunction (58) sounds more like a value
judgment than something Ussher would be willing to grant. Snoddys conclusions,
however, are typically moderate, making good use of the subjunctive mood.
In conclusion, Snoddys treatment of Usshers soteriology has everything one would
expect from a dissertation published by Oxford University Press. Snoddys work is the
fruit of meticulous research in both printed and manuscript form coupled with careful
exposition of highly technical, scholastic language. The book's analysis of Ussher's
soteriology goes well beyond the analysis one might find in other literature on Ussher.
His dissertation is a powerful reminder to early modern scholars that knowledge of
patrology, medieval theology, Latin, and general social and political history is crucial for
properly understanding the context in which early modern theologians worked out their
ideas.
Michael J. Lynch