Edward Polhill (1622–1694) Distinguishing Between the Decrees of God as Related to His General Promise

3. As to the third act of reprobation, the thing decreed is eternal damnation; hence reprobates are said to be made for the day of evil. Neither can any man doubt that there is such a decree; for God doth actually condemn them in time, and both reason tells us, that whatsoever God doth, even in his judgments, he doth it volent; and scripture tells us, that whatsoever he doth, he doth it according to the counsel of his own will; wherefore both assure us that there is such a decree. But you will say, doth not that promise [whosoever believeth shall be saved] both import God’s will, and extend even to reprobates, and how then can God decree their damnation? Which way can both these wills stand together in the heart of God? I answer: It is true that the promise doth both import God’s will, and extend to reprobates; nevertheless it very well consists with the decree of damnation, and this will appear by a double distinction.

1. Let us distinguish the decrees of God: some of them are merely productive of truths, others are definitive of things which shall actually exist. The first are accomplished in connexions, the last in events. To clear it by scripture instances: the decree, that David should be king of Israel, was definitive of a thing; but the decree, that if Saul obeyed, his kingdom should have continued, (1 Sam. 13:13,) is but productive of a truth. The decree that David should not be delivered up by the men of Keilah, was definitive of a thing; but the decree, that if he had staid there they would have delivered him up, (1 Sam. 23:12,) was but productive of a truth. The decree, that Jerusalem should be burnt with fire, was definitive of a thing; but the decree, that if Zedekiah did go forth to the king of Babylon it should not be burnt, (Jer. 38:17,) was but productive of a truth. Moreover, that there are decrees definitive of things, is proved by the events; that there are decrees productive of truths, is proved by the connexions; if there be no such connexions, how is the Scripture verified? but if there be, how are these things connected? There is no natural connexion between Saul’s obedience and his crown; David’s stay, and the Keilites treachery; Zedekiah’s out-going, and Jerusalem’s firing: wherefore these connexions do flow out of God’s decrees as productive of truths. Now, to apply this distinction to our present purpose: The decree of damning the reprobate for final sin is definitive of a thing; but the decree imported in the general promise, is but productive of a truth, viz., That there is an universal connexion between faith and salvation; such a connexion, that reprobates themselves, if believers, should be saved. Now these two decrees may very well stand together; for decrees definitive of events, contradict not decrees productive of truths, unless the event in the one decree contradict the truth in the other. Wherefore if (which is not) there were a decree of damning reprobates, whether they did believe or not, it could not stand with the general promise; for the event of that decree would contradict the truth of the promise. But the decree (such as indeed it is) of damning reprobates for final sin, may well consist with the general promise; for the event of that decree no way crosses the truth of the promise. Reprobates are damned for final sin, that is the event of one decree; and reprobates, if believers, shall be saved; that is the truth of another: both which may well consist together.

2. Let us distinguish the objects of these decrees; the objects stand not under the same qualifications as to both of them. The decree of salvation upon gospel terms respects men as lapsed sinners; but the decree of everlasting damnation respects them as final sinners; and so there is no inconsistency between them.

Thus much, by way of answer to the objection: yet withal, before I pass on to the next thing, suffer me a little to stand and adore the stupendous abyss of the divine decrees. The elect arrive at heaven, yet by the way see hell flaming in the threatening: the reprobate sink to hell, yet by the way see heaven opening in the promise. The elect cannot live and die in sin, but they will be sub gladio; the reprobates cannot repent and return, but they will be sub corona. Tremble, work and watch, O saints, for the Holy One thunders out from heaven in that sacred sentence, “If you live after the flesh you shall die.” Repent, return and believe, O sinners! for the divine philanthropy woos you in those real undissembled offers of mercy, “Whosoever believes shall be saved; Whosoever forsakes his sins shall find mercy.” Here, O here, is πολυποίκιλος σοφία, the manifold wisdom of God; a fit reserve for the apocalypse of the judgment day, whose clear light will display these wonderful consistencies before men and angels.

Edward Polhill, “The Divine Will Considered in Its Eternal Decrees,” in The Works of Edward Polhill (London: Thomas Ward and Co., 1844), 131–32.

Bio:
DNB

Edward Polhill (1622–1694) on God’s Will for the Conversion of Reprobates

…God doth will the conversion of reprobates in a double manner.

1. God wills their conversion, Voluntate simplicis complacentiæ; Conversion even in a reprobate would make joy in heaven, it would be τὸ εὐάρεϛον, grateful and well-pleasing to God; if we believe him swearing by his life, his pleasure or delight is in the wicked man’s turning, (Ezek. xxxiii. 11). God delights in his image, wherever it be.

2. God wills their conversion Voluntate virtuali vel ordinativâ Mediorum; for the right understanding whereof I shall lay down four things.

1. The proper end and tendency of all means is to turn men unto God: within the sphere of the church, such is the end and tendency thereof. Why did Christ come, but to turn every one from his iniquities? (Acts iii. 26.) Why did he preach, but that his hearers might be saved? (John v. 34.) Why did the apostle warn and teach every man, but to present every man perfect in Christ? (Col. i. 28.) John’s baptism was εἰς μετάνοιαν, (Matth. iii. 11). Church-censures were εἰς οἰκοδομὴν, (2 Cor. x. 8.) Even the delivering to Satan was for the destruction of the flesh, (1 Cor. v. 5.) Conversion is the true center of the means. Nay, without the sphere of the church, the true end and tendency of things is such, that God might be seen in every creature, (Rom. i. 20.) Sought and felt in every place, (Acts xvii. 27.) Witnessed in every shower, (Acts xiv. 17.) Feared in the sea-bounding sand, (Jer. v. 22.) Humbled under in every abasing providence, (Dan. v. 22.) Turned to in every judgment, (Amos iv. 11). In a word, the end and tendency of all God’s works is that men might fear before him, (Eccles. iii. 14.) The whole world is a great ordinance, as it is in itself, preached forth the power and goodness of God who made it; and as it is the unconsumed state of so many crying sins, preached forth the clemency and mercy of God who spares it, and dashes it not down about the sinner’s ears. All the goodness and forbearance of God leads men to repentance, (Rom. ii. 4.) That piece of gospel [Whoso confesseth and forsaketh his sins shall have mercy] seems legible in his patience; for it may be naturally and rationally concluded, that that God, who in his clemency spares men though sinners, will in his mercy pardon them when repenting and returning. This is the true duct and tendency of his patience, even that men might turn and repent.

2. The tendency of the means to conversion is such, that if men under the administration is such, that if men under the administration thereof turn not unto God, the only reason lies within themselves, in their own corrupt hearts. If God purge, and men are not purged, it is because there is lewdness in their filthiness, (Ezek. xxiv. 13.) If he would gather, and men are not gathered, it is because they will not, (Matt. xxiii. 37.) If he spread out his hands, and men come not in, it is because they are rebellious, (Isa. Ixv. 2.) If he be patient and long-suffering, and they repent not, it is because of their hardness and impenitent heart, (Rom. ii. 5.) The apostle calls the heretical seducers in his time μετατιθέντες, such as did turn or transfer the grace of God from its true end or scope, Jud. 4. And what those seducers did doctrinally, that do all sinners practically; so far forth as they live under the means and turn not, they do thereby transfer and remove the means from their genuine end.

3. God doth by a formal decree will the means with their tendencies. All ordinances are sealed by the divine will, and go out in its name, and are what they are from its ordination. Without this, means are no longer means, but mere empty names and vain shadows.

4. Out of God’s formal decree of the means doth result his virtual will of men’s conversion. That God, who doth formally will the means with their tendencies, even unto reprobates, doth virtually will their conversion as the true scope and end of those means. Hence it is said, that Christ would have gathered the unbelieving jews, (Matth. xxiiii. 37,) and God would have all men to be saved, (1 Tim. ii. 4,) viz. in respect of his virtual or ordinative will.  Hence God brought in, wishing, Oh! that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments. (Isai. xlviii. 18.) And what are these wishes? Surely all the diffusions of light, promulgations of laws, expansions of gospel grace, waitings of divine patience, and strivings of the Holy Spirit are (as I may so say) God’s Oh’s after conversion, in as much as they have a tendency thereunto; and God in willing that tendency, doth virtually will men’s return also. Excellent is that of learned [William] Ames; “Deus eminenter et virtuali quadam ratione eatenus vult salutem hominum, quatenus vocat ipsos ad salutem.” Thus with this virtual will God doth will the conversion of reprobates. But then you will say, If so, God’s will is frustrated; for reprobates are never actually converted. I answer, that God’s formal decree is only of the means with their tendencies; and therefore is not frustrated, but fulfilled, in the actual exhibition of such means. And God’s virtual will (though it be of the conversion of reprobates) yet in their non-conversion is not frustrated, because it is not an absolute but conditional will, nisi per ipsos steterit, unless their own voluntary corruption do impede the effect; which in reprobates it always doth. But you will yet reply, Then God’s will is conditional, and by consequence imperfect. To which I answer, with the judicious bishop Davenant, That volitions merely conditional agree not with the perfection of the divine nature; for that were to suspend God’s will for a time, and then post purificatam conditionem, to make it become absolute. But mixtly-conditional volitions, that is, such as are grounded on some absolute decree, may be allowed: as for example, that mixed conditional decree, that if Cain or Judas believe they shall  be saved, is grounded on that absolute decree, that whosoever believes shall be saved. Now this virtual will of conversion of reprobates is not purely conditional, but mixtly conditional, for it results out of God’s absolute decree of the means with their tendencies. Wherefore, notwithstanding these objections, I conclude, That God doth virtually will the conversion of reprobates, so far forth as the means have a tendency thereunto.

Edward Polhill, “The Divine Will Considered in its Eternal Decrees,” in The Works of Edward Polhill (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1998), 128–129.

Bio:  

DNB

This idea can also  be found in Theophilus Gale, among other 17th century theologians. Gale wrote:

God’s Providential Will is that, whereby he is said to will and intend an end, when he in his providence, either gracious or common, affords such means which have an aptitude to produce it. As where God sends his Gospel, he may be said to really intend the salvation of those to whom it is sent, albeit they are not all saved; because he vouchsafeth them those means which have a real aptitude to produce the same, were they but really embraced and improved.

Some Important Moderate Calvinist Writings

First there is James Ussher. One should first read his The True Intent and Extent of Christ’s Death and Satisfaction Upon the Cross, and then his An Answer of the Archbishop of Armagh to Some Exceptions Taken Against His Aforesaid Letter. The student would do well to start here.

Then there is John Davenant’s very important work A Dissertation on the Death of Christ, As To Its Extent and Special Benefits. It’s contained in volume 2 of his exposition on the book of Colossians. See also Michael Lynch’s excellent and improved translation of this work (John Davenant, On the Death of Christ and Other Atonement Writings, trans. Michael J. Lynch [Landrum, SC: Davenant Institute, 2024]) and his important doctoral dissertation on John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism: A Defense of Catholic and Reformed Orthodoxy.

Edward Polhill’s Essay on the Extent of the Death of Christ (extracted from his treatise on The Divine Will Considered in It’s Eternal Decrees, and Holy Execution of Them [2]) is also important reading. It counts as both a reaction against Owenism and against Arminianism.

Richard Baxter’s work on the Universal Redemption of Mankind by the Lord Jesus Christ (or here for a recent edition) should be read as well. His work does have some problems, though, and it’s not organized very well. It doesn’t surprise me that it has not been reprinted. Nevertheless, it is important, even as a response to John Owen’s Death of Death from a moderate Calvinistic perspective. In addition to his above work, one could also read this brief extract from his Catholick Theologie on “Of Universal Redemption.” For more from a Baxterian perspective, these extracts from John Humfrey’s Peace at Pinners-Hall Wish’d and Attempted in a Pacifick Paper Touching The Universality of Redemption, the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace, and our Freedom from the Law of Works and The Middle-Way in One Paper of Election & Redemption, as well as from his Free Thoughts are worthwhile. William Lorimer is an example of another Baxterian.

Note: The above writings by Ussher, Davenant, Polhill, and Baxter should not be considered “Amyraldism,” as they did not depend upon Amyraut, though there are definite conceptual similarities and shared historical reliance on earlier thinkers (i.e., early church fathers and early Reformers). Modern Reformed historiography, such as in Richard Muller’s recent lectures and writings (as well as Jonathan Moore’s work on John Preston), has shown that the moderate English variety of so-called Hypothetical Universalism (originally a pejorative label) is distinct from the Saumur variety, and existed prior to Amyraut, even going back to early Reformers such as Musculus, Bullinger, Ursinus, and others. With that said, if one wants to learn about the Amyraldian variety of moderate Calvinism, see the writings listed here (click).

One can consult sections from books that can be found here:

http://theologicalmeditations.blogspot.com/p/the-atonement.html

And here:

http://calvinandcalvinism.com/?page_id=8466

If one wants a modern book written from a classic-moderate perspective on the extent of the atonement, then I would recommend the following:

Norman F. Douty, Did Christ Die Only for the Elect? A Treatise on the Extent of Christ’s Atonement (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1998). 

Daniel Turner on Edward Polhill, John Howe and Isaac Watts

Oliver writes:

Daniel Turner may have shared a love of liberty with John Ryland, but there were significant differences between the two men. In a letter written in 1782, Turner revealed that he did not subscribe to the doctrine of Particular Redemption. He wrote,

I am one who with the good Mr [Edward] Polhill, Mr [John] How[e], Dr. [Isaac] Watts and many others hold the doctrine of Particular Election and general Redemption as it may be called.¹⁷

These were unusual sentiments for a Particular Baptist minister in the 1780’s.
__________
17. ‘Daniel Turner to Mr Mumm, Watford, 14 June 1782’, Angus Library, Regent's Park College, Oxford.

Robert W. Oliver, History of the English Calvinistic Baptists 1771–1892 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2006), 62.

There are several things to observe here:

1) Note that Robert Oliver calls Turner a "Particular Baptist minister" and yet Turner (at least at the time of the letter) held a Calvinistic form of "general Redemption" while maintaining "Particular Election." Paul Hobson (who signed the 1644 and 1646 Confessions) and Thomas Lamb (d.1686) fall within this category as well. However, Oliver does go on to claim that Turner "was moving away from the orthodoxy both of the 1689 Confession and of Gill's Declaration of Faith and Practice." Contrary to Oliver, I think the 1689 is compatible with a moderate position, as is the Westminster Confession.

2) Turner knew about the position of Polhill, How[e], and Watts on the subject and said he agreed with them.

3) Of particular interest here is Turner's early testimony about the Puritan John Howe's position on redemption. This is one of the earliest references to Howe (a prominent Puritan) being a moderate, and here is a Particular Baptist who knew about it and agreed with it. Since Howe did not explicitly expound on the extent of the atonement as did Edward Polhill, Turner shows that he carefully read Howe and understood Howe’s classic-moderate categories.

Jonathan Moore on John Owen, Henry Scudder, Edward Polhill and English Hypothetical Universalism

Although language could be very heated at times, and this controversy was deemed by many to be of the utmost importance, polemic fell short of using such emotive language, provided that a common abhorrence of, and separation from, Arminianism could still be established.¹²⁵ Indeed, those sometimes charged with being hard, harsh and obstinate on this point could sometimes prove to be most charitable in the larger context of the Puritan brotherhood. For example, it was John Owen himself who wrote a recommendatory preface in 1674 to Westminster Divine Henry Scudder's The Christians daily Walk, in which a recommendatory preface by Baxter also appeared. In this book Scudder spends a section of five pages defending a hypothetical universalist position, and in his recommendation Owen covers himself accordingly by distancing himself from some unspecified expressions in the book.¹²⁶ But his willingness to commend it warmly on the basis of the plain and practical godliness it promotes is indicative of the relative importance given to this in-house Reformed debate, at least in Post-Restoration England, even by one of the staunchest defenders of particularism.

Indeed there is even evidence that might lead one to doubt whether the later Owen would have ever republished his Death of Death without revising it in terms of its severe tone and language concerning hypothetical universalism.¹²⁷ In his recommendatory preface to English Hypothetical Universalist Edward Polhill's book on the divine decrees, of which 65 pages are taken up with a robust refutation of particular redemptionism and defense of English Hypothetical Universalism,¹²⁸ Owen ventures to express my own dissent from some of his apprehensions, especially about the Object and Extent of Redemption. Had I seen this discourse before it was wholly Printed, I should have communicated my thoughts unto him upon that Subject, and some few passages in it: but where there is an agreement in the substance and design of any Doctrine, as there is between my judgment and what is here solidly declared, it is out duty to bear with each other in things circumstantial, or different explanations of the same Truth, when there is no incursion made upon the Principles we own.¹²⁹

So by the 1670's, it was not hypothetical universalists by "Papists, Socinians, Arminians, [and] Quakers"¹³⁰ that Owen wanted to see attacked, and that from the apparently much safer vantage point of a Reformed Orthodox fortress free from the embarrassing cracks of vituperous intra-Reformed debates, and lined with a good insulating layer of warm fellowship for the godly.¹³¹
_______________
125. Davenant’s opposition to Arminian/Remonstrant theology was strenuous and extensive. Accordingly, Owen never attributed heresy to Davenant, but, on the contrary, spoke reverently of him, and especially appreciated Davenant’s treatise on justification, employing it in the 1670s in his own writings an justification and perseverance (Owen, Works, 3:218–219; 5:208, 368; 11:497). On the other hand, Owen’s chief opponent in Death of Death was an altogether different case. Unlike Davenant, Thomas Moore was unlearned and unqualified, and went far closer to Anninianism and even Pelagianism in his bold efforts to defend his system of universal redemption. This provoked sustained and open contempt from Owen and repeated charges of “abominable” or “gross error” as well as “heresies” (ibid., 10:189, 356–358, 379, 381–382, 398–399, 403, 415). Cf. the sentiments expressed in Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, 1st edn, 4 vol. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 1:76–77, 80 and Trueman, John Owen: Reformed Catholic, 29–31.
126. Henry Scudder, The Christians daily Walk, in holy Security and Peace. Being an Answer to these Questions: 1. How a Man may do each present Days work with Christian Cheerfulness?, 2. How to bear each Present Days Cross with Christian Patience? Containing familiar Direction, shewing 1. How to walk with God in the whole Course of a Mans Life. 2. How to be upright in the said Walking. 3. How to live without taking Care or Thought in any thing. 4. How to get and keep true Peace with God, wherein are manifold Helps 10 prevent and remove damnable Presumption; also to quiet and ease distressed Consciences [...] commended to the Practice of all Professors, by Dr Owen and Mr Baxter, [1627] 11th edn (London: For Lodowick Lloyd, 1674), 331–336, Alv. Scudder’s defense of hypothetical universalism also appeared in the edition that had most likely enthused Owen as a young man (Henry Scudder, The Christians daily Walke, in holy Securitie and Peace. Being an Answer to these Questions: 1. How a Man may doe each present Daies Worke with Christian Chearfullnesse?, 2. How to bear each Present Daies Crosse with Christian Patience? Containing familiar Directions, shewing 1. How to walk with God in the whole Course of a Mans Life. 2. How to be upright in the said Walking. 3. How to live without taking Care or Thought in any thing. 4. How to get and keepe true Peace with God, wherein are manifold Helpes to prevent and remove damnable Presumption; also to quiet and ease distressed Conscences. First intended for private Use: now (through importunity) published for the common Good, [1627] 8th Corrected and enlarged edn [London: I.L. for Henry Overton, 1642], 350–357; Scudder, Christians daily Walk, 1674, Alr).
127. We have already noted above that Owen would have revised it in terms of his change of mind on the necessity of the atonement.
128. Edward Polhill, The Divine Will considered in its eternal Decrees and holy Execution of them, 1st edn (London: For Henry Eversden, 1673), 281–346.
129. Polhill, Divine Will, A6r-A6v. The other recommendatory preface to this volume was written by English Hypothetical Universalist and Westminster Divine Lazarus Seaman.
130. Ibid., A7r.
131. Soon after the Restoration, a disillusioned Owen had given up hope for a Christian unity based on confessional uniformity (Owen, Works, 14:314–315).

Jonathan Moore, "The Extent of the Atonement: English Hypothetical Universalism versus Particular Redemption," in Drawne into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism, eds. Michael A. G. Haykin and Mark Jones (Oakville, CT: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 154–156. Other material from Moore's article concerning Hypothetical Universalism and Westminster Assembly can be read here (click) and the same at the Synod of Dort here (click). Worth reading as well are Richard Muller's comments in the same book. He, like Moore, says these were "in-house Reformed debates," i.e. indicative of a plurality of trajectories within the Reformed orthodox camp.

Scudder's moderate views first appeared on this blog in October of 2007 (I know of no other source affirming him as moderate before that date), and then in David Allen's article on the atonement in 2010 in Whosoever Will (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010), 73–74. Moore's comments now in print regarding Scudder's "hypothetical universalism" are further vindication of our reading of Scudder's moderate position.

Edward Polhill's (1622–1694) Essay on the Extent of Christ's Death

The Internet Archive now has a free copy of Edward Polhill's Essay on the Extent of Christ's Death (an extract from his work on The Divine Will Considered in its Eternal Decrees) available in pdf format (click).

Update:

David has now posted excellent material by Robert Balmer, who wrote the preface to this Polhill essay. Balmer's lectures can be obtained here (click), and biographical data here (click). Of particular interest is Balmer's work on the gospel call.

Edward Polhill (1622–1694) on Christ’s Satisfaction and Unequal Love in God

Christ in his Coming and satisfactory Sufferings had a respect to all Men, so far as to procure for them Salvation on Gospel-terms, but he had not an equal respect to all; it being utterly unimaginable that he should have as great a respect to those in the Pagan World, who have no Christ, no atoning Sacrifice, no Promise of Life and Salvation revealed to them, as he hath to those in the Church, who have all these glorious Objects evidently set forth before them: Greater Donations argue greater degrees of Love; or else, which is very hard to believe, God loves all Creatures alike, notwithstanding that he measures out his Goodness to them in a very various and different manner, to some more, and to others less.

Edward Polhill, An Answer to the Discourse of Mr. William Sherlock Touching the Knowledge of Christ and our Union and Communion with Him (London: Printed for Ben. Foster, 1675), 104–105.

Bio:  
DNB

Edward Polhill (1622–1694) on the Sufficiency of Christ’s Death for All

If Christ did no way die for all men, which way shall the truth of these general promises be made out? "Whosoever will, may take the water of life." What, though Christ never bought it for him? "Whosoever believes, shall be saved." What, though there were no λύτρον, no price paid for him? Surely the gospel knows no water of life but what Christ purchased, nor no way of salvation but by a λύτρον, or price paid. But you will say, that albeit Christ died not for all men, yet are those general promises very true, and that because their truth is founded upon the sufficiency of Christ's death, which hath worth enough in it to redeem millions of worlds. I answer, there is a double sufficiency; sufficientia nuda, consisting in the intrinsical value of the thing, and sufficientia ordinata, consisting in the intentional paying and receiving that thing as a price of redemption; the first is that radical sufficiency, whereby the thing may possibly become a price. Let a thing be of never so vast a value in itself, it is no price at all, unless it be paid for that end, and being paid, it is a price for no more than those only for whom it was paid; because the intrinsical worth how great soever, doth not constitute it a price. Hence it is clear, that if Christ's death, though of immense value, had been paid for none, it had been no price at all; and if it were paid but for some, it was no price for the rest for whom it was not paid. These things premised, if Christ no way died for all men, how can those promises stand true? All men, if they believe, shall be saved; saved, but how? Shall they be saved by a λύτρον or price of redemption? there was none at all paid for them; the immense value of Christ's death doth not make it a price as to them for whom he died not; or shall they be saved without a λύτρον or price? God's unsatisfied justice cannot suffer it, his minatory law cannot bear it, neither doth the gospel know any such way of salvation; take it either way, the truth of those promises cannot be vindicated, unless we say, that Christ died for all men. But you will yet reply, that albeit Christ died not for all, yet is the promise true; because Christ's death is not only sufficient for all in itself, but it was willed by God to be so. I answer, God willed it to be so, but how? Did he will that it should be paid for all men, and so be a sufficient price for them? then Christ died for all men; or did he will that it should not be paid for all men, but only be sufficient for them in its intrinsical value? Then still it is no price at all as to them, and consequently either they may be saved without a price, which is contrary to the current of the gospel, or else they cannot be saved at all, which is contrary to the truth of the promise. If it be yet further demanded, To what purpose is it to argue which way reprobates shall be saved, seeing none of them ever did or will believe? Let the apostle answer, "What if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God of none effect? God forbid; yea, let God be true, but every man a liar." (Rom. iii. 3, 4). And again, "If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful, and cannot deny himself." (2 Tim. ii. 13.) No reprobate ever did or will believe, yet the promise must be true, and true antecedently to the faith or unbelief of men; true, because it is the promise of God, and antecendently true, because else it could not be the object of faith. Wherefore, I conclude, that Christ died for all men so far, as to found the truth of the general promises, which extend to all men.

Edward Polhill, “The Divine Will Considered in its Eternal Decrees,” in The Works of Edward Polhill (Morgan, PA.: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1998), 164.

Bio:  
DNB

Edward Polhill (1622–1694) on the Unmortified Man for Whom Christ Died

An unmortified man, that is under the power of his lusts, is in no fit capacity to suffer for Christ: he is a part of that world that lieth in wickedness; the world will love him as a part of itself, and he will comply with the world as a part doth with the whole; a little particle of water will, if it be possible, fall into a' round drop, that it may answer to the figure of the great ocean whereof it is a part; and an unmortified man will be à-la-mode, and of the same figure (be it Pagan or Popish idolatry) with the corrupt world, whereof he is a part; his compliance will be such that he will have no occasion for sufferings, neither is it imaginable for what he will suffer from the world: will he suffer, as good men do, to avoid that greatest of evils, sin? That is it which he allows and indulges in himself, that is the darling of his soul, the joy of his way, the current of his life, the only element in which he converses; and may he suffer to avoid such a thing as that is? or will he suffer to avoid the greatest of punishments, hell and death? No, surely; in willing his lusts, he virtually wills hell, and the torments of it; in acting his sin, his feet go down to death, and all the wrath that is to come; or will he suffer for God, out of love to him, and respect to his glory? It is not imaginable, that he should suffer for God whom he serves not, or love him with the idol in his heart, or respect his glory against whom he is in arms, and whose laws and honour he treads down under his feet: or will he suffer for Christ his Saviour, who died to wash away his sins in his own blood? It is not credible that he should suffer for a Christ whom he never yet received, or take up the yoke of the cross when he casts off the yoke of the command; he cannot be saved in his sins, no, not by Christ himself; the atoning blood will not wash him that wallows in those corruptions that are the price of it; or will he suffer for the Gospel; he turns a deaf ear to the calls; violates the sacred commands, casts away the precious offers of it, and it is not to be thought, that he will suffer for that Gospel which he so despises. Indeed, it would be a very strange thing for him to suffer; in so doing he must part with all this world, in which his portion and total sum of happiness lies; he must suffer the spoiling of his goods when he hath no enduring substance in Heaven; be a reproach among men when he hath no honour with God; and cast away a temporal life when he hath no title to an eternal one. We see by these things that an unmortified man is not in case to suffer for Christ.

Edward Polhill, Armatura Dei; Or, A Preparation for Suffering in an Evil Day (London, 1682; Re-Printed for Mssrs. Hatchard and Son, 1824), 49–51.

Bio:  
DNB

Edward Polhill (1622–1694) on the Extent of the Gospel Commission and the Death of Christ

But if Christ no way died for all men, how came the minister's commission to be so large. They command men to repent that their sins may be blotted out for whom Christ was not made sin? They beseech men to be reconciled to God, but how shall they be reconciled for whom Christ paid no price at all? They call and cry out to men to come to Christ that they may have life, but how can they have life, for whom Christ was no surety in his death? If then Christ died for all men, the ministry is a true ministry as to all; but if Christ died only for the elect, what is the ministry as to the rest? Those exhortations, which as to the elect are real undissembled offers of grace, as to the rest seem to be but golden dreams and shadows. Those calls, which as to the elect are right ministerial acts, as to the rest appear as extra-ministerial blots and erratas. Those invitations to the gospel feast, which as the elect are the cordial wooings and beseechings of God himself, as to the rest look like the words of mere men speaking at random, and without commission; for alas! why should they come to that feast for whom nothing is prepared? How should they eat and drink for whom the Lamb was never slain? Wherefore, I conclude that Christ died for all men, so far as to found the truth of the ministry towards them.

Edward Polhill, “The Divine Will Considered in its Eternal Decrees,” in The Works of Edward Polhill (Morgan, PA.: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1998), 165.

Bio:  
DNB

Edward Polhill (1622–1694) on God’s Will of Salvation and the Death of Christ

1. I argue from the will of God. God's will of salvation as the fontal cause thereof, and Christ’s death, as the meritorious cause thereof, and are of equal latitude. God's will of salvation doth not extend beyond Christ's death, for then he should intend to save some extra Christum. Neither doth Christ's death extend beyond God's will of salvation, for then he should die for some whom God would upon no terms save; but these two are exactly co-extensive. Hence it is observable, that when the apostle speaks of Christ's love to the church, he speaks also of the giving himself for it, (Eph. v. 25), and when he saith God will have all men to be saved, (1 Tim. ii. 4), he saith withal, Christ gave himself a ransom for all, (v. 6). Therefore, there cannot be a truer measure of the extent of Christ's death, than God's will of salvation, out of which the same did issue; so far forth as that will of salvation extends to all men, so far forth the death of Christ doth extend to all men. Now then, how far doth God will the salvation of all? Surely thus far, that if they believe they shall be saved. No divine can deny it, especially seeing Christ himself hath laid it down so positively, "This is the will of him that sent me, saith he, that every one which seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life," (John vi. 40). Wherefore, if God will the salvation of all men thus far, that if they believe they shall be saved; then Christ died for all men thus far, that if they believe they shall be saved. But you will say, that promise, Whosoever believes shall be saved, is but voluntas signi, and not voluntas beneplacitii, which is the adequate measure of Christ's death. Unto which I answer; If that promise be voluntas signi, what doth it signify? What but God's will? What will but that good pleasure of his, that whosoever believes shall be saved? How else is the sign of the true God a true sign? Whence is that universal connexion betwixt faith and salvation? is it not a plain efflux or product from the decree of God? Doth not that evidently import a decree, that whosoever believes shall be saved? Surely it cannot be a false sign; wherefore, so far God's will of salvation extends to all men, and consequently so far Christ's death extends to them.

Edward Polhill, “The Divine Will Considered in its Eternal Decrees,” in The Works of Edward Polhill (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1998), 163–164.

Edward Polhill (1622–1694) on the Universal Terms in Relation to Christ’s Death

7. I argue from the general and large expressions in scripture touching Christ and his death: Christ died for all, (2 Cor. v. 15), for every man, (Heb. ii. 9); he gave himself for the world, (John vi. 51), for the whole world, (1 John, ii. 2); he is styled the Saviour of the world, (I John, iv. 14); and his salvation is called a common salvation, (Jude, ver. 3), a salvation prepared before the face of all people, (Luke ii. 31), and flowing forth to the ends of the earth, (Isai. xlix. 6); the gospel of this salvation is to be preached to all nations, (Matth. xxviii. 19), and to every creature, (Mark xvi. 15); there is χάρις σωτήριος, grace bringing salvation to all men, (Tit. ii. 11); a door of hope open to them, because Christ gave himself a ransom for all, (1 Tim. ii. 6); I know not what could be more emphatical to point out the universality of redemption. But you will say, all these general expressions do but denote genera singulorum, some of all sorts, the world of the elect, or the all of believers.

In answer to which I shall only put two queries.

1. If those general expressions denote only the world of the elect, or the all of believers, why is it not said in scripture, that God elected all and every man, the world and the whole world? In that sense [i.e., in the genera singulorum idea] it is as true that God elected them all, as it is that Christ died for them all; why, then, doth the Holy Spirit altogether forbear those general expressions in the matter of election, which it useth in the matter of redemption? Surely it imports thus much unto us, that redemption hath a larger sphere than election; and therefore, the scriptures contract election in words of speciality only, whilst they open and dilate redemption in emphatical generalities.

2. If those general expressions denote only the world of the elect, or the all of believers, why doth the scripture use such very different language in the same thing? Sometimes Christ is called the Saviour of the body; sometimes it is said, that Christ died, or gave himself for all, or for the world, and sometimes it is said that he died, or gave himself for the church, or for his sheep. Who can imagine that such words of universality, and such words of speciality should be of the same latitude? that one and the same thing should be imported in both? Moreover, the scripture doth make a signal distinction; when it speaks of his giving himself or dying for all, it says only that he died for all, or gave himself a ransom for all. But when it speaks of giving himself for his church, it says that, "He sanctified himself that it might be sanctified through the truth," (John, xvii. 19); and that "he gave himself for it, that he might purify to himself a peculiar people," (Titus, ii. 14); and that "he gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it by the word, and present it to himself a glorious church, without spot or wrinkle," (Eph. v. 25, 26, 27). Never in all the scripture, is it said that he gave himself for all, or for the world, that he might sanctify or cleanse it, or make it a peculiar people, or glorious church; which yet might have been truly said, if the all were no more than all of believers, or the world than the world of the elect; wherefore, to me it seems clear from those various expressions and the observable distinctions in them, that the all for whom Christ died is larger than the all of believers; and the world for whom Christ gave himself, larger than the world of the elect.

Edward Polhill, “The Divine Will Considered in its Eternal Decrees,” in The Works of Edward Polhill (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1998), 166. The Works of Edward Polhill was first published in 1677.

Bio:
DNB

For a similar argument, see this post by Wardlaw.

Edward Polhill (1622–1694) on God’s Love

1. God may be considered either as a rector, or as a benefactor. As a rector, he acts out of a just anger, in vindicating his broken law by penal sufferings. As a benefactor, he acts out of admirable love, in giving his Son to be a propitiation for us. When he vindicates his law by punishments, is it not anger? When he gives his Son for us, is it not love? If he be a rector, can he not be a benefactor too? Then he could not give his Son without laying down of his government. If he be a benefactor, can he not be a rector too? Then he could not govern, without laying down his love; but if, as the truth is, he may be both, then anger and love may consist together.

2. God's displeasure may be taken either as it terminates on the sin, or as it terminates on the sinner; as it terminates on the sin, it is altogether unremovable. God himself, with reverence be it spoken, can no more remove it, than he can lay down his sanctity, which in the very notion of it, includes an abhorrency of sin: as it terminates on the sinner, it may be removed. This appears, in that God pardons sin, and that (as the Scripture phrase נשא עזן imports) in such a way, that the penal sufferings are translated from the sinner himself to his sponsor. The divine displeasure did pass off from us, or else we could not have been pardoned or saved; and it did light upon Christ, or else that Holy One could not have been made a curse, which no mere sufferings, if abstracted from divine wrath, can amount unto. We see here there is displeasure at the sin, and yet infinite love towards the sinner, in translating the punishment upon another.

3. God's Love is double—a love of complacence, which delights in the creature, and a love of benevolence, which designs good to it. The first takes pleasure in the saints, who bear his holy image. The second diffuses itself to sinners, who in themselves are worthy of wrath. Hence the apostle tells us, "God commended his love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." (Rom. 5. 8.) Sinners are objects of displeasure, and yet love breaks out towards them in that great instance, the death of Christ. If ever there were anger in God, it was at the sin of a world; if ever there were love in him, it was in the gift of his Son. These two may very well stand together.

4. Man may be considered, either as a sinner, or as a creature. A man who hath a rebellious Son, may be angry with him as rebellious, and yet compassionate him as a son. In like manner, God may be angry with us as sinners, and yet love us as creatures.

Edward Polhill, Speculum Theologiae in Christo: Or, A View of Some Divine Truths (London: Printed by A. M. and R. R. for Tho. Cockerill, at the Three Legs in the Poultrey, over-against the Stocks-Market, 1678), 76–78. Or see Edward Polhill, “A View of Some Divine Truths,” in The Works of Edward Polhill 1622-1694 (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1998), 20.

Bio:  
DNB

Edward Polhill’s (1622–1694) Speculum Theologiae in Christo

Google Books has Edward Polhill's Speculum Theologiae in Christo: or, A View of Some Divine Truths (London: A.M. and R.R. for T. Cockerill, 1678) available to search and download for free.

Edward Polhill (1622–1694) and Lazarus Seaman (c.1607–d.1675) Connection

I found this comment in Meet The Puritans:

Lazarus Seaman, who claimed to have known [Edward] Polhill from his childhood, testified to Polhill's intense, Puritan-minded piety.

Joel R. Beeke and Randall J. Pederson, Meet the Puritans (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2006), 482.

I find this interesting because both men (Polhill and Seaman) advocated a form of universal redemption. Seaman was one of the moderate men at the Westminster Assembly, along with Calamy, Vines, and Marshall. For a brief account of the debate at the Assembly from the perspective of a high Calvinist, see B. B. Warfield’s The Westminster Assembly and Its Work (Still Waters Revival Books, 1991), 138–47. As one investigates Polhill’s work The Divine Will Considered in Its Eternal Decrees (Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1998), from pages 113–211, one finds that he is familiar with the writings of the Saumur school of thought, as is Stephen Charnock (particularly in volumes 3 and 4 of Charnock’s Works).

Joel Beeke and Randall Pederson on John Davenant (1572–1641)

In their new book, Meet the Puritans, Joel Beeke and Randall J. Pederson write the following about John Davenant:

In 1618, Davenant became a royal chaplain. That same year, King James I chose Davenant along with three other delegates to represent the Church of England at the Synod of Dort. Davenant, a moderate Calvinist, took an active role in synodical deliberations. John Hales said Davenant defeated “learnedly and fully…certain distinctions framed by the [Arminian] remonstrants.” Johannes Bogerman, chairman of the synod, said that Davenant’s experience and skill in the “laws and histories” helped the delegates “better order their debates and votes.”

Regrettably, Davenant held to a “hypothetical universalism,” a mild form of universal redemption, attested to not only by James Ussher and Richard Baxter but also by Davenant’s A Dissertation on the Death of Christ, which he finished shortly after leaving Dortrecht. This treatise presents the view that Davenant defended at the synod. Ultimately, Davenant and the English delegates won synod over to the view that the debate on redemption must be worked out in terms of both sufficiency and efficiency, i.e., that Christ’s death was sufficient in terms of its intrinsic worth to save a thousand worlds, but was efficient or efficacious only for the elect. Davenant’s views went further, however, claiming that the Father and the Son had a conditional intention to save all, though that condition was not absolutely efficacious (see W. Robert Godfrey, “Tensions With International Calvinism: The Debate on the Atonement at the Synod of Dort” [Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 1974], pp. 179–88).

Joel R. Beeke and Randall J. Pederson, Meet the Puritans (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2006), 170.

I would like to make a few observations on this entry about Davenant:

1) Davenant is rightly called a "moderate Calvinist." I would prefer to call it classical Calvinism, since I deem him to be in Calvin's own position. For more on this label, see my An Explanation of a Few Calvinistic Labels.

2) Notice the bias in the book. When introducing Davenant's redemption views, it is prefaced by the term "Regrettably." There is a desire to prescribe and not merely to objectively describe various positions in this book. The bias is also evident in their entry on Edward Polhill. They write:

The second work [in Polhill's recently republished Works (Soli Deo Gloria, 1998)], "The Divine Will Considered in Its Decrees," printed in 1673, explains the nature of God's will and the eternal decrees of election and predestination. In this treatise Polhill unfortunately argues for some form of universal redemption, much the same as John Davenant and John Preston do. John Owen, who read Polhill's work, critiqued him on this point, but still highly commended the book.

Ibid., 482.

Incidentally, it was James Ussher who, according to Richard Baxter's report of a private conversation with him, persuaded Davenant and Preston of their form of universal redemption [see Morris Fuller, The Life, Letters & Writings of John Davenant D.D., 1572-1641 (London, 1897), p. 521].

3) "Regrettably," Beeke and Pederson go on to mischaracterize Davenant's position. It is not a "hypothetical universalism." The universal aspect to Christ's death is a real universality. That is, Christ really did intend and suffer for the sins of the entire human race, according to the revealed will of God. There's nothing "hypothetical" about it. Usually this position is viewed by its opponents through some form of ordered decretalism (since they themselves adhere to ordered decretalism--either infra or supralapsarian), hence the "hypothetical universalism" description; as if God, in an antecedent decree, willed the salvation of all men through the death of Christ. But, seeing that none of them would believe, consequently decreed to save only the elect and give Christ to die for them alone. The "antecedent" decree is entirely hypothetical, which is not the way to view Amyraut, Davenant, Ussher or Baxter. For more on this, see my post on Amyraut and Ordered Decretalism. Some time in the future I will investigate Davenant's Animadversions...Upon a Treatise Intitled God’s Love to Mankind (1641. 536 pp.) to see if he adheres to a form of ordered decretalism.. Dr. Curt Daniel sells a copy of this work for $35. This work is not among those that are available online for free.

4) Again, "regrettably," Dr. Beeke and Pederson use misleading language when describing Davenant's sufficiency views. They speak of Davenant's view as saying "Christ’s death was sufficient in terms of its intrinsic worth to save a thousand worlds." An Owenist or high Calvinist has no problem affirming an infinite "instrinsic worth" to Christ's death. The point of Davenant is to affirm an EXTRINSIC (formal) or ordained sufficiency for all, since Christ really bore the penalty that was due every sinner (unlimited imputation), and not just the guilt of the sin of the elect alone (limited imputation). Davenant actually argues against a bare, material or mere instrisic sufficiency perspective. For more on that, read Davenant for yourself. See my post on Davenant's Sufficiency Distinctions. Ad fontes!

5) Also, Dr. Beeke and Pederson say that Davenant claimed that the Father and the Son had a conditional intention to save all, though that condition was not absolutely efficacious. This is true, but should not be controversial. Davenant is just affirming that God wills the salvation of all men on condition of faith. What is controversial is Davenant's willingness to call God's revealed will an "intention." Moreover, when Amyraut and others maintained that God conditionally decreed the salvation of all men, he was using the term "decree" in the legislative sense, not in the sense of God's efficacious will [For more on this, see F. P. van Stam's doctoral thesis The controversy over the theology of Saumur, 1635-1650 (Amsterdam: APA-Holland University Press, 1988)]. He, therefore, was also just affirming God's universal saving will. All orthodox Calvinists affirm God's universal saving "will," but not all refer to that will as an "intention," since that term, in their view, connotes something efficacious, as with the term "purpose." I have no problem with such language since I think God acts on his revealed will by pleading with men to believe in the gospel call through his people, and even sends his Son to redeem all men sufficiently (paying their ransom price), as Calvin and Vermigli maintained. It is, as Dabney says in his Indiscriminate Proposals, an "active principle" in God's will. Davenant is no more extreme (which "goes further" seems to suggest in the quote above) or imbalanced than the early Reformers and church fathers.

Edward Polhill (1622–c.1694) on the Proportion of Christ’s Suffering

1. There was a proportion between the seats of suffering in Christ, and the seats of sin in us. Man sinned in his body, sin was organically and instrumentally there; proportionably Christ suffered in his body, no part of it but was racked upon a tormenting cross: because our corporeal parts had been weapons of iniquity, justice made his the subjects of misery. Man sinned in his soul, there was the prime and chief seat of sin; proportionably Christ suffered in his soul; nay, there was the prime and chief seat of suffering, because the main residence and venom of sin was in our souls, the greatest pressure and bitterness of wrath was upon his. He was exceeding sorrowful, even to death; he was sore amazed, and as it were fainted away; yea, for very anguish he sweat drops of blood, and upon the cross cried out, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? All this befel him, who was fortitude and constancy itself. Under the law, justice had an eye for eye, tooth for tooth, wound for wound, stripe for stripe; in Jesus Christ it had a suffering body and soul, as a compensation for the sinning bodies and souls of men.

2. There was a proportion between the penal sufferings in Christ, and those in the threatening of the law. Christ suffered not the very idem, neither indeed could he do so; because there was a change of person, and in strictness, Si alius solvit, aliud solvitur : but his sufferings came as near to those in the law, as could possibly stand with a just decorum to his sacred person; as little was abated as might be. This will appear by the many steps of his humiliation. He, the Son of God, very God, assumed our frail nature. But might this infinite and wonderful condescension satisfy justice for the sin of the world? no, he must be under the law, and fulfil all righteousness. Well, that being done, might that obedience (wherein so high an honour was reflected upon the law, as that it was obeyed perfectly in all things, and that by its Maker) satisfy for sin? No, that alone was not enough; there must be shedding of blood, or no remission. But if there must be blood, might not a few drops of his blood, the same being of an infinite value, do the work? No, the law calls for death, without that he could not be an expiatory sacrifice for us. But if a death must be, might not a simple one, being of so great a person, serve the turn? No, the law pronounces a curse, and that he was made, the marks and tokens of wrath were upon him: and why all this, but that God would have his sufferings comply, and come as near the terms of the law as might be? It is true, he did not bear the accidentals of punishment, his sufferings were not eternal; but in the law punishment is eternal, only as it relates to a finite creature, which can never satisfy, but not as it relates to a mighty sponsor, who could pay down all at once, and swallow up death in victory. He suffered not the worm of conscience, or desperation. But the first of these is from sin, inherent, and putrifying in conscience; and the second, from the imbecility of the creature, sinking under its burden, neither of which could be in him. He bore not the accidentals of punishment; but as great a person as he was, the essentials could not be abated. There was in his sufferings, pæna sensus, when the fire of wrath melted him into a bloody sweat; and pæna damni, when the eclipse of favour made him cry out of forsaking. Though God in his sovereignty would relax the law, and introduce his own Son, as a sponsor to satisfy for us; yet his Son standing in that capacity, he would in justice have him suffer as near the penalty in the law as could be.

3. There was a proportion between the sufferings of Christ, and the sin of a world. Sin is an infinite evil; and his sufferings, to compensate it, were of an infinite value. Sufferings are not to be estimated as money, which, in whose hands soever it be, is one and the same, but according to the dignity of the person. Hence that of the people to David, Thou art worth ten thousand of us. (2 Sam. xviii. 3.) Hence, that Spanish proverb, used to Charles the Ninth, to move him to seize upon the chief protestants, One salmon's head is more worth than the heads of fifty frogs. In the Roman laws, punishments were varied according to the conditions of persons. Free men were not under the same punishments as servants. The lex porcia would not leave rods upon the back of a free man: the sufferings of a prince and a private man, are not to be valued at the same rate. At the death of Abner, David took special notice of it, and cried out, A prince, a great man is fallen this day in Israel. (2 Sam. iii. 38.) The sufferings of great men are very estimable; what then are the sufferings of a God, such as our Saviour? The Scripture is very emphatical in setting forth this to us: God purchased the church with his own blood. (Acts, xx. 28.) God laid down his life for us. (1 John iii. 16.) The Lord of glory was crucified. (1 Cor. ii. 8.) The man, God's fellow, was smitten. (Zach. xiii. 7.) He offered up himself through the eternal Spirit. (Heb. ix. 14.) The Prince of life was killed. (Acts iii. 15.) His Deity stamped an infinite value upon his sufferings, such as made them a full compensation for the sin of a world. That, therefore, of Socinus, that the sufferings of Christ have no more virtue in themselves, than if a mere man had suffered, is no less than horrible blasphemy, and for ever to be abhorred by us.

4. There was a proportion between the sufferings of Christ, and the sufferings of a world. "One died for all," saith the apostle. (2 Cor. v. 14.) But what an one was he? No less than very God: his Deity elevated his sufferings into a kind of infinity. Upon this account his sufferings, though but the sufferings of one, did equalize, nay, snperexceed the sufferings of a world. For as the French divines have observed; if you multiply one, you shall at last have the number of all men: but a collection of all men, however multiplied, will never equal the power, authority, dignity, wisdom, sanctity, and Deity of Christ. In the sufferings of a world, every sufferer would have been but a mere creature; but in his sufferings, the sufferer was no less than God himself. Here therefore, justice appears more signally, than if all the world had suffered and that for ever. His sufferings, though but temporary, did more than counterpoise the eternal sufferings of a world. Should we suppose, which is impossible, that all men had paid and passed through eternal sufferings, those would have delivered them from the curse of the law; the sufferings of Christ (which shews their equivalency, and more) produce the same effect, and over and above, merit life eternal. There is a double order in punishing; the order of justice would have a punishment infinite in magnitude; but because a finite creature cannot bear it, the order of wisdom will have it infinite in duration. But, as the French divines have observed, Christ being substituted in our room, the order of justice returns again. Our Saviour's sufferings were of an infinite value, the sum of sufferings was paid down all at once. In these, therefore, justice is more illustrious than it could have been in eternal ones; wherein mere finite creatures would have been ever paying a little, and a little, but could never have satisfied divine justice.

Edward Polhill, “A View of Some Divine Truths,” in The Works of Edward Polhill 1622–1694 (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1998), 15–16.

Bio:
DNB