Philip Doddridge (1702–1751) on 1 Timothy 2:4

d Will have all men to be saved.] It is far from being my design, in any of these notes, to enter deep into controversy, but I must confess I have never been satisfied with that interpretation which explains all men here, merely as signifying some of all sorts and ranks of men; since I fear it might also be said on the principles of those who are fondest of this gloss, that he also wills all men to be condemned. On the other hand, if many are not saved, it is certain the words must be taken with some limitation, which the following clause, he wills their coming to the knowledge of the truth, must also prove. The meaning, therefore, seems to be, that God has made sufficient provision for the salvation of all, and that it is to be considered as the general declaration of his will, that all who know the truth themselves should publish it to all around them, so far as their influence can extend.

Philip Doddridge, The Family Expositor: Or, A Paraphrase and Version of the New Testament with Critical Notes and a Practical Improvement of Each Section (London : Printed for W. Baynes, 1825), 904.

Bio:
Wiki
DNB

Benjamin Keach’s (1640–1704) Notes Related to Matthew 23:37

THE COMPASSION OF CHRIST TO SINNERS UNDER THE SIMILITUDE OF A HEN

“How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a Hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” Matt. 23:37.

The Lord Jesus shows by these words his great compassion and affection to the Jews, who refused the offers of his love and infinite favour.

Three things are considerable in the text.
1. Christ’s grace and good intention to them, “How often would I have gathered thy children together,” &c.
2. The way or manner which he took in order to the accomplishing his gracious design and purpose touching them,—“As a Hen gathereth her chickens under her wings.”
3. The Jews’ obstinacy; “Ye would not.”
The Lord condescends very low in making this simile of a Hen; the nature and property of which creature take as follows, so far as it will hold parallel to the case in hand.

SIMILE.
PARALLEL.

I. Nullum enim animal circa pullos suos tanta compassione movetur, &c., saith Bernard [Bern. de pass. Dom. cap. v.], “There is no creature that is moved with so much compassion towards her young ones, as the Hen.”
I. The Lord Jesus was moved with the greatest compassion imaginable towards the poor Jews and Jerusalem, which he was first sent to, and came to seek and to save. This is signified abundantly by that wonderful passion, that seized upon his Spirit, when he came near the city, and by his expressions in the text, &c., it is said, “He wept over it,” &c., and cried out with a mournful voice, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem,” &c., Matt. 23:37, Luke 19:41, 42.

II. The Hen is observed to fly in the very face of such ravenous birds as strive to destroy her chickens; she strives to save and defend them with all her might, though with the utmost hazard of her life.
II. The Lord Jesus Christ to save and defend the offspring of Israel, and the poor sinners of the Gentiles, did not refuse to encounter with the greatest of their enemies: he resisted the devil, who sought to make a prey of them, &c., Matt. 4:6, 8. No enemy that strove to devour us, but Christ endeavoured to defend us from him.

III. Such is the Hen’s care of, and affection towards her chickens, that she for their sakes is made weak in all her members, and brought to extreme faintness. Hoc genus animantis magnum affectum in filios habet, ita ut eorum infirmitate affecta, &c., (saith Austin) “this creature shows great affection towards her young ones, that being affected with their weakness, she also is made weak.”
III. Christ, that he might save poor perishing sinners, by taking man’s nature upon him, was made weak in the same sense, as it is said he became poor: such was the greatness of his love and affection towards us, that “he bare our sickness, and carried our sorrows,” Isa. 53:4. To what extremity of faintness was he brought, when “he sweat as it were great drops of blood!” And when the ponderous cross was laid upon him, as they led him to Golgotha, it is said, “He fainted,” Luke 22:44. “He was touched with the feelings of our infirmities, being made like to us in all things, sin only excepted,” Heb. 4:15.

IV. The Hen clucks often, and with a mournful voice, as it were, calls her chickens to her, when she perceives they are in danger by the kite, or any other enemy, to be destroyed.
IV. Christ calls to poor helpless and impenitent sinners very often, with a mournful voice, and tears in his eyes, “O that thou hadst known, in this thy day, the things that belong to thy peace; but now they are hid from thine eyes! O Jerusalem, Jerusalem!” why, what is the matter? An enemy is at hand, ruin is at the door; “Why will you die, O house of Israel?” Ezek. 18:31. Now it is to England, yea, to London: O that they would once hear Christ’s call before it is too late, and the things that concern their peace be hid from their eyes! &c.

V. The Hen stands ready prepared to receive her chickens under her wings, to defend them against all violence that may happen to them.
V. The Lord Jesus stands with his arms and heart open, ready to receive all true penitent sinners, that come unto him; “I have spread out my hands all the day long,” &c. Isa. 65:2. “Come unto me all ye that labour, and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest,” &c. Matt. 11:28, 29.

VI. The Hen is very desirous to gather all her chickens together, and cover them with her wings; she would not have one of them wanting.
VI. The Lord Jesus hath such bowels of pity and compassion to sinful mankind, that he would have none of them perish, “But come to the knowledge of the truth, and be saved,” 1 Tim. 2:2, 3, 4. How desirous is he to get them all under his wings of grace and protection; “Turn ye, turn ye, why will ye die, O house of Israel? turn and live, saith the Lord,” Ezek. 18:31, 32. “How often would I have gathered thy children together!” &c.

VII. The Hen gathers her chickens to her; and that they may have food as well as nourishment and shelter, she looks about and scratches to get them meat.
VII. The Lord Jesus calls to sinners, that they may have the bread of life. “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters,” Isa. 55:1. “Eat ye that which is good; yea, the bread that never perisheth,” John 6:27. Christ gives bread that never perisheth.

VIII. The Hen succours, refreshes, and makes lively such chickens that are weak and hang down their wings, and can scarce go; she soon recovers them when she gets them under her wings.
VIII. All sin-sick and diseased souls that are weak and hang down their heads, or their wings, and go drooping all the day, as it were, half-dead, no sooner are they got under the wings of Christ, but he graciously succours and refreshes them, making them brisk and very lively.

IX. The Hen, it is observed, if she find any crumbs, corn, or any other good thing, she gives it to her chickens, though she want it herself: she spares out of her own mouth, and puts it into theirs.
IX. Christ out of his infinite bowels to his people, finding no other meat was so good and excellent for them, gave them food from heaven, even his own body, “My flesh is meat indeed,” &c., John 6:55.

SIMILE.
DISPARITY.
I. The Hen cannot save and defend her chickens under her wings, When she hath gathered them to her, being a poor, weak, inconsiderable creature.
I. The Lord Christ is strong and able to save, hide, and defend all his people that come to him, under his wings, being the most high, omnipotent, eternal Jehovah: “The Father and I am one:” “He thought it no robbery to be equal with God,” Phil. 2:6, 7.

II. The Hen, when her chickens are grown up, cares not for them; she will (it is noted) rather strike at them, and beat them from her.
II. Our blessed Saviour will never cease to take care of, and provide for his poor children; his eye is as well upon the oldest and strongest Christians as upon the weakest and youngest: “Cast all your care upon him, for he careth for you,” &c.

III. The Hen loses oftentimes her chickens; the kite gets them away from her, and makes a prey of them.
III. The Lord Jesus Christ cannot, will not lose one of them that the Father hath given him, “Those that thou hast given me I have lost none, but the son of perdition,” &c. John 17:12, “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish,” &c. John 10:28.

IV. A Hen soon forgets her chickens, which she hath bred and brought up.
IV. Christ never can, nor will forget his saints, “Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, she may, but I will not forget thee,” Isa. 49:15, 16.

INFERENCES

I. What great encouragement doth this similitude afford to all, yea to the vilest of sinners? O what compassion is there in Christ’s heart towards you, how willing is he to gather you to himself!
II. It also informs us of that great blindness and horrid obstinacy which is in the hearts of wicked men; “How often would I have gathered Israel, and they would not be gathered! I would, but ye would not!” how dare sinners then to charge their eternal overthrow, perishing, and ruin upon the Lord Jesus Christ? “Know, O sinner, thy destruction is of thyself,” Hos. 13:9.
III. It also truly informs us, that all safety and salvation is in the Lord Jesus Christ. Under his wings we must get if we would be secure from the enemy of our souls, and be delivered from eternal danger: “Unto him shall the gathering of the people be,” Gen. 49:10.
IV. Of what amazing nature was the great condescension of the blessed Jesus, who made himself of no reputation! became weak, poor, and sensible of our infirmities, touching the flesh, that we might be strong, rich, and partake of his perfections, and glorious fulness, Phil. 2:7.
V. Here is also very much comfort to all true believers, whoever they be, that are gathered by the word and Spirit unto Christ: he will succour, guide, revive, and defend them for ever. He infinitely out-doth the Hen; his bowels exceed the bowels of the tenderest mother to her sucking child. He is strong enough also, as well as tender, not only willing but able. Fear not Satan, “he hath swallowed up death in victory.” The kite hath (as one observes) as it were an aching tooth at the chickens, fain would he make a prey of them: so would the devil of believers. Christ knows how to preserve them, by gathering them all under his wings. Soul, fear not, if thou art under the protection of the Lord Jesus Christ, thou art in safety from all temporal aud spiritual dangers.
VI. If Christ be so tender and compassionate unto sinners, and seeks to gather them unto him; who will pity them if they perish at last and are damned, when all is from their own vile, stubborn, and wilful obstinacy?
VII. If the Lord Jesus Christ be so tender of, and kind to his saints which he hath gathered to himself, and sheltered under his wings; then let this doctrine teach Christians in an especial manner to be kind one to another, and tender one of another, and to do their utmost endeavour to defend one another in this evil day, from the common enemy both of body and soul.
VIII. This may serve for seasonable reproof to all those, who profess the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and hope for preservation by him, and shelter under his wings, yet, instead of endeavouring to the utmost to help one another, revile, backbite, and persecute one another, for small and circumstantial differences in profession, and thereby give the common enemy advantage over them both, “A divided house cannot stand,” Mark 3:25.

Benjamin Keach, Tropologia: A Key to Open Scripture Metaphors (London: William Hill Collingridge, 1856), 458–60.

Bio:
Wiki

Simon J. Kistemaker’s (1930–2017) Doctrinal Considerations on 2 Peter 3:9

Even though Kistemaker seems to prefer to take the “you” (or the “us”) in 2 Peter 3:9 as applying to Peter’s readers, or to “his people” (which likely means the elect, in his view, or believers), not the scoffers, he still said:

Does not God want the false teachers to be saved? Yes, but they disregard God’s patience toward them, they employ their knowledge of Jesus Christ against him, and they willfully reject God’s offer of salvation. They, then, bear full responsibility for their own condemnation.³³
_______________
33. Consult Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 2nd rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941), p. 442.

Simon J. Kistemaker, James, Epistles of John, Peter, and Jude (NTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 334.

He then adds this doctrinal consideration:

Doctrinal Considerations in 3:18–19

“So wonderful is [God’s] love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost.”³⁴ So writes John Calvin on verse 9 and thus touches the doctrine of God’s mercy toward sinful man. Here are two examples of this divine love; one is from the Old Testament, the second from the New Testament.

First, God showed his love to Cain when he asked, “If you do what is right, will you not be accepted?” (Gen. 4:7). Yet Cain, filled with anger and jealousy, murdered Abel (v. 8). When God continued to speak to Cain, he did not meet a repentant sinner but a selfish individual who sought protection from an avenger. “Cain went out from the Lord’s presence” (v. 16), although God demonstrated mercy by shielding him (v. 15). Cain belonged to the evil one, says the apostle John (1 John 3:12). That is, he rejected God’s grace and mercy and willfully departed from God.

Second, before Jesus appointed the twelve disciples, he spent a whole night in prayer (Luke 6:12). He called Judas Iscariot to the circle of his immediate followers. After a period of instruction, Jesus commissioned the twelve disciples to preach the gospel, to heal the sick, to raise the dead, to cleanse the lepers, and to drive out demons (Matt. 10:7–8). In his love, Jesus commissioned Judas, too. Even at the last Passover celebration in the upper room, Jesus visibly indicated to Judas that he knew of the betrayal (John 13:26). Yet Judas delivered his Master to the chief priests. Granted that Judas was filled with remorse, he never repented (Matt. 27:3). He never returned to Jesus, but instead committed suicide.

When Paul writes that God “wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4; also see Ezek. 18:23, 32), he does not mean that all men are indeed saved. Although God desires the redemption of the entire race, he does not decree universal salvation. Therefore, in respect to the verb want or wish theologians distinguish between God’s desire and God’s decree.³⁵

God extends his mercy to sinful man. However, when man repudiates God’s grace, divine condemnation hangs over him (II Peter 2:3) and he faces the inevitable day of judgment (3:7).
_______________
34. Calvin, The Second Epistle of Peter, p. 419.
35. Ibid. Compare [Edwin A.] Blum, 2 Peter [Hebrews–Revelation, in vol. 12 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. F. E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981)], p. 286.

Ibid., 334–335.

Bio:
Wiki

Remaining Quotes by Asahel Nettleton (1783–1844) on the Free Offer and the Death of Christ

1) The Free Offer

5. Death puts a period to our probation. This world is not our home. The great errand on which we were sent into the world, is, that we may prepare for eternity. It is now the season of trial—the most important period of our being. Every act of ours will have some influence on us through interminable ages. To every soul God has assigned a great and important work. All things are now preparing for the day when God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing. The gates of heaven are now flung wide open to every sinner. Heaven with all its glories, is brought within his reach. At this critical moment, the world is presenting all its charms. The path to hell is broad, and easy, and of rapid descent. The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life, and all the fascinating pleasures of sin, are now exerting their united influence to try this immortal soul, whether it will yield and go to hell, or whether it will resist, deny itself, and take up every cross, despising the shame. Every hour, and every moment is big with consequences. The season of trial is short. It is to be enjoyed but once. Eternity comes hastening on. Every sinner is now on trial once for all. He is now invited by all the love and compassion of a bleeding Saviour, and urged by all the horrors of the second death, to enter the ark of safety. He is now called upon to strive—to agonize to enter the strait gate. But death closes the scene forever. At midnight the cry is made, “behold the bridegroom cometh, go ye out to meet him.” Then those that are ready enter heaven, and the door is shut. To the impenitent, death closes the door of heaven, and closes it forever. The voice of the Saviour, and the sound of the gospel will be heard no more. Ministers will preach no more. No more will they warn every man night and day with tears. No Sabbath will again dawn upon the sinner. The doors of the sanctuary will never again be opened to him, and a voice from the mercy-seat inviting him to enter, will be heard no more.

Asahel Nettleton, “Sermon XIII: Death,” in Remains of the Late Rev. Asahel Nettleton, D.D., ed. Bennet Tyler (Hartford: Published by Robins and Smith, 1845), 178–179. Also in Asahel Nettleton, “Sermon 2: The Contemplation of Death (Deuteronomy 32:29),” in Asahel Nettleton: Sermons from the Second Great Awakening (Ames, IA: International Outreach, 1995), 13–14. There are some minor discrepancies between the 1995 version and the 1854 edition.

6. Is it because salvation is not freely offered. The invitation is, “Ho everyone that thirsteth, come ye to the waters; and he that hath no money, come ye, buy and eat; buy wine and milk without money and without price.” “The Spirit and the bride say come; and let him that heareth, say come; and let him that is athirst come; and whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely.” “Come for all things are now ready.” Salvation is now freely offered, and always has been; and you may rest assured, that it will never be offered more freely.

Asahel Nettleton, “Sermon VIII: Indecision in Religion,” in Remains of the Late Rev. Asahel Nettleton, D.D., ed. Bennet Tyler (Hartford: Published by Robins and Smith, 1845), 121. Also in Asahel Nettleton, “Sermon 3: Indecision in Religion (I Kings 18:21),” in Asahel Nettleton: Sermons from the Second Great Awakening (Ames, IA: International Outreach, 1995), 20. There is a discrepancy. In this edition, before the Isa. 55:1 quotation, it is introduced by the sentence, “Salvation is freely offered.” The last sentence in this version says, “And you are invited, entreated, nay, commanded to accept. This always has been the case; salvation always has been freely offered to you.”

The Spirit strives with men, not merely to show them their guilt and danger; but to show them their need of a Saviour, and to incline them to come to Christ. When they see their need of Christ, they are unwilling to come to him. “Ye will not come to me that ye might have life.” “No man can come unto me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him.” Now the Spirit comes to draw reluctant hearts. If it were not for this awful reluctance of the sinner to come to Christ, this drawing would not be necessary.

Asahel Nettleton, “Sermon XXXVI: God’s spirit will not always strive,” in Remains of the Late Rev. Asahel Nettleton, D.D., ed. Bennet Tyler (Hartford: Published by Robins and Smith, 1845), 360. Also in Asahel Nettleton, “Sermon 52: God’s Spirit Will Not Always Strive (Genesis 6:3),” in Asahel Nettleton: Sermons from the Second Great Awakening (Ames, IA: International Outreach, 1995), 440.

3. The sinner is invited to Christ for life. “I am come,” said Christ, “that they might have life.” “He that believeth on the Son, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life.” Sinners are invited to Christ that they may receive life. And Christ says, “ye will not come unto me that ye might have life!” Now it is clear, that none but those who are under sentence of death, and are destitute of spiritual life, are invited to Christ for life. The offer of life, is proof positive that all to whom the offer is made, are lost. The gospel offer, “Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely,” is made to those, and those only who are spiritually dead.

Asahel Nettleton, “Sermon XXXVII: Salvation for the Lost,” in Remains of the Late Rev. Asahel Nettleton, D.D., ed. Bennet Tyler (Hartford: Published by Robins and Smith, 1845), 367. Also in Asahel Nettleton, “Sermon 53: Salvation for the Lost (Luke 19:10),” in Asahel Nettleton: Sermons from the Second Great Awakening (Ames, IA: International Outreach, 1995), 447.

2) The Atonement

Though salvation is freely offered to every sinner who hears the gospel, yet such is the depravity of the human heart, that not a single son or daughter of Adam will accept. Left to themselves, all will go to destruction, notwithstanding the atonement and the free offer of salvation. What then shall be done? Shall the Saviour’s death be in vain? Here the covenant of redemption comes in as the only ground of hope. It is through this covenant, that any one ever was, or ever will be saved.

Asahel Nettleton, “Sermon V: Perseverance of the Saints,” in Remains of the Late Rev. Asahel Nettleton, D.D., ed. Bennet Tyler (Hartford: Published by Robins and Smith, 1845), 73. This entire portion is strangely missing or omitted in the 1995 edition (see “Sermon 25: The Perseverance of the Saints [Philippians 1:6],” p. 193), which alleges to be “Taken from the original handwritten manuscripts of the Rev. Asahel Nettleton” (Title page). William C. Nichols, of International Outreach, Inc., says the “first 29 chapters [which this section is included in] have been taken word for word from Nettleton’s handwritten manuscripts.” Apparently the “Hartford Seminary [in Hartford, Connecticut] manuscripts...are fragile, faint, torn, and difficult to read and handle.” One wonders if perhaps this is the reason for this omission. It would be worth investigating the original. This discrepancy or deletion can’t be due to “illegible handwriting” since a “hole in the manuscript” since there is no footnote indicating such, as Nichols says would be the case (ibid., i.). In 1995, as indicated in Nichols’s preface, Mr. Tom Newman (director of the Hartford Seminary Library) and Mrs. Carolyn Sperl (head of Reference and Interlibrary Loans at the Seminary) assisted Nichols as the time.

But this is not all. Think of his love—his boundless compassion for sinners. Think of your vileness—the number and aggravation of your sins; and yet the Saviour has laid down his life for you. “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son”—And what returns have you made for this unspeakable gift? You have been ashamed of him. Were you justly condemned to die by the laws of the state; and at the awful crisis, should some kind friend step forward and offer to die in your stead; and with his dying breath, request an affectionate remembrance; would not the bare mention of his name, bring tears into your eyes? But what has the Saviour done? Groaned and died under the weight of all your sins, to deliver you not from the momentary pangs of death; but from the fire that shall never be quenched. And what returns have you made? You have been ashamed of him. “Scarcely for a righteous man will one die.” “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” How ungrateful to be ashamed of Christ!

Asahel Nettleton, “Sermon 31: The Sin and Consequences of Being Ashamed of Christ (Luke 9:26), in Asahel Nettleton: Sermons from the Second Great Awakening (Ames, IA: International Outreach, 1995), 269. Also in Asahel Nettleton, “Sermon III: The Sin and Consequences of Being Ashamed of Christ,” in Remains of the Late Rev. Asahel Nettleton, D.D., ed. Bennet Tyler (Hartford: Published by Robins and Smith, 1845), 47. Christ’s “love” and “boundless compassion for sinners” includes his “laying down his life” for all the lost Nettleton is addressing. He quotes John 3:16 to support that idea, and indiscriminately tells the lost in his audience that the Savior “groanded and died under the weight of all their sins” to deliver them from “the fire that shall not be quenched,” or for their eternal salvation, not merely temporal sufferings.

Bring this subject, my hearers, home to your hearts. How do you feel when you know that others are ashamed of you? Suppose one of your companions should be ashamed to own an acquaintance with you—should blush and hide his face at the bare mention of your name—should flee at your approach—and should bolt and bar his door lest he should be disgraced by your society. To be treated thus by your equal would be trying. To be treated thus by your best friend, would be heart rending. But this is nothing. Christ the friend of sinners, who groaned and died on the cross to save you, will be ashamed of you. O, to have Christ ashamed of you! Let all your friends—Let all the world be ashamed of you—Let them cast out your name as evil—Let them point and hoot at you as you pass along the streets; still it is nothing to the punishment that is coming upon you, if you are now ashamed of Christ. If Christ were your friend, this might be easily borne. It would be nothing. You might even esteem “the reproach of Christ greater riches than all the treasures of” this world. But to have Christ ashamed of you—who can bear it?

Asahel Nettleton, “Sermon III: The Sin and Consequences of Being Ashamed of Christ,” in Remains of the Late Rev. Asahel Nettleton, D.D., ed. Bennet Tyler (Hartford: Published by Robins and Smith, 1845), 49. Also in Asahel Nettleton, “Sermon 31: The Sin and Consequences of Being Ashamed of Christ (Luke 9:26), in Asahel Nettleton: Sermons from the Second Great Awakening (Ames, IA: International Outreach, 1995), 271. There is a slight discrepancy in this version. Instead of “best friend,” it has “your equal.” In the context, clearly Nettleton is talking to unbelievers who are ashamed of Christ, and will have “punishment coming upon” them.

Let me appeal to the experience of impenitent sinners. Do you love to pray? Do you love to meditate and converse on the subject of religion? Why is it that all the motives which are presented to your minds, are insufficient to induce you to comply with the terms of the gospel? Why do you not repent? Do you say, you cannot? Then certainly you are totally depraved. If you had the least love to God, you could not help repenting. Think against who you have sinned. What a heart must that be that can feel no contrition for sin committed against such a glorious being? Think of the love of Christ in dying for your sins, and in offering you salvation without money and without price. Surely if this is not sufficient to melt your hearts, they must be harder than adamant.

Asahel Nettleton, “Sermon 44: Total Depravity (Genesis 6:5),” in Asahel Nettleton: Sermons from the Second Great Awakening (Ames, IA: International Outreach, 1995), 397–98. Also in Asahel Nettleton, “Sermon XXVIII: Total Depravity,” in Remains of the Late Rev. Asahel Nettleton, D.D., ed. Bennet Tyler (Hartford: Published by Robins and Smith, 1845), 317–18. It is clear in the context that Nettleton is addressing the unregenerate, or those who may “venture on in sin in view of these threatenings.”

Hence we find that the Scriptures speak of God’s reconciling the world unto himself—not of his being reconciled to the world, or to their plans of salvation. But the fact that Christ has died, and that a way of salvation has been provided, does not settle the question whether the sinner will be saved. If he is displeased with the plan of salvation, and does not freely subscribe with his hand unto the Lord, instead of being saved, he will fall under an aggravated condemnation.

Asahel Nettleton, “Sermon XX: Sinners Entreated to be Reconciled to God,” in Remains of the Late Rev. Asahel Nettleton, D.D., ed. Bennet Tyler (Hartford: Published by Robins and Smith, 1845), 252. Also in Asahel Nettleton, “Sermon 39: Sinners Entreated to be Reconciled to God (2 Corinthians 5:20),” in Asahel Nettleton: Sermons from the Second Great Awakening (Ames, IA: International Outreach, 1995), 359.

That God should give his Son to die for this rebellious world—that Christ should consent to assume our nature, and suffer in out stead—and that salvation should be freely offered to the children of men, in an exhibition of astonishing mercy. And that all with one consent, should begin to make excuse, and refuse to accept of offered mercy, is proof of astonishing depravity. We should naturally expect that God would do no more for such ungrateful creatures. But he has given us his Holy Spirit to strive with them. This may properly be styled God’s last effort with sinners.

Asahel Nettleton, “Sermon 52: God’s Spirit Will Not Always Strive (Genesis 6:3),” in Asahel Nettleton: Sermons from the Second Great Awakening (Ames, IA: International Outreach, 1995), 439. Also in Asahel Nettleton, “Sermon XXXVI: God’s spirit will not always strive,” in Remains of the Late Rev. Asahel Nettleton, D.D., ed. Bennet Tyler (Hartford: Published by Robins and Smith, 1845), 359. It is clear in the context that Nettleton is addressing lost sinners, and telling them God gave his Son to die for them, or for “all” who “with one consent, should begin to make excuse, and refuse to accept of offered mercy,” due to their “astonishing depravity.”

Your sins have been committed against Christ who died for sinners—and is it hard that you should be required to feel sorrow for sins which have contributed to nail the Saviour to the cross? What a heart must that be which does not melt in view of a Saviour’s dying love?

Asahel Nettleton, “Sermon XXXV: The Nature and Reasonableness of Evangelical Repentance,” in Remains of the Late Rev. Asahel Nettleton, D.D., ed. Bennet Tyler (Hartford: Published by Robins and Smith, 1845), 356. Also in Asahel Nettleton, “Sermon 51: The Nature and Reasonableness of Evangelical Repentance (Acts 17:30),” in Asahel Nettleton: Sermons from the Second Great Awakening (Ames, IA: International Outreach, 1995), 436. Nettleton is obviously speaking to unbelievers in the context, and including all of them in the class of “sinners” for whom Christ died. That he says their “sins...contributed to nail the Saviour to the cross” bespeaks an unlimited imputation.

We learn from this subject why ministers preach the gospel. Although Christ has come and laid down his life for sinners, they all with one consent refuse to come to him for pardon and eternal life. The business of ministers is to show them their lost condition, and to urge them to come to Christ for life. This is the reason why Paul, and the other apostles preached the gospel to sinners;—and this is the reason why missionaries are sent into all parts of the world to proclaim the gospel.

Asahel Nettleton, “Sermon 53: Salvation for the Lost (Luke 19:10),” in Asahel Nettleton: Sermons from the Second Great Awakening (Ames, IA: International Outreach, 1995), 449. Also in Asahel Nettleton, “Sermon XXXVIII: Salvation for the Lost,” in Remains of the Late Rev. Asahel Nettleton, D.D., ed. Bennet Tyler (Hartford: Published by Robins and Smith, 1845), 369. It is clear in the context that Nettleton is addressing all the lost when he says that the “sinners” for whom Christ came and “laid down his life” are those who “with one consent refuse to come to him for pardon and eternal life.”

II. Why is it [the inefficacy of the means in themselves to convert sinners] so?
Not because the atonement is not sufficient for all men.
Not because salvation is not offered to all.
But it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, because
Sinners always will wrong, and always run wrong.

Asahel Nettleton, “Plans of Sermons, and Brief Observations on Texts of Scripture: Romans ix:16,” in Remains of the Late Rev. Asahel Nettleton, D.D., ed. Bennet Tyler (Hartford: Published by Robins and Smith, 1845), 375–76. Also in Asahel Nettleton, “Plans of Sermons, and Brief Observations on Texts of Scripture: Romans 9:16,” in Asahel Nettleton: Sermons from the Second Great Awakening (Ames, IA: International Outreach, 1995), 455–56.

The house of heaven.
I. The door of heaven is opened.
By whom? Rev. iii:7, 8. “These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth and no man shutteth,” &c.
How?  By his sufferings and death.
For whom? “Who gave himself a ransom for all.” “Tasted death for every man.” “We thus judge if one died for all.”
II. The door will be shut.
When? At death—when the Spirit ceases to strive.
By whom? By Christ the master of the house.
How long will it be shut?
Forever. He that is holy—holy still. He that is filthy—filthy still.
When the door is shut some will be shut out, and some will be shut in.
If it should now be shut, where should we be found?

Asahel Nettleton, “Plans of Sermons, and Brief Observations on Texts of Scripture: Matthew xiii:25,” in Remains of the Late Rev. Asahel Nettleton, D.D., ed. Bennet Tyler (Hartford: Published by Robins and Smith, 1845), 389–90. Also in Asahel Nettleton, “Plans of Sermons, and Brief Observations on Texts of Scripture: Matthew 13:25,” in Asahel Nettleton: Sermons from the Second Great Awakening (Ames, IA: International Outreach, 1995), 469–70. Nettleton appears to use 2 Cor. 5:14, 1 Tim. 2:6, and Heb. 2:9 in universal ways, as he includes all who will be eventually shut out within the scope of these texts. The door of heaven is currently opened for them by the death of Christ.

Bio:
Wiki
Nettles

William Brenton Greene (1854–1928) on God’s Goodness

(3) His goodness, in all its forms, is boundless. It includes (a) benevolence, which has for its objects all sensitive creatures (Ps. CXLV:9); (b) love, which has rational beings for its objects (John II:16); (c) mercy, which has for its objects the miserable (Isa. LXIII:9); (d) grace, which has for its objects the undeserving (Rom. V:8). When any suffer, it is at least because this is right; it cannot be because of lack of power or of mercy in God. When sinners are lost it is at least because His justice so requires; it cannot be because God lacks either the power (Heb. VII:25) or the wish to save them (I Tim. II:4). Hence, “God is love” (I John IV:8). Though He is much else, love is that in which He delights. Moreover, as the expression of His love ever harmonizes with His justice, so His justice is always exercised in love. God never feels so much compassion as when He punishes most severely (Ezek. XXXIII:11).

W. Brenton Greene, Jr., Christian Doctrine (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1905), 15–16. On pages 32 and 36 he repeats his view that God wishes to save all. Compare this with J. Gresham Machen’s interpretation of 1 Tim. 2:4 and Ezek. 33:11. Machen also says, “He [God] wishes that all men shall be saved.”


Bio:
PCA History

Upon Greene’s death in 1928, J. Gresham Machen wrote of him, “I loved Dr. Greene. He was absolutely true, when so many were not. He was always at Faculty and Presbytery, no matter how feeble he was. He was one of the best Christians I have ever known.”—Ned B. Stonehouse, J. Gresham Machen: A Biographical Memoir (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954) 439.

Thomas Manton (1620–1677) on God’s General Love in Sending a Savior, and His Alike Favor in the Free Offers of Grace

3. There are many considerations which are proper to our state, every one of us have cause enough to love God, if we have but hearts to love him. Not only as he created us out of nothing, but as he redeemed us by Christ: Cannot I bless God for Christ, without reflection on my own particular benefit? His general love in sending a Saviour for mankind, John 3.16. God so loved the World, that he sent his only begotten Son into the World, that whosoever believed in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. As they reasoned, Luke. 7.5. He loved our Nation, and hath built us a Synagogue. Few did enjoy the benefit of it, but ‘twas love to the Nation of the Jews. So his Philanthropy, his man-kindness should put that home upon us, that there is a sufficient foundation for the truth of this Proposition, that whosoever believeth shall be saved: That Christ is an all-sufficient Saviour, to deliver me from wrath, and to bring me to everlasting life, that such a doctrine is published in our borders, wherein God declareth his pleasure, that he is willing all men should be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth, 1 Tim. 2.3 [4]. That the door is wide enough, if you will get in; and if you have no interest, you may have an interest: We must not think that general grace is no grace: The life of Christianity lyeth in the consideration of these things: In the free offers of grace, all have alike favour, and none have cause to murmur, but all to give thanks: All that God looketh for is a thankful acceptance of the grace, made for us in Christ; surely when we think of God’s goodness, and kind-heartedness to miserable, and unworthy sinners, and do often and seriously think what he is in himself, and what he is to you, what he hath done for you, and what he will more do for you, if you will but consent, and accept of his grace: Such serious thoughts cannot but warm your hearts, and through the Lord’s blessing, awaken in you a great love to God. In short the love of God shed abroad in the Gospel, is the great and powerful object, that must be meditated upon: And the love of God shed abroad in your hearts, the most effectual means, to keep these objects close to the heart. And then doubts will vanish.

Thomas Manton, “Sermons Upon 2 Corinthians V: Sermon XXIV,” in The Complete Works of Thomas Manton, D.D., 22 vols. (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1873), 13:155–156.

Bio:

Wiki

Richard Baxter’s (1615–1691) Notes on 1 Timothy 2:5–6

5. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6. Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

5, 6. For it must move us to pray for all, in compliance with this Will of God, that would have all Men saved; because there is One God who is good to all, and One Mediator between God and Mankind, who took on him the Common Nature of all Men, and gave himself a Ransom for all, revealed in the Season appointed of God, (or to be preached to all in due time, as God pleaseth.)

Note, The Controversie about Universal Redemption, too hotly agitated by Beza, Piscater, and others, on one side, and by many on the other, I have fully handled in my Catholick Theologie, and Methodus Theologiae; and it needs no more than as aforesaid: 1. Whoever is damned, it is not because no Ransom was made for him, or because it was not sufficient for him. 2. By Gods Will to save all, is meant the Effects of his Will that have a tendency to their Salvation. 3. It is notorious, that God hath made an Universal Act of Grace or Oblivion, giving Pardon of all Sin, and Right to Life in Christ, to all Men, without exception, on Condition of Believing-acceptance; and hath commissioned his Ministers to offer this Gift to all Men, to the utmost of their power, and entreat them to accept it; and doth by many Mercies intimate to them, that he useth them not according to the mere violated Law of Innocency, but on Terms of Grace. 4. Few Christians have the face to affirm, that this Universal Conditional Pardon and Gift (or Law of Grace) is no Fruit of the Death of Christ. 5. If therefore this Act of Pardon was purchased by Christ, and given to all, no modest Face can deny, that he so far died for all, as to purchase for them all that he actually giveth them. 6. It is usual to say that we give a Man a Benefit, (e. g. Life to a condemned Malefactor) if it be given him on the fair Condition of his Acceptance, and brought to his own Will, and he entreated to receive it. 7. If any Wrangler say, that this is unfit Language, (to say, He is willing that Men shall be saved, who offereth them Salvation freely, unless he also make them willing:) Let him confess, that it is but the Name that he denieth, and none of the Gifts in question. 8. And be it known, that Unwillingness cometh not from a Physical Impossibility, through the want of Natural Faculties, (as it is with Brutes) but from a voluntary Pravity, which aggravateth the Sin. 9. And the mutable Will of Man is to be changed by Reason: And God giveth Men Reasons in their kind sufficient to persuade them to accept of Christ and Life. 10. And lastly, No Man can say, that Adam when he fell had not Grace enough to make him Able to have stood, which he might have used, and should have done, to his actual standing: Nor, that God never giveth such a power to believe (or at least to come nearer the State of a true Believer) to many that might bring it into Act, and do not. This much is enough to end this Controversie with modest Wits.

Richard Baxter, “The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to Timothy,” in A Paraphrase on the New Testament (London: Printed for B. Simmons, at the Three Cocks in Ludgate-street, 1685), xxx3^v.

Bio:  

Wiki

DNB

Robert Murray McCheyne (1813–1843) on Christ’s Sufficiency and Willingness to Save All

1. Show that it is not by reason of anything in Christ that sinners are lost.

It is not because Christ is not sufficient to save all.
The whole Bible shows that Christ is quite sufficient to save all the world—that all the world would be saved, if all the world were to come to Christ: ‘Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world.’ The meaning of that is, not that sins of the whole world are now taken away. It is quite plain that the whole world is not forgiven at present. (1) Because the whole is not saved. (2) Because God everywhere calls sinners to repentance, and the first work of the Spirit is to convince of sin—of the heavy burden that is now lying on Christless souls. (3) Because forgiveness in the Bible is everywhere attached to believing. When they brought to Jesus a man sick of the palsy, Jesus, seeing his faith, said unto him: ‘Son, be of good cheer; thy sins are forgiven thee.’ Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.’ The simple truth of the Bible is, that Christ hath suffered and died in the stead of sinners—as a common person in their stead; and every man that is a sinner hath a right to come.

Christ is quite sufficient for all, and I would prove it by this argument: if he was sufficient for one sinner, then he must be sufficient for all. The great difficulty with God (I speak as a man) was, not how to admit many sinners into his favor, but how to admit one sinner into his favor. If that difficulty has been got over in Jesus Christ, then the whole difficulty has been got over. If one sinner clothed in Christ may come unto God, then all sinners may. If one sinner may have peace with God, and God be yet just and glorious, then every sinner may have peace with him. If Christ was enough for Abel, then he is enough for all that come after. If one dying thief may look to him and be saved, so may every dying thief. If one trembling jailer may believe on Jesus, and rejoice believing, so may every other trembling sinner. O brethren! you may doubt and wrangle about whether Christ be enough for your souls, but if you die Christless, you will see that there was room enough under his wings, but you would not.

Sinners are lost, not because Christ is unwilling to save all.
The whole Bible shows that Christ is quite willing and anxious that all sinners should come to him. The city of refuge in the Old Testament was a type of Christ; and you remember that its gates were open by night and by day. The arms of Christ were nailed wide open, when he hung upon the cross; and this was a figure of his wide willingness to save all, as he said: ‘I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.’ But though his arms were firmly nailed, they are more firmly nailed wide open now, by his love and compassion for perishing sinners, than ever they were nailed to the tree.

There is no unwillingness in the heart of Jesus Christ. When people are willing and anxious about something, they do everything that lies in their power to bring it to pass. So did Jesus Christ: ‘What could have been done more for my vineyard, that I have not done in it?’ But if they are very anxious, they will attempt it again and again. So did Jesus Christ: ‘O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered your children as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!’ But if they are still more anxious, they will be grieved if they are disappointed. So was Jesus Christ: ‘When he came near, he beheld the city, and wept over it.’ But if they are very anxious, they will suffer pain rather than lose their object. So did Jesus Christ: The good Shepherd gave his life for the sheep. Ah! dear brethren, if you perish, it is not because Jesus wishes you to perish.

A word to anxious souls. How strange it is that anxious souls do most of all doubt the willingness of Christ to be their Saviour! These should least of all doubt him. If he is a willing Saviour to any, O surely he is a willing Saviour to a weary soul! Remember the blind beggar of Jericho. He was in your case—blind and helpless—and he cried: ‘Jesus, thou son of David, have mercy upon me.’ And when. the crowd bade him hold his peace, he cried so much the more. Was Jesus unwilling to be that beggar’s Saviour? He stood still, and commanded him to be brought, and said: ‘Thy faith hath made thee whole.’ He is the same willing Saviour still. Cry after him; and, though the world may bid you hold your peace, cry after him just so much the more.

A word to careless souls. You say Christ may be a willing Saviour to others, but surely not to you. O yes! he is quite willing for you too. See him sitting by the well of Samaria, convincing one poor sinful woman of her sins, and leading her to himself. He is the same Saviour toward you this day. If you do perish, it is not because Christ is willing. He wills all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. He pleads with you, and says: ‘Turn ye, turn ye, why will ye die?’

R. M. McCheyne, “42. Ye will not come unto me (John 5:40),” in From the Preacher’s Heart (Additional Remains, 1846; repr. Ross-shire, UK: Christian Focus Publications, 1993), 294–296. Also in Robert Murray McCheyne, “Sermon LXVIII,” The Works of the Late Rev. Robert Murray McCheyne, 2 vols. (New York: Robert Carter, 1847), 2:394-396.

Bio:  

Wiki

DNB

William Strong (d.1654) on the Double Will of God

There is good ground for a double will of God, which the Scripture speaks of, a will of complacence, and a will of efficacy: approbationis & effectionis, a will of approbation and of effection: the one is a general and conditional will, manifested to the Creature, whereby the Lord approves and rewards obedience and perseverance therein in all persons whomsoever. And this is his revealed will, without determining any thing of particular persons in whom he will work this obedience. But the other is a secret will toward that particular person in whom he will work this obedience, and to whom he will give grace to continue in it. God did in his revealed will manifest to Adam, what he did require of him, what he delighted in, and what he would reward him for; but he did not tell him that he would give him grace and a supernatural assistance to cause him to continue in obedience; but he left him to the mutability of his own will, and in the hand of his own Counsel. God wills, that all men should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, 1 Tim. 2.4. God wills that all men should believe, but he will not work faith in all men; He wills that all men should be saved, but he will not bring all men to Salvation; he wills the one voluntate approbante, by a will of approbation; but the other decernente, by a decreeing will: So Davenant his answer  to God’s love to Mankind, pag. 220.

William Strong, A Discourse of the Two Covenants (London: Printed by J. M. for Francis Tyton at the Three Daggers in Fleet-street, and for Thomas Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns at the lower end of Cheapside near Mercers Chapel, 1678), 3.

Bio:  

Wiki

DNB

Patrick Fairbairn (1805–1874) on the Will of God; With Reference to Ezekiel 18:23, 33:11, and 1 Timothy 2:4

Ezek. 18:23:

What a beautiful simplicity and directness in the statement! It is like the lawgiver anew setting before the people the way of life and the way of death, and calling upon them to determine which of the two they were inclined to choose. Then, what a moving tenderness in the appeal, “Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked? saith the Lord God.” You think of me as if I were a heartless being, indifferent to the calamaties that befall my children, and even delighting to inflict chastisement on them for sins they have not committed. So far from this, I have no pleasure in the destruction of those who by their own transgressions have deserved it, but would rather that they turn from their ways and live. Thus he presents himself as a God of holy love,—love yearning over the lost condition of his wayward children, and earnestly desiring their return to peace and safety,—yet still exercising itself in strict accordance with the principles of righteousness, and only, in so far as these might admit, seeking the good of men. For however desirous to secure their salvation, he neither can nor will save them, except in the way of righteousness.

Patrick Fairbairn, Ezekiel and the Book of His Prophecy: An Exposition, 4th ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1876), 199.

Ezek. 33:11:

A yearning tenderness here manifests itself, still seeking, notwithstanding all that has taken place, the return of those who survived to the way of peace. But with that tenderness, what a stern and unflinching holiness! There can be no relaxation or abatement mentioned in respect to this, not even amid the moanings of pain and cries of distress which arose from the people,—no return to life possible but through a return to righteousness. God is anxious, as a kind and affectionate parent, to see them restored to a happy and prosperous condition; he would not have them ignorant of that. But they must also know that in God’s sight there was a higher thing still, which he could on no account sacrifice for the sake of the other; he must maintain in his dealings with them the honour of his authority and the rectitude of his government; and only if they turn from their wicked ways, can he turn from his fierce displeasure. Here, therefore, stands the one door-way of escape; and the prophet, in entering upon the second department of his ministerial calling, must begin by reiterating the message with which he entered on the first (chap. iii. 18–21), and which he had also subsequently repeated and enlarged upon (chap. xviii.)—the message, namely, that each should be dealt with according to his ways. The righteousness of the righteous should not deliver him if he turned aside to transgression; but neither would the wickedness of the wicked prove his destruction, if he sincerely repented of his sins and laid hold of the covenant of God. These are God’s terms now, as they have been all along; the Lord’s servant has no other to offer; and if they are not concurred in, recovery is impossible.

Ibid., 360.

1 Tim. 2:4:

Then follows the reason why such conduct [i.e. making intercession for all men] meets with God’s approval as right and proper: who willeth all men to be saved, and to come to the full knowledge of the truth—ἐπίγνωσιν, knowledge in the fuller sense, knowledge that reaches its end, saving knowledge; and the governing verb, it will be observed, is θέλει, not the stronger βούλεται, which would have expressed will with an implied purpose or intent (see at ver. 8). Nothing can be better than the comment of Chrysostom here: “Imitate God. If He is willing that all men should be saved, it is meet to pray for all. If He willed that all should be saved, do thou also will it; but if thou willest, pray; for it is the part of such to pray. . . . But if God wills it, you will say, what need is there for my prayers? This is the great benefit both for you and for them: it draws them to love; thyself, again, it prevents from being treated as a wild beast; and such things are fitted to allure them to faith.” There seems no need for going beyond this practical aspect of the matter; and either to press the passage on the one side, with some, to universalism,—as if it bespoke the comprehension of all within God’s purpose of salvation,—or, on the other, to limit it, so as to make, not strictly all men, but only all sorts of men (with Calvin and others), the object of the good contemplated, is equally to strain the natural import of the words. It seems to me unnatural to understand the all men, twice so distinctly and emphatically expressed, as indicative of anything but mankind generally—men not merely without distinction of class or nation, but men at large, who certainly, as such, are to be prayed for. As the objects of the church’s intercessions, there can be no difference drawn between one portion and another; and we are expressly taught to plead for all, because it is the will of God that they should be saved—σωθηναι: not His will absolutely to save them, as if the word had been σώσαι; but that they may be brought through the knowledge and belief of the truth into the state of the saved. And the whole character of the gospel of Christ, with its universal call to repent, its indiscriminate offers of pardon to the penitent, and urgent entreaties to lay hold of the hope set before them, is framed on very purpose to give expression to that will; for, surely, in pressing such things on men’s acceptance, yea, and holding them disobedient to His holy will, and liable to aggravated condemnation, if they should refuse to accept, God cannot intend to mock them with a mere show and appearance of some great reality being brought near to them. No; there is the manifestation of a benevolent desire that they should not die in sin, but should come to inherit salvation (as at Ezek. xxxiii. 11), if only they will do it in the way that alone is consistent with the principles of His moral government and the nature of Christ’s mediation. This, necessarily, is implied; and it is the part of the church, by her faithful exhibition of the truth in Christ, by her personal strivings with the souls of men, and earnest prayers in their behalf, to give practical effect to this message of goodwill from Heaven to men, and to do it in the spirit of tenderness and affection which itself breathes.

Such appears to be the fair and natural interpretation of the apostle’s declaration, and the whole that it properly calls us to intermeddle with. It is true that all whom God wills to be thus entreated and prayed for shall not actually be saved—not even many who have enjoyed in the highest degree the means and opportunities of such dealing. And seeing, as God does, the end from the beginning, knowing perfectly beforehand whom He has, and whom He has not destined to salvation, grave questions are ready to arise as to whether the work of Christ can be really sufficient to meet the emergency occasioned by the ruin of sin, or whether God be sincere in seeking through His church the salvation of all,—questions which touch upon the deep things of God, and which it is impossible for us, with the material we now possess, to answer satisfactorily to the speculative reason. Knowing who and what He is with whom in such things we have to do, we should rest assured that His procedure will be in truth and uprightness; and that the mysteries which meanwhile appear to hang around it will be solved to the conviction of every reasonable mind, when the proper time for doing so shall have arrived. But enough is known for present duty. God has unfolded for one and all alike the terms of reconciliation: He is willing, nay desirous, for His own glory’s sake, that men should everywhere embrace them; and for this end has committed to His church the ministry of reconciliation, charging it upon the conscience of her members to strive and pray that all without exception be brought to the saving knowledge of the truth. What more can be required for faith to rest on, and for the interecessions and labours of an earnest ministry?

Patrick Fairbairn, The Pastoral Epistles (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1874), 113–115.

Bio:

Wiki

DNB

Theopedia

A. C. Denlinger on Robert Baron (c.1593/6–1639) and God’s Universal Saving Will

God’s Universal Will to Save

Baron’s discussion of ‘the true sense of that statement “God wants all to be saved”’ occurs in the context of lengthy reflections about ‘whether God, who wants all to be saved (as the Apostle says in 1 Tim. 2), has denied the nations destitute of faith in Christ the means necessary unto salvation’.²⁶ Having previously argued that explicit faith in Jesus Christ, who is revealed only in the gospel, is necessary for salvation, Baron notes ‘an infinite multitude in the New World and the more remote parts of Asia and Africa who lack the light of the gospel’.²⁷ God’s providential withholding of the gospel from so many persons seems hard to reconcile with God’s desire for their salvation.

In formulating a response to this ‘serious and difficult question’ Baron takes his cues primarily from Augustine’s fifth-century disciple Prosper of Aquitaine, who ‘contemplated this mystery more than all the Fathers of the ancient church’.²⁸ In his work De vocatione omnium gentium, Prosper advanced three assertions which, in Baron’s judgement, comprise the right theological response to the question at hand. ‘The first is that God wills all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.’²⁹ With Prosper, Baron understands ‘all men’ in the apostolic affirmation quoted (1 Tim. 2.14) to mean every human person without exception; no one is excluded in the divine will to save.³⁰ ‘The second is that no one is actually saved or comes to a knowledge of the truth by his own merits or abilities, but only by the power and operation of divine grace’.³¹ Third and finally, ‘no one in this life can know exactly why God does not administer means of grace equally to all, or why God, who wants all to be saved, does not save all’.³²

Prosper’s assertions do not serve to alleviate the tension inherent to the question at hand; they serve to state it with greater force and clarity. His first and second assertions, in particular, establish an apparent contradiction between God’s sentiments and his actions towards humankind, or at least towards those who are not ultimately saved. God loves them and wills their salvation. God denies them a particular grace without which they will not be saved. His third assertion, far from serving to resolve this paradox, asserts the futility of attempting – at least ‘in this life’ – to reconcile these seemingly contradictory truths.

According to Baron, then, the proper dogmatic response to the apparent contradiction between God’s universal will to save and God’s sovereign discrimination in the distribution of his saving grace is to assert both truths with equal rigour. Neither truth, in other words, should be watered down or washed away in service to the other. This, of course, requires a rather careful balancing act; Baron proceeds by identifying two categories of theologians who ‘shrink back from the moderation and modesty of St Prosper’ on this issue, exalting one dogmatic truth at the expense of the other.

On one hand are ‘those who affirm that God’s grace for the obtaining of salvation is universal, so that its efficacy in some persons rather than others depends upon the freedom of man’s will’.³³ Baron has in mind certain medieval scholastics as well as contemporary Jesuit thinkers who:

explain and confirm their opinion with that well-known axiom facienti quod in se est Deus non denegat gratiam. If, they say, the nations were to make good use of those natural gifts and means of salvation originally distributed to them, then God, who does not deny grace to those who do what lies within them, would grant them fuller grace, … and lead them finally to a knowledge of Christ.³⁴

Those advancing this position, Baron notes, deny that man can properly (or condignly) ‘merit grace through a good use of free will’. They affirm, however, that man might, ‘by virtue of his natural abilities’, render himself ‘disposed to grace’ –or at least ‘less indisposed to grace’ – which God in turn will grant according to his promise.³⁵

In Baron’s judgement such doctrine ‘is clearly semi-Pelagian, and hence contrary to Scripture and the general consensus of the Fathers’. He rejects it on the grounds that it makes God a debtor to man in the distribution of his saving grace: ‘If God has regard to deeds performed by the virtues of [human] nature when he confers helping grace upon some and denies the same to others, then our calling unto salvation in some way depends upon our works, contrary to Paul’s teaching in Rom. 11.6, Eph. 2.8–9, 2 Tim. 1.9, and Tit. 3.9.’ Moreover, such a doctrine creates space for human boasting: ‘The one who is called has distinguished himself [by his proper use of natural gifts] from the one who is not, contrary to Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor. 4.7: “Who has set you apart from others? And what do you have that you have not received?”’³⁶

While rejecting the positive assertion that man might elicit saving grace from God through the right use of natural gifts, Baron acknowledges some truth in the inverse claim that man’s abuse of natural gifts ‘provides a peculiar reason that he is denied grace’.³⁷ ‘Sacred Scripture’, notes Baron, ‘clearly testifies that man’s prior rejection of God is a cause of divine dereliction: “Because you have forsaken Jehovah, he has forsaken you” (2 Chron. 24.20).’³⁸ But two caveats are required. First, it should be noted that God also, and justly, denies men grace because ‘they have sinned in Adam’s loins’, regardless of their subsequent abuse of natural gifts.³⁹ In other words, actual sins merely aggravate the culpability established by original sin. So ‘Thomas, following Augustine, says that grace is justly withheld from those to whom it is not given as punishment for previous sin, even original sin’.⁴⁰ It should be noted, secondly, that human sin – whether original or actual – provides no ‘exact or adequate explanation for why certain men are denied grace, since … grace is given to other men who are no less unworthy’.⁴¹

Equally removed, on the other hand, from Prosper’s ‘moderation and modesty’ are those who ‘recklessly affirm that no divine grace whatsoever extends to those who have not received the gospel’, and that, ‘in the end, God in no way wants them to be saved’.⁴² Here Baron has in mind certain Reformed peers who, he says, interpret the biblical phrase ‘God wants all to be saved’ to mean not that God wants ‘every person’ to be saved, but that he wants ‘every kind of person, i.e. individuals from every nation, rank and position’ to be saved; thus they ultimately understand ‘all’ as a reference ‘only to the elect’, who in fact receive the means necessary to salvation. According to Baron, ‘the principal reason they cling so tenaciously to this stern doctrine’ is recognition that ‘if God wants some to be saved who are not actually saved, it follows that in God there is somehow an ineffective will, a desire for things to happen which never in fact occur, and this seems absurd’.⁴³

In response to these theologians Baron argues that God has granted some grace even to those who are not ultimately elected to eternal life – ‘not only to the reprobate living within the church, but also to the nations’ – and has done so from a genuine desire that they seek him. Concerning ‘the reprobate within the church’: these ‘are granted certain gracious assistances, not only externally but also internally (Heb. 6.4–5)’.⁴⁴ Baron appeals to those theologians who belonged to the British delegation to the Synod of Dort, who in their suffrage on the articles of that Synod affirmed that ‘God truly and earnestly calls and invites the reprobate within the church to faith and repentance, and neither deserts them nor desists from pushing them forward in the way of true conversion until they first desert him by voluntarily neglecting or rejecting his grace’.⁴⁵ He anticipates an objection: ‘You will say it follows that the reason one rather than another is converted is to be found not in God, but in men themselves; one made good use, another bad, of that initial grace given to them.’ Baron unequivocally rejects such an implication, insisting that both ‘the elect who are actually converted’ and ‘the reprobate’ equally ‘abuse that initial grace’. Indeed ‘all [within the church] are called by God in a certain manner which they resist’, but while God ‘justly deserts some because they have first deserted him’, others are ‘not deserted, but are led by an extraordinary and peculiar grace of God to genuine faith and repentance, and are saved’.⁴⁶

Those outside the church have some grace and certain gifts entrusted to them as well; they have ‘the law of nature written on their hearts (Rom. 2.14–15)’ and some further ‘witness to God (Acts 14.17)’ through ‘the works of creation’. Baron quotes Rom. 1.19–20: ‘What may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made.’⁴⁷ He discovers in Acts 17.27 a clear statement of the purpose for such divine self-disclosure: ‘It is said that God offers these means to them “in order that they might seek him”.’ Nevertheless some – Baron specifically names contemporary English divine William Twisse – discover in the ultimate clause of Romans 1.20 (‘so that men are without excuse’) a rather different purpose for God’s witness to himself in creation; they insist that ‘these means are imparted to [those who are not ultimately saved] merely in order to render them anapologia, that is, inexcusable before God’.⁴⁸

Baron takes strong exception to this interpretation of the final clause of Romans 1.20: ‘These words should not be understood to indicate cause, but only consequence; in other words, they should not be read as naming the reason that God manifests his invisible qualities to the nations, but only as naming the actual outcome of that manifestation.’ It is man’s sinful response to God’s self-disclosure through ‘the works of creation’ that properly renders man anapologia in the judgement; thus ‘inexcusability before God’ is ‘only secondarily and per accidens, not per se, an end of God’s manifestation’.⁴⁹ He highlights the support his reading of Romans 1.20 finds in the biblical commentaries of Reformed theologians Heinrich Bullinger, Martin Bucer, Augustin Marlorat, Wolfgang Musculus and David Pareus.⁵⁰ And he discovers a further argument in his favour in the claim of Rom. 1.21 that ‘those who knew God’ through his self-disclosure in creation ‘did not give thanks to God.’ He explains:

If God offered these means [of knowing him] to those who are perishing only to the end of rendering them inexcusable, then those means offered to them would not have the proper character of gifts, and consequently, those who abused those means and rendered themselves anapologia or inexcusable would be falsely accused of ingratitude towards God.⁵¹

The charge of ingratitude against those who squander the gift of God’s testimony to himself in creation assumes that such testimony flows from a genuine desire for their good and well-being.

As noted above, Baron perceives the fundamental objection against a universal salvific will in God to be that it credits God, at least by implication, with an ineffective will; he tackles this problem in a discrete section titled ‘whether there is in God a certain will which is ineffective or conditional’.⁵² Baron answers ‘yes’ to that question. God genuinely wills the salvation of all, but all are not saved; something, therefore, renders that divine will ineffective. He recognizes, however, that ‘Arminians, Lutherans, and some Romanists’ also affirm an ineffective will in God, and he is keen to dissociate his view from:

those who teach that God equally or indifferently seeks and intends the salvation of all, so that the reason one is saved rather than another is to be sought not in God’s eternal election or the measure and quality of grace which men in time receive, but in the free volition of men themselves, presupposing some grace.⁵³

In contrast to any such scheme of grace and salvation, Baron affirms that:

God generally wills all to be saved by his conditional or ineffective will, but he also specifically intends and seeks the salvation of certain men by his effective will, and he decrees the salvation of certain men prior to any foreknowledge of faith, repentance, or good works which they in time will perform.⁵⁴

The arguments that Baron subsequently advances serve to demonstrate the reality of some ineffective will in God per se, regardless of its orientation towards the salvation of all. He notes, for example, that God ‘loves and prescribes many good works in his law’. If God loves certain works, he must genuinely desire their performance by men. But ‘many good works which God prescribes do not happen’. Thus, Baron reasons, ‘it is necessary to attribute to God a certain will or volition which is, in fact, ineffective’.⁵⁵ Likewise, ‘God often, in sacred scripture, promises men good things, some temporal and some eternal, which in fact they never receive because they fail to fulfil some condition which is attached to the promise’. So, for example, ‘God promised Cain his favour and acceptance, adding the condition “if you do well” (Gen. 4); God promised the Israelites that he would dispel the remaining nations from the land, adding the condition “if you cling to Jehovah” (Josh. 23. 5, 8)’. Similarly, ‘Adam and his posterity were promised immortality on condition of obedience’. Such conditional promises, Baron reasons, require recognition of ‘a certain ineffective will in God’, for a promise made to man without some corresponding desire that man fulfil the prescribed condition and inherit that which is promised would be ‘false, deceitful, and hypocritical’.⁵⁶

Baron also appeals to authorities in support of his doctrine: ‘A conditional or ineffective will in God for the salvation of all is acknowledged not only by the sacred Fathers, … but also by many orthodox theologians.’ Among the Fathers he names Chrysostom, Jerome, Prosper, John of Damascus, ‘and, indeed, Augustine himself’ as supporters of his doctrine. Among orthodox Reformed theologians he names Jerome Zanchi, Amandus Polanus and Musculus.⁵⁷ Lucas Trelcatius, he notes further, ‘distinguishes between an absolute and a conditional divine will, even if he does not explicitly say that God, by virtue of his conditional will, wants all to be saved’.⁵⁸ Pareus, moreover, ‘not only acknowledges a conditional will (which he also calls “antecedent”) in God, but also asserts that, according to it, God wills all to be saved by faith, i.e., on the condition that they believe in the Son of God’.⁵⁹ So also Daniel Chamier ‘distinguishes between … God’s will of approbation and his will of decree, and says that God, by virtue of the former, wills all to come to salvation’.⁶⁰

Baron addresses, finally, two objections to the doctrine of an ineffective or conditional will in God. Some theologians, he notes first, refuse to attribute an ineffective will to God because they deem such ‘to be an imperfection’. He responds that ‘an ineffective will is only an imperfection when it exists in one who is unable to procure that which he wills’. God, of course, is able to accomplish whatever he desires. Hence his will for certain outcomes remains ineffective merely by virtue of his own free decision not to achieve his desire.⁶¹ In other words, what trumps God’s (ineffective) desire for some end is not a force or forces outside of God, but God’s own effective desire for some other end.

‘Some say’, secondly:

that if God wants all to be saved on condition of faith and repentance, it follows that God’s decision concerning the salvation of men remains in suspense until he foresees who will fulfil that condition and who will not. Consequently, the reason he elects one man and not another lies in those men themselves; that is, God foresees that one man and not another will fulfil that condition of faith and repentance under which he wants all to be saved.

Baron again rejects the claim that a doctrine of a divine, ineffective will only properly fits in such a heterodox scheme of election. He argues: ‘Just as God from eternity wills to grant men salvation on condition of faith and repentance, so also from eternity, and without any foresight of human volitional consent, he resolves to grant certain men the most effective resources to fulfil that condition, and denies the same to other men.’ God, in other words, also has an effective will, by which he determines without regard to future human decisions that some men will indeed be saved and others will not. Baron concludes his defence of God’s ineffective, universal will to save by stressing again the proper relationship between divine election and human faith: ‘God has not elected any man to glory because he foresaw that that man would fulfil the condition of faith and repentance. On the contrary, he himself causes the condition to be fulfilled in a man because he has elected that man to glory.’⁶²
_______________
27. Ibid., p. 29. For Baron’s argument regarding the necessity of explicit faith in Christ for salvation, see pp. 22–9.
28. Ibid., pp. 29–30, 48.
29. Ibid., p. 30, citing Prosper of Aquitaine, De vocatione omnium gentium, 2.1 (PL vol. 51, p. 686).
30. See Prosper, De vocatione, 2.2 (PL vol. 51, pp. 687–8).
31. Baron, Septenarius sacer, p. 30, citing Prosper, De vocatione, 2.1 (PL vol. 51, pp. 686–7).
32. Ibid., p. 30, citing Prosper, De vocatione, 2.1 (PL vol. 51, p. 687).
33. Ibid., p. 31.
34. Ibid., p. 35.
35. Ibid., pp. 35–8. In addition to the medieval scholastics Durandus of Saint-Pourcain, Duns Scotus and Gabriel Biel, Baron names the Jesuits Luis de Molina and Leonard Lessius as representatives of the doctrine that man can, by virtue of his natural abilities, render himself ‘disposed or prepared for grace’ (pp. 35–7). He names the Jesuits Francisco Suarez and Diego Ruiz de Montoya as representatives of the doctrine that man can, by virtue of his natural abilities, render himself at least ‘less indisposed to grace’ (pp. 37–8).
36. Ibid., pp. 36–7.
37. Ibid., p. 45.
38. Ibid., p. 40. Baron also references Prov. 1.24.
39. Ibid., p. 45.
40. Ibid., p. 46, citing Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae 2a2ae, 2, 5, ad primum.
41. Ibid., p. 41.
42. Ibid., p. 31.
43. Ibid., p. 31.
44. Ibid., p. 47. Baron does not define these ‘external’ or ‘internal’ graces specifically; presumably he has in mind the general call of the gospel and some internal promptings of God’s Spirit towards repentance. He distinguishes these ‘assistances’ from the God’s ‘efficacious call’ to the elect.
45. Ibid., p. 47, paraphrasing the delegates’ 3rd and 4th positions on the 3rd and 4th articles; see Anthony Milton, The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2005), pp. 253–4.
46. Ibid., p. 47, referencing the British delegation’s 6th and 7th positions on the 3rd and 4th articles at Dort; see Milton, British Delegation, pp. 255–6.
47. Ibid., p. 31.
48. Ibid., p. 31. See William Twisse, Vindiciae gratiae, potestatis, ac providentiae Dei (Amsterdam: Ioannem Ianssonium, 1632), lib. 1, pars 2, sect. 12.
49. Ibid., p. 34.
50. Ibid., pp. 33–4.
51. Ibid., p. 33.
52. Ibid., pp. 49–54.
53. Ibid., p. 49
54. Ibid.
55. Ibid., p. 50.
56. Ibid., pp. 50–1.
57. Ibid., pp. 52–3, citing Zanchius, De natura Dei (Heidelberg: Iacobus Mylius, 1577), lib. 3, ca. 4, q. 3; Polanus, Syntagma theologiae christianae (Hanau: Wechelianis, 1609), lib. 2, ca. 19; Musculus, Loci communes (Erfurt: Georgium Bauuman, 1563), ca. De volunte Dei, ca. De remissione peccatorum.
58. Ibid., p. 53, citing Trelcatius, Institutio theologiae (London: Iohannis Bill, 1604), lib. 1, disp. De Deo.
59. Ibid., citing Pareus, Roberti Bellarmini … de gratia et libero arbitrio libri VI...explicati et castigati studio (Heidelberg: Iohannis Lancelloti, 1614), lib. 2, ca. 3.
60. Ibid., citing Chamier, Panstratiae Catholicae, sive, controversiarum de religione advresus Pontificios corpus (Geneva: typis Roverianis, 1626), tom. 3, lib. 7, ca. 6, and tom. 2, lib. 3, ca. 9, para. 19.
61. Ibid., pp. 53–4.
62. Ibid., p. 54.

Aaron Clay Denlinger, “Scottish Hypothetical Universalism: Robert Baron (c.1596–1639) on God’s Love and Christ’s Death for All,” in Reformed Orthodoxy in Scotland: Essays on Scottish Theology 1560–1775, ed. Aaron Clay Denlinger (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015), 87–94.

For more on Baron and the extent of the atonement, see here (link).

Bio:

Wiki

DNB (2) 

Joseph Hacon (1603–1662) on the Extent and Intent of Christ’s Death

Since Joseph Hacon appears to be very similar in his position to James Ussher, John Davenant, Richard Baxter, and Edward Polhill, particularly in his idea of an ordained sufficiency for all and other things he says, I thought I would post his comments on the dispute. He wrote:

Qu. 93. For whom was his Death a satisfactory ransom?
A. For all.
Qu. 94. How doth that appear?
A. The Scriptures plainly affirm it so, telling us, that he died and gave himself a ransom for all, tasted Death for every one.

The controversy is not, Whether Christ did die for all, or no: but how, and in what sense, it is so said. There be many places of holy Scripture, and many arguments, not easily solved; because, as I think, insoluble; which are brought to prove, that Jesus Christ did suffer death for all men: But when it is also said, that he died for his sheep; and for his Church; and that for whom God delivered up his son, to them he giveth all things; and when his Death, Resurrection, and Intercession, do as in a chain, one draw the other, Rom. 8. And when it is certain, that God doth not give all things to all men, as namely, not Faith and Repentance; we are of necessity put upon it to distinguish: which we do so as to satisfy our selves; yet finding withal, that Contention is fed with a fire that is unquenchable.

We believe, as our Church [of England] hath made profession, and taught us, that the Son of God did offer a full, perfect, and sufficient oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world, and that he died for every man. And although notice of this be not given to every man, or all the world; yet may it be given, and truly declared to them.

Such love did God bear to Human nature, or all mankind, more than to the lapsed Angels; that there was, and is a possibility for every man whatsoever to be saved, though he do not perform the Law, or Covenant of works. God’s justice is so far satisfied, that way is made for mercy, pardon, and favour. Nevertheless, for the actual participation of benefit by Christ’s Death, and application to each particular person, there is more to be done, than what is done by Christ for all the world. The fruit of his passion, as to life eternal, is derived only to his body mystical, to such as are more nearly united to him, than by the common Relation, or kin, or claim of human nature, which he took upon him, and for which he suffered. And although by his blood he obtained, as well Universal, as eternal Redemption; yet by Faith in his blood are we justified. And he who is said to be the Saviour of all men, is said also to be the Saviour of his Body; that is, of such as partake of his Spirit, and are subject to him, and joined to him, as the parts of the Body are to the Head: So all men are not.

In this Nation at some especial times, comes forth a General Pardon: in which case though we set aside the Exceptions, or the excepted; Those persons to whom it is really and truly intended, must sue out their pardon: otherwise, they may be supposed not to accept of it. And if then, any shall urge the Term, and Title of the General Pardon, and insist, without end upon this, That a pardon it is, and such a pardon as is general to all the people, without taking notice of any thing else further to be done; he that hath but small skill, can easily see, how weak such kind of reasoning is.

Now whereas Faith is God’s gift, and he bestoweth his Spirit where he will, and man cannot believe of himself, nor perform the condition required; here beginneth the first overture of that secret difference that is betwixt man and man: and here first openeth it self, the great mystery of Election, in that the Ransom, or Satisfaction which God hath accepted, as general, and sufficient for all men, that whosoever believeth should not perish; doth not actually, and efficaciously, profit all men to life eternal, because to all men it is not given, to believe and perform the condition.

Whereas others think best to distinguish here, the universal particle All; all, both Jews and Gentiles: or all, that is, the several kinds, or estates of men: or all, that is, all the Elect. I do now distinguish the Intentional particle, For: which denoteth the end, or intention; and sometimes moreover the effect of the Intention.

The death of Christ was for all, but not for all alike, or in the same manner, or with the like issue & event. He gave himself, and suffered sufficiently, with a general Intention for all; but efficaciously, with a special Intention, for some only.

When we say sufficiently, we do not mean a mere or bare sufficiency, as if there were only price and worth enough in Christ’s blood, to redeem all. As a rich man may have money enough in his chest, to relieve all the poor in the Town: But we mean a sufficiency with promise and proffer of benefit for all, yet not without a condition to be performed: As when a rich man doth give such a sum of money, to be by dole distributed to all the poor of that Town where he liveth: provided that they orderly attend at such a time and place to receive it. The Gift is intended for them all. But some it may be, had no notice of it: and perhaps some others have no mind to take it. Yet were the alms intended for them all, and to each of them who did absent themselves, it may be truly said, Had you waited as was appointed, you had received your dole. But so it cannot truly be said to such poor, as live in distant places, because it was not intended, nor provided for them.

There is no possibility for Satan and his angels to be saved by the death of Christ, not only because their nature was not assumed, but because Christ’s death in the purpose of God, was not ordained for them, as it was for mankind. This Proposition therefore [If Satan believe, he shall be saved] is not true, because Christ died not for him. But this Proposition [If Judas Iscariot believe, he shall be saved], was true, because Christ died for him.

A favourite may procure a place at Court, for his friend in the Country; who nevertheless doth choose to live retiredly, and in the shadow, rather then in the view and glory of the world: the preferment in the mean time being ready for him, intended for him, and proffered him.

And that in this sense, our Blessed Saviour did suffer death for all men: as our Church [in the Thirty-Nine Articles] hath framed the Answer; Jesus Christ redeemed me and all mankind, may be proved out of those words, 1 John 3:23. This is his Commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son. There is not only a Command or Commission to the Apostles, to preach the Gospel to every Creature: But a Command also to every one that hears it, to believe it. Now, first, God doth not command any thing to be believed that is not true: and whosoever believeth in the Son of God, must believe, this at the least, that he died for him; therefore God commandeth every man that heareth the Gospel, to believe that the Son of God died for him. Now whatsoever I believe, is not therefore true because I believe it; but it must be true before it be believed: so for all those that are commanded to believe, did Christ suffer Death, and offer Sacrifice.

And if any man shall hold on the contrary, that Faith doth not consist in believing this or that proposition, as, Jesus Christ gave himself for me; but in laying hold on, and apprehending and receiving Christ a Saviour, and that this is the right object of that kind of Faith, which is given in command to every one that heareth the Gospel; Then I argue, secondly thus: God doth not command any thing that is impossible. I mean not, that is impossible to such a person as now he is, and at such a time; but that is impossible in it self to be done. But now it is a thing not possible or any way feasible, for me to lay hold on Christ a Saviour, unless he be ordained and appointed a Saviour for me: and this cannot be, but by God’s appointment and institution, setting him forth to be a common Sacrifice and propitiation: thus it is in life spiritual, even as in corporal life, and the course of nature, it is impossible to be fed and nourished by a stone, because it never was ordained of God for food. Therefore Jesus Christ did give himself a Sacrifice for all men that hear the Gospel: and as for them who never heard of him, he offered Sacrifice for their sins also: and whosoever shall go and tell them so, shall tell them but the truth. Although, until they hear it, they do not sin, in not believing it; as they do, who hear, and believe not. So much for the general intention, and ordination of Christ’s Death for all men.

But as there is this general Redemption, by means of that one Sacrifice for all men; so there is proper to those who are chosen to life, A special Redemption; which, as it proceeds from Election, Eph. 1:4. so it consists in actual forgiveness of sins, v.7. in whom we have Redemption, the forgiveness of sins. All men are no where said to be elected, All men are no where said to be forgiven. So some Redemption belongs to all; but, not every kind of Redemption.

And that the intention of benefit by Christ’s Passion, was not alike to all, on his part; but more to some than to others; appeareth hence, that there was not the like application of it, made by him to all. He who offered himself a Sacrifice for the sins of all men, yet did pray for some only, Joh. 17:9. And God who gave his son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, did absolutely intend, that the benefit of that promise should infallibly take place, in some, by removing that infidelity, which might have hindered them, and by giving faith which enabled them, to perform the condition, and lay hold on the promise, for want of which faith, others are lost. If in time, and in execution, he dealeth not alike the fruit of Christ’s Death to all men; then may we safely gather, that his purpose and intention, touching the fruit of Christ’s Death was not alike to all men. Executio est speculum Decreti, we may safely behold and view, God’s purpose and determination, in what he doth in time effect and bring to pass.

And if any man shall now murmur within himself and say: I know not whether I be of that selected number, for whom Christ’s Death was intended to be actually & every way efficacious; nor whether God’s love and good will be as much to me, as it is to any other, and shall thereupon neglect the duties of God’s law, and the means of his own eternal safety, giving ear to the whispers of some false teachers, by whom he is encouraged so to do, or at leastwise excused for so doing, rather than listening to the grave and wholesome advice, of our Church-Articles; which is, To receive God’s promises, in such wise, as they be generally set forth in holy Scriptures; I shall only desire him to call to mind that saying of Moses Deut. 29. Secret things belong to the Lord, our God; but things revealed belong to us. In which words the Man of God setteth bounds to our knowledge, and to our search, as once he did to the people at the foot of the mount, that they might know their distance and keep it, and not at their utmost peril, break through, and gaze. And whosoever he be that shall refuse, to entertain and embrace points of belief, and the Doctrine of godliness fully revealed; and in the mean time busily intermeddle with secrets reserved; shall add to disobedience, the sacrilege of curiosity, and may fear that God will set his face against him, that shall dare to cross and thwart, in such a manner, so severe an Edict made known and published.

Joseph Hacon, A Review of Mr. Horn’s Catechisme: And Some few of his Questions and Answers noted by J.H. of Massingham p. Norf. (Cambridge: Printed by John Field, 1660), 53–61. Some of the spelling has been updated and modernized.

Bio:
Hacon was a native of Topcroft, Norfolk, where he was born on the 17th of May, 1603. He was educated at Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and, after entering Holy Orders, was made Rector of Massingham in his 40th year. After a few years, he was made Registrar of the Parish. He was buried at Massingham Parva on the 18th September, 1662. See Ronald F. McLeod, Massingham Parva: Past and Present (London: Waterlow & Sons, 1882), 113–114.