Preaching in Oxford in 1640, James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh, drew the attention of his listeners to the dangers of rhetorical language in any discussion of the death of Jesus Christ:Consider the invaluable price that was paid for thee, and how great he was who paid it... It was the second person in the sacred Trinity, he, and no other, that was thus humbled for thee: he was weary for thee, and reviled for thee, sweated and fainted for thee, hungered for thee, and was buffeted for thee. It was he, the second person of the blessed Trinity, in proper speech, without either trope or figure, shed his blood for thee, died for thee1In the hermeneutical morass of the mid-seventeenth century, Ussher's words issued a timely warning. Developing Aristotle's Rhetoric, Renaissance humanists had instructed their readers on the responsible en-coding of persuasive powers in literary texts. After the reformation, handbooks of rhetoric foregrounded the religious possibilities of de-coding the sacred text. The title page of Henry Peacham's The Garden of Eloquence (1577) claimed the usefulness of its contents for 'the better understanding of the holy Scriptures'; the title page of Dudley Fenner's Artes of Logick and Rhetoricke (1584) referred to its contents' Opening of certaine parts of Scripture, according to the same'. But the Opening' of popular Bible reading tended to go further than the early theologians had preferred. Within Ussher's puritan tradition, the annotations of the Geneva Bible established a basic distinction between the sign and the signified in an effort to erect an interpretive apparatus that would limit and control the open-ness of the text. The Geneva annotations referred to such figures of speech as parenthesis, antithesis, synecdoche, 'metonymia', hyperbola, enallage, and hypallage - all explained for the benefit of the imagined 'simple reader'.2But 'simple readers' went beyond the Geneva Bible's caution. Ussher's sermon, two generations later, was challenging the exegesis of those theologians who had come to interpret biblical statements indicating the universality of the death of Christ - for the world, for 'all', 'for thee' - to mean something other than they initially appeared to mean. What did St Paul mean, in apparently transcending the issue of election, when he stated that 'God is the Saviour of all men' (1 Timothy 4:10)? The first page of Fenner's Artes ofLogick and Rhetoricke explained that the text showed 'salvation to be the thing caused by God', without making any claims for the number of the redeemed.' What did St John mean when he wrote that Jesus Christ 'is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world' (1 John 2:2)? Protestant theologians could answer that question in quite different ways. Some 'soul-torturing' puritan scholastics with high Calvinist tendencies explained the text by identifying 'the world' as a sign and referring it to the CIeCt/At the opposite end of the theological spectrum, others, increasingly described as Arminians, refused to identify the expression as a metaphorical sign and argued instead that Christ's death had placated God's wrath against every individual: 'the world' really meant 'the world'. Between these poles, and often still within the puritan camp, 'hypothetical universalists' followed Calvin on election and predestination, but, like the Arminians, insisted that the atonement provided by the death of Christ was universal in its scope. Their retention of the universality of the death of Christ - 'for thee', in general - recognised that the Biblical language of the passion was 'proper speech' indeed. By contrast, Ussher reflected, high Calvinist theologians, pursuing a refined orthodoxy, were systematically misidentifying signifieds as signs, undermining the plain style, and promoting excessive interpretive openness. In warning against the elaboration of 'trope or figure', therefore, his sermon was rooting its discussion of the death of Christ within the wider plain style and apparent closed-text preferences of the older puritan rhetoricians preferences the sermon described as providing for 'proper speech' - and was contrasting those approaches with the inadequate literary methods of the high Calvinists. …