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

Richard Baxter (1615–1691) on John 17:9

9, 10. It is out of special Love to them, for the Salvation and welfare of these, that I now pray to thee, and not for the mere Worldlings and Enemies of thy Kingdom, (though for them also I have such desires and Prayers as signifie my common Love; and the Elect among them yet unconverted, I have such requests for, as are suited to their state.) But these that thou hast give me peremptorily to save, are the People of thy peculiar Love as well as mine. And all that I so love thou lovest also, and it is in them that I am glorified, and my Person, Office and Grace is honoured, which others do but swinishly despise.

Richard Baxter, “The Gospel According to St. John,” in A Paraphrase on the New Testament (London: Printed for B. Simmons, at the Three Cocks in Ludgate-street, 1685), F1^v. See also Richard Baxter on Christ's prayer in John 17.

Bio:  

Wiki

DNB

Richard Baxter (1615–1691) on Christ’s Prayer in John 17

The fourth Crimination.

C. “They make Christ to die for those that he would not pray for, Joh. 17. ‘I pray not for the world, but for those that thou hast given me out of the world’”---

B. He maketh himself to die for them. It is ofter and plainer said that he died for all, than it is, that he prayed not for all. And many plain Texts, yea the scope of the Gospel, must not be reduced to your feigned sense of one obscurer Text.

2. But doth not the Text tell us, that he died not for the world, as it tells us, that he prayed not for them? Or doth it tell us, that he died for no more than he prayed for? Or rather are not these your own Inventions?

3. But where doth the Text say, that Christ never prayed for any but the Elect? yea, or that he prayed not at all for the world, though he put not up that particular prayer for the world? Look on the Text, and you will see that he speaketh there only of the Disciples that followed him on Earth; And that he prayed not in that Petition for all his Elect only; And therefore he after addeth, vers. 20. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe in me through their word. And what was the prayer?  [That they may be one, and kept from the evil of the world,] which is a blessing peculiar to his Disciples. But it is manifest, that Christ had other prayers for the world, even for many ungodly men; yea, for Reprobates. For, 1. On the Cross he prayeth for his Persecutors, Father, forgive them: And it is mens own invention to say that he meaneth none but the Elect: We must not unnecessarily limit where the Word limiteth not. And Stephen made Christ his Pattern. And it is gross fiction to say that Stephen prayed for none but the Elect.

C. “Doth not Christ say, That his Father heard him always? and can you imagine that he prayed for that which God denied him?”

B. 2. My next Answer should have prevented that Objection, which is, that what God giveth to the World for Christ’s sake, that Christ may well be said to pray for; For it is the fruit of his Mediation. But God giveth much Pardon, and many Mercies to the World, for Christ’s sake. 1. He giveth them much Actual pardon for temporal punishments for Christ’s sake. All the Life, Health, Time, Gospel, Means and Mercies, which ever he giveth them, are such as deserved full punishment would have deprived them of: And therefore they are all acts of executive pardon of that punishment.

3. And this very Chapter containeth a prayer for the World, viz. vers. 21, 23. That the World may believe, and know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them.--- If you say that by the World here is meant only the Elect; I answer, 1. Your word is no Proof. 2. That they are prayed for, to believe and know, &c. is no proof: For many did believe that God sent Christ that yet were not saved. This soundeth but as a common Act of Faith. 3. And note, that here the world is contradistinguished, not only from Apostles, but those (after-mentioned) that should believe by their word; and it is prayed, That the world may know that God loveth those that believe in him: which may extend both to the Conversion of such as then are unconverted, and to the conviction of others, such as are common members of the visible Church (at least): As the Spirit is sent to convince the world of Sin, and Righteousness, and Judgment.

4. And it is not to be granted you without proof, that by the World is meant all Reprobates as such: For Judas is before distinguished from the World (as one given to Christ) when yet he was a Reprobate: But either it may be the World of present Unbelievers, whom Christ prayeth for else-where, though not there: Or the World of final professed Infidels and Enemies of the Church, as distinct from both Elect and Reprobate in the Church. And several expressions of Christ’s before of the Worlds hating and persecuting his Apostles, seem not applicable to every Hypocrite, who prophesieth and casteth out of Devils in his Name, and perhaps suffereth for his Truth, and excellently defendeth it, and hath some love to Believers.

Richard Baxter, Catholick Theologie (London: Printed by Robert White, for Nevill Simmons at the Princes Arms in St. Pauls Church-yard, 1675), Book II, 68–69.

9, 10. It is out of special Love to them, for the Salvation and welfare of these, that I now pray to thee, and not for the mere Worldlings and Enemies of thy Kingdom, (though for them also I have such desires and Prayers as signifie my common Love; and the Elect among them yet unconverted, I have such requests for, as are suited to their state.) But these that thou hast give me peremptorily to save, are the People of thy peculiar Love as well as mine. And all that I so love thou lovest also, and it is in them that I am glorified, and my Person, Office and Grace is honoured, which others do but swinishly despise.

Richard Baxter, “The Gospel According to St. John,” in A Paraphrase on the New Testament (London: Printed for B. Simmons, at the Three Cocks in Ludgate-street, 1685), F1^v.

Bio:

Wiki

DNB

Richard Baxter (1615–1691) on the Old Sufficiency/Efficiency Solution

§. 20. The old Solution which Schoolmen and Protestants have acquiesced in, is, That Christ died for All, as to the sufficiency of his death, but not as to the efficiency of their salvation: Which is true, but must be thus explained: Christ's Death and Obedience were not only sufficient but effectual as to their first effects; that is, They effected that which is commonly called, Satisfaction and Merit; and hence and from the Covenant of God they were also effectual to procure the Covenant of Grace as of universal tenor, and therein a free pardon of Sin and gift of Right to life-eternal to all, on condition of due acceptance: This conditional Gift of Christ and Life is effected: And this efficacy of the antecedent Mercies, must either be called part of the sufficiency of Redemption, as to the consequent Mercies (viz. Actual Pardon and Salvation) or else an efficiency beyond the sufficiency, antecedent to the said special efficiency. That Christ's Death hath effectually procured the Act of Oblivion or conditional Gift of Life to all Mankind; but it doth not effect the actual salvation of all: To the universal Grace it is both sufficient and efficient; but to the special Grace and actual Salvation it is sufficient to All (as after shall be opened) but not efficient, (which is by the Refuser's fault and forfeiture.)

§. 21. When we say, that either Christ's Death or Grace is sufficient to more than it effecteth, the meaning is, that it hath all things on its part which is absolutely necessary to the effect, but that somewhat else is supposed necessary to it, which is wanting.

Richard Baxter, An End of Doctrinal Controversies Which Have Lately Troubled the Churches, by Reconciling Explication Without Much Disputing (London: Printed for John Salusbury at the Rising Sun in Cornhil, 1691), 161–62.

Bio:  

Wiki

DNB

Richard Baxter (1615–1691) Answers the Double Payment Question

Cont. 28. Is it not unjust to punish him that Christ died for, even one sin twice? 

Ans. No, Unless it were the same person that suffered, or the very same punishment that was due (and all that was due) were expected again; and unless it were against our mediators will. But all is contrary in this case. 1. The Law bound no one to suffer but the offender. 2. Therefore Christ suffering was not the same punishment which the Law did threaten, but it was Satisfaction instead of it; which is the Tantundem, not the idem quod debitum suit, but redditio æquivalentis aliàs indebiti, as the Schoolmen call it. For noxa caput sequitur; the Law threateneth not a surety, but only the sinner, and ubi alius solvit, simul aliud solvitur. 3. And Christ himself never satisfied with any other intent; and therefore it is according to his will, that they that tread under foot the blood of the Covenant wherewith they were Sanctified, as an unholy thing, and do despite to the Spirit of Grace, should suffer the far sorer punishment, Heb. 10. Yea it is Christ himself that will have it so, and that doth so judge, them, and inflict this punishment for the contempt of grace.

And it is his will that his own members be punished by correction, notwithstanding his sufferings: As many as he loveth he doth rebuke and chasten: And Christ doth not wrong himself: The end of his suffering never was to execute the redeemed from all suffering, nor to make believers lawless.

Richard Baxter, The Scripture Gospel defended, and Christ, Grace and Free Justification Vindicated Against the Libertines […] In Two Books […] (London: Printed for Tho. Parkhurst, at the Bible and Three Crowns, at the lower end of Cheapside, 1690), 1:47–48. See also Richard Baxter, Catholick Theologie: Plain, Pure, Peaceable: For Pacification Of the Dogmatical Word-Warriours […] In Three Books. […] (London: Printed by Robert White, for Nevill Simons at the Princes Arms in St. Pauls Church-yard, 1675), 1.2.68–69; §148–151.

Error 5. ‘That God were unjust if he laid any degree of punishment on those that Christ died for; or (say others) on the justified; because he shall punish one sin twice.’
Contr. It is certain, that God punisheth the justified in some degree (much more the elect before conversion), and it is certain that God is not unjust. Therefore it is certain that the ground of this accusation is false; for it was not our deserved punishment itself, or the same which was due in the true sense of the law which Christ endured: but it was the punishment of a voluntary sponsor, which was the ‘equivalens,’ and not the ‘idem’ that was due; and did answer the ends of the law, but not fulfil the meaning of the threatening; which threatened the sinner himself, and not another for him: seeing then it was a satisfaction, or sacrifice for sin, which God received for an atonement and propitiation, and not a solution or suffering of the sinner himself in the sense of the law, the charge of injustice on God is groundless.

Richard Baxter, The Practical Works of the Rev. Richard Baxter, 23 vols. (London: James Duncan, 1830), 12:315–16.

Bio:

Wiki

DNB

Richard Baxter (1615–1691) on the Arrogancy of Some in Believing Half-Truths

"4. Another expression of this Arrogant Ignorance is, When men will not believe the several truths of God, because they are not able to reconcile them, and place each one in its own order, and see the Method and Body of Truth in its true Locations and Proportion: Nay, perhaps they will believe none, because they cannot discern the harmony.

What abundance of seeming contradictions in Scripture do rise up in the eyes of an Ignorant Infidel? as strange apparitions do to a distracted man; or as many colors do before the inflamed or distempered eye. These self-conceited ignorant Souls, do imagine all to be impossible which exceedeth their knowledge; and because they cannot see[?] the sweet consent of Scripture, and how those places do suit, and fortify each other, which to them seemed to contradict each other, therefore they think that no one else can see it; no not God himself. They are like an ignorant fellow in a Watch-makers shop, that thinks nobody can fix[?] all the loose pieces together, and make a Watch of them, because he cannot. When he hath tried many ways, and cannot[?] hit it, he casts all by, and concludeth, that it's impossible.

And upon this account many cast away particular truths, though they will not cast away all. Some cannot reconcile the efficiency of the Spirit, with that of the Word, in the Conversion and Confirmation of sinners; and therefore some exclude one, and some the other, or own by the empty names; some cannot reconcile the Law, and the Gospel: And too great a part of the Teachers, in the Christian World, have been so troubled to reconcile God's grace, with man's free-will, that of old, many did too much exclude the natural liberty of the will, upon a supposition of the inconsistency; only the names of both were still owned.

Many cannot reconcile the sufficiency of Christ's satisfaction, with the necessity of man's endeavors, and inherent righteousness; and therefore one must be strained or denied. Many cannot reconcile common love and grace, with that which is special and proper to the Elect; and therefore some deny one, and some another. The like might be said of many other cases, wherein the Arrogancy of man's wit hath cast out God's truth: If both parts be never so express, yet they are upon this unbelieving questioning strain, [How can these things be?] How can these agree together? How can both be true? when yet it is evident, that God hath owned both.

It is certain, that the Truths of God's Word are one perfect well-jointed Body; and the perfect symmetry or proportion, is much of its beauty: It is certain, that Method is an excellent help in knowing Divine things: and that no man can know God's truths perfectly, til he see them all as in one Scheme or Body, with one view, as it were, and so sees the Location of each Truth, and the respect that it hath to all the rest; not only to see that there is no contradiction, but how every Truth doth fortify the rest. All this therefore is exceeding desirable, but it is not every man's lot to attain it, nor any man's in this world perfectly, or near to a perfection: It is true, that the sight of all God's frame of the Creation, uno intuitus, in all its parts, with all their respects to each other, would acquaint us with abundance more of the glory of it, then by looking on the Members peace-meal we can attain: But who can see them thus, but God? at least, what mortal eye can do it? And we shall never in this life attain to see the full Body of Divine Revealed-Truths, in that method and due proportion, as it necessary to the knowledge of its full beauty. It is a most perfectly melodious Instrument; but every man cannot see it in tune, so as to perceive the delectable harmony.

What then? because we cannot know all, shall we know nothing, or deny all? Because we cannot see the whole frame of the world, in its junctures and proportion, shall we say, That there is no world, or, that the parts are not rightly situated: or feign one to be inconsistent with the rest? we must rather receive first that which is most clear, and labor by degrees to see through the obscurities that beset the rest. And if we first find from God, that both are truths, let us receive them, and learn how to reconcile them after, as we can: And if we cannot reach it, its arrogancy therefore to think that it is not to be done, and to be so highly conceited of our own understandings."

Richard Baxter, The Arrogancy of Reason Against Divine Revelations, Repressed. Or, Proud Ignorance the Cause of Infidelity, and of Mens Quarrelling with the Word of God (London: Printed by T. N. for Tho. Underhil, 1655), 21–24. Some of the English has been updated.

Bio:

Wiki

DNB

Richard Baxter (1615–1691) on God Kneeling to Entreat

The torments of the damned must needs be extreme, because they are the effect of Divine Revenge: Wrath is terrible, but Revenge is implacable: When the great God shall say; I will now be righted for all the wrongs that I have born from rebellious creatures; I will let out my wrath, and it shall be stayed no more, you shall now pay for all the abuse of my Patience! Remember now how I waited your leisure in vain, how I stooped to persuade you; how I, as it were, kneeled to entreat you: did you think I would always be slighted by such miscreants as you? O, who can look up when God shall thus plead with them in the heat of Revenge? Then will he be revenged for every mercy abused, for his creatures consumed in luxury and excess; for every hours time misspent; for the neglect of his word, for the vilifying of his messengers, for the hating of his people, for the prophanation of his ordinances, and neglect of his worship, for the breaking of his Sabbaths, and the grieving of his Spirit, for the taking of his Name in vain, for unmerciful neglect of his servants in distress. O the numberless bills that will be brought in! And the charge that will overcharge the soul of the sinner! And how hotly Revenge will pursue them all to the highest! How God will stand over them with the rod in his hand (not the rod of fatherly chastisements, but that Iron rod wherewith he bruiseth the rebellious) and lay it on for all their neglects of Christ and grace! O that men would foresee this! And not put themselves under the hammer of revenging fury, when they may have the treasure of happiness at so easy rates! And please God better in preventing their woe!

Richard Baxter, The Saints Everlasting Rest, 10th edition (London: Printed by R. W. for Francis Tyton, and are to be sold at the sign of the three Daggers in Fleet-street, 1650), 334–335.

Direct. xxvi. 'Conclude not the worse of the effects of a discovery of your bad condition, than there is cause.' Remember that if you should find that you are unjustified, it followeth not that you must continue so: you search not after your disease or misery as incurable, but as one that hath a sufficient remedy at hand, even brought to your doors, and cometh a begging for your acceptance, and is freely offered and urged on you: and therefore if you find that you are unregenerate, thank God that hath shewed you your case; for if you had not seen it, you had perished in it: and presently give up yourselves to God in Jesus Christ, and then you may boldly judge better of yourselves; it is not for despair, but for recovery that you are called to try and judge. Nay, if you do but find it too hard a question for you, whether you have all this while been sincere or not, turn from it, and resolvedly give up yourselves to God by Christ, and place your hopes in the life to come, and turn from this deceitful world and flesh, and then the case will be plain for time to come. If you doubt of your former repentance, repent now, and put it out of doubt from this time forward.

Richard Baxter, "Christian Politics," in A Christian Directory: Or, A Sum of Practical Theology, and Cases of Conscience (London: Printed for Richard Edwards; and Sold by James Duncan, Paternoster Row, and by All Other Booksellers, 1825), 6:534.

Bio:

Wiki

DNB

Other advocates within the Augustinian tradition who use the metaphor of God begging are the following men:

Augustine, Hugh Latimer [Early English Reformer], Samuel Rutherford [Westminster divine], Thomas Manton [Puritan], Jeremiah Burroughs [Westminster divine], John Trapp [Puritan], Sydrach Simpson [Westminster divine], Joseph Caryl [Westminster divine], Robert Harris [Westminster divine], Theophilus Gale [Puritan], William Gearing [Puritan], Isaac Ambrose [Puritan], Stephen Charnock [Puritan], John Richardson [Puritan], John Flavel [Puritan], Thomas Watson [Puritan], Thomas Case [Puritan], Richard Sibbes [Puritan], John Shower [Puritan], John Collinges [Puritan], William Gurnall [Puritan], George Swinnock [Puritan], Ralph Venning [Puritan], Daniel Burgess [Puritan], Samuel Willard, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, Solomon Stoddard, Samuel Davies, Andrew Gray, Ralph Erskine, Charles Spurgeon, Thomas Chalmers, Walter Chantry, Erroll Hulse, John MacArthur and Fred Zaspel.

Richard Baxter (1615-1691) on Moral Power as Distinct from Natural Faculties

"3. I easily acknowledge that grace giveth such a power as is commonly called Moral, distinct from the natural faculties, as our corrupt estate contains an opposite impotency. But this is but an applying of the terms [Can] and [Cannot] [Power] and [Impotency] to Dispositions and Undisposedness, to Habits and their Privations. 

4. A new heart and spirit, I easily confess necessary. But those words do commonly signify in Scripture, only new Inclinations, Dispositions, Qualifications. It is a new heart, though only the old faculties and substance. I hope you will not follow Illyricus.

5. Where you say that [without faith a man can no more Receive Christ, nor do ought towards it, than a dead man can walk or speak.] I Reply 1. That proves not faith to be equivalent to a Potentia vel facultas, any otherwise then that it is of as absolute necessity, but not that it is of the same nature. If you show an illiterate man a Greek or Hebrew book, he can no more read in it then a dead man, that is, both are truly in sensu composito impossible: But yet it is but a habit that is wanting  to one, and a power or faculty natural, to the other. And so it may truly be said that a sinner cannot do well that hath accustomed to do evil, no more than a Leopard can change his spots, or a Blackmoore his skin. Yet if you mean that such are equally distant from actual change as a dead man, it is but a dead comparison. A dead man wants both natural faculties, and an inclination or moral power. An unbeliever wants but one."

Richard Baxter, The Reduction of a Digressor (London: Printed by A. M. for Thomas Underhill, at the Anchor and Bible in Pauls Church-yard near the little North-door, and Francis Tyton, at the three Daggers in Fleetstreet near Dunstans Church, 1654), 131.

Bio:

Wiki

DNB

Richard Baxter (1615–1691) on the World in 2 Cor. 5:19

II. Verse 19. is mistaken by many, as if by [the World] were meant only [the Elect] because Reconciliation and not imputing Trespasses are mentioned: But the Text most plainly tells us of a General Reconciliation and non-imputation to Mankind, and a particular to Believers. God did so far reconcile and forgive the World, as not to deal with them merely on the terms of the violated Law of Innocency, but to give them a Redeemer, and a Law of Grace, and a Sealed Pardon of all sin, and free gift of Salvation by Christ, on condition of Believing Acceptance; and that is commonly said to be given, which is freely by a deed of Gift conferred, though Acceptance by implied or expressed as the Condition of enjoyment, and a Man may yet willfully refuse it or neglect it; yea, such Conditions are so naturally necessary, that they use not to be expressed. Yet no Man is Actually (but only Conditionally) possessed of Pardon and Reconciliation, till that Condition be performed: Yet God was forgiving them on his part, and was not imputing sin and unworthiness of Redemption to them, when he gave them a Savior. And yet the work of the Ministry remaineth, even to entreat Men to believe and accept this Pardon and Reconciliation as offered; and it is then actually theirs, when they thus accept it. To say, that then their Faith doth more than Christ's did, or God's Grace, is putid Cavil. Their Faith or Acceptance is no efficient cause at all of their Pardon or Justification: It is but a necessary Receptive Qualification; he that shuts the Window causes darkness: But it's sottish to say, that he that opens it does more than the Sun to cause light; which he causes not at all, but removes the impediment of reception; and Faith itself is God's Gift of Grace, though Preaching and Persuasion be the means of working it.

Richard Baxter, A Paraphrase on the New Testament, with Notes, Doctrinal and Practical (London: Printed for B. Simmons, at the Three Cocks in Ludgate-street, 1685), Ii¹¹. [or p. 380; No pagination after page 3; pages numbered manually from page 3].

On the previous page, Baxter also noted:

19. To tell them, that it was God himself that sent Christ to redeem us, and was in Christ, reconciling the lapsed World to himself, by the Doctrine, Merits, and Sacrifice of Christ, which was performed by his gracious Will for that end; purchasing their Pardon, and not using them as their Sin deserved, but giving them an Act of Oblivion, on condition of Believing Acceptance; and hath committed to us the Ministry, to preach this reconciliation to the World.

Richard Baxter (1615–1691) on Augustine and Redemption

As for Augustine and some Protestants, they oft deny that Christ redeemeth any but the Faithful, because the word Redemption is ambiguous, and sometimes taken for the price or ransome paid, and often for the very liberation of the captive Sinner. And whenever Austin denieth common Redemption, he taketh Redemption in this last sense, for actual deliverance. But he asserteth it in the first sense, that Christ died for all. Yea, he thought his death is actually applied to the true Justification and Sanctification of some Reprobates that fall away and perish, though the Elect only are so redeemed as to be saved. Read yourself in Augustine, Prosper and Fulgentius, and you will see this with your own eyes.

Richard Baxter, Catholick Theologie (London: Printed by Robert White, for Nevill Simmons at the  Princes Arms in St. Pauls Church-yard, 1675), 2:57–58.

Similarly, Henry Browne (1804–1875) said:

Perhaps it will generally be found, that in speaking of Redemption, St. Augustine contemplates it not merely as the act of Christ, objectively, consummated once for all on the Cross, but subjectively, as an act taking place in the persons redeemed: in other words, he speaks of it as the actual deliverance of souls from the power of Satan. This work of grace in the individual man, which is begun here in the emancipation of the captive will, takes place (as he teaches) infallibly and indefectibly in the elect. But the reprobate, even if for a while they live faithfully and righteously, (de Corrept. et Grat. § 16. 40) not receiving the gift of perseverance, remain finally under the power of the devil; consequently, are not redeemed: Redemption does not take place in them as a fact. And since the Will of God is all in all, and cannot be defeated of Its purpose, therefore God did not purpose the redemption of such, and Christ died not for them, but only for those whom He knew to be given Him of the Father, that He should give unto them eternal life, and lose none of them.

Henry Browne, “Note A,” in S. Augustine, Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John, and his First Epistle, trans. H. Browne, 2 vols. (A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church; Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1848-1849), 1238.

Bio:  
Wiki
DNB

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). 

William Bates (1625–1699) on Richard Baxter’s (1615–1691) Middle Way

In some points of modern Controversie he judiciously chose the middle way, and advised young Divines to follow it. His reverence of the Divine Purity, made him very shy and jealous of any Doctrine that seem’d to reflect a blemish and stain upon it. He was a clear asserter of the soveraign Freeness, and infallible Efficacy of Divine Grace in the Conversion of Souls. In a Sermon reciting the Words of the Covenant of Grace, I will put my fear into their hearts, and they shall not depart from me; he observed the Tenor of it was, I will, and you shall. Divine Grace makes the rebellious Will obedient, but does not make the Will to be no Will. By the Illumination of the Mind, the Will is inclin’d to Obedience, according to the Words of our Saviour, All that have heard and learn'd of the Father come to me. He preach'd that the Death of Christ was certainly effectual for all the Elect to make them partakers of Grace and Glory, and that it was so far beneficial to all Men, that they are not left in the same desperate State with the fallen Angels, but are made capable of Salvation by the Grace of the Gospel: not capable as Efficients to convert themselves, but as Subjects to receive saving Grace. He did so far honour the sincerity of God, as entirely to believe his Will declared in his Word: he would not interpret the Promises of the Gospel in a less gracious sense than God intended them: Therefore if Men finally perish, 'tis not for want of Mercy in God, nor Merits in Christ, but for their willful refusing Salvation.

William Bates, “A Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Reverend and Excellent Divine Mr. Richard Baxter,” in The Works of the Late Reverend and Learned William Bates (London: Printed for B. Aylmer, at the Three Pigeons, against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill: And J. Robinson, at the Golden Lion in St. Paul’s Church-Yard, 1700), 818.

Bio:
DNB
Wiki
Various

A Few Historical References by John Humfrey (1621–1719) on the Redemption Controversy

Sir, you know there are two sorts of such as oppose Arminianism. One that is the high sort, and the other the moderate sort that are for the middle way in these Controversies, and I confess myself one who have wrote several pieces, so called. We that are of this sort, do hold Election to be of particular persons (not the choosing Believers to be saved with the Arminian and Lutherans, but the choosing Persons to believe): But Redemption we hold to be Universal. The Scriptures say, Christ died for all, and for every man. God so loved the World, (says Christ) that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. By the World, this Gentlemen must understand the Elect: but when by the words [that whosoever believeth in him] Christ plainly intimates, that there are some of those God loves, do believe, and some not; the World must be more than the Elect. Of the world of those God loves so as to give his Son, to dye for them; some believe in him, and have everlasting life, and some believe not and perish. But of the Elect all believe, and none perish.

One Text more I will quote: Whom he did predestinate, them he called: Whom he called, them he justified: Whom he justified, them he also glorified. And why is Redemption here left out of the Apostolical Chain, but because those he hath redeemed, are all the world? If the Doctrine that this Gentleman hath received were right, the Apostle would have said, Whom he did predestinate, them he Redeemed.

I shall use no more Arguments, or Scriptures, when so many may be had; but because this Gentleman was apt to think me singular in what I said, it is fit he know that the Church of England (and consequently our Holy Martyrs, Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Bradford,) does in her Catechism assert this Doctrine, when the child is made to answer there, Who hath redeemed me and all mankind. The excellent Dr. Bishop Davenant, hath wrote a Book on purpose, De Morte Christi, to maintain this point. Archbishop Usher (not to name any of our Eminent forraign Divines) hath done the like. Mr. Baxter, that every foot is commending this book of Davenants so highly, is one, I won't scruple to say now he is dead, no less profound himself, and chose to go this way with them.

John Humfrey, Peace at Pinners-Hall (London: Printed and be Sold by Randal Taylor near Amen-Corner, 1692), 2–4.

Observe the following points in the above:

1) Humfrey distinguishes between the two sorts of Calvinists who oppose Arminianism: the "high sort" and the "moderates."
2) The "moderates" hold to a form of universal redemption.
3) He lists Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Bradford, Davenant, Ussher and Baxter as "moderates."

Note (5-8-13): Joseph Truman also calls himself a "moderate" several times in opposing certain free will theologians in A Discourse of Natural and Moral Impotency (London: Printed for Robert Clavel; and are to be sold at the Sign of the Peacock in St. Pauls Church yard, 1675). See, for example, pp. 115, 124.

John Humfrey (1621–1719) on Redemption

These words appear at the beginning of this book:

A Testimony to Mr. Humfrey's former Writings, by two of his Brethren, Ministers, while living.

To Mr. J. H.

I Think by studying of the Scriptures, and things more than others have said before you, you escape the Temptations to Siding and Partiality: And I think you hit on many considerable Truths which many overlook, and improve many which some do lightly pass over.

Richard Baxter.

I am of the same Mind,

Thomas Manton, D.D.

Humfrey wrote:

Of
Redemption.

As for this Head of Redemption, I am for a middle Way, as Mr. Baxter was, and Dr. Davenant in his Book De morte Christi, which Arch-bp. Usher approv'd, and was byas'd toward the Universality of it. For seeing the Scripture is so express and full that Christ dy'd for all, that he tasted Death for every Man, that he was a Propitiation for the Sins of the whole World; and that so many more Texts might amply be quoted, there is some Sense wherein this Universality must be maintained, or the Scripture be forsaken.

The Death of Christ therefore may be considered as it hath purchased Remission and Salvation on Condition, and so it is for all, and acknowledged (as Mr. Baxter notes) by Dr. Twiss. But the strict Calvinist will have more, that it redounds to purchase the Condition also, and the Redeemed therefore are only the Elect. This Inference I dislike quite, and the Proposition, that Christ by his Death (whereby he hath made Satisfaction for our Sins) hath purchased the Condition also for any, I question.

For the Inference, If there was a double Redemption, once to purchase Pardon and Life on Condition, and another to purchase also the Condition, then would it be plain, that one was for all, and the other for the Elect only. But Redemption is but one, though that one may have a double Respect, and Dr. Davenant and Mr. Baxter no doubt thought not any otherwise: that is, a Respect to the whole World, or a Respect to the Elect. As it respects all the World, it does purchase Remission and Salvation on Condition; as it respects the Elect, it does farther (as they must hold) purchase for such the Condition also. Upon this account therefore with them it does not follow, that none are redeemed but the Elect, because that tho' in one respect, as Christ by his Redemption hath purchased also the Condition (supposing it so) it was for the Elect: yet in another respect, as it hath purchased Pardon and Life only on Condition, it is for the World; so that in these diverse Respects, all are redeemed, and also the Elect only. I will not wonder therefore at these two Eminent Men, Mr. Baxter and Bishop Davenant, that they affirm Redemption to be Universal and Special both, I thank them for their Pains, their great Pains, but in good earnest it is an Inconsistency I cannot fully, but half approve.

For as for the Proposition it self, that Christ hath by his Death purchased the Condition for the Elect (that is, the Grace which effects their Faith and Repentance, and sincere Obedience, which is the Condition that they may be effectually saved) I have an Objection against it, which you shall have by the by, that I think could not be answered, even by them. The strict Calvinists agree with these middle ones in the Proposition, and are peremptory, that if our Redemption be no more for the Elect than others, which is the purchasing Remission and Salvation on Condition, and not the Condition it self, then does our Salvation lie at Man's own Free Will; so that tho' Christ hath redeemed all, there may not be any one saved for all that. An Allegation really inconsiderate, because Redemption is so distinguished from Election, that it is no Link in its Chain, and is to be so distinguished as either of them to have their Bounds. Redemption hath procured Pardon and Life upon Condition, and there is its Bounds; and as for the Condition, there is no Obligation on Free Grace, but God may dispose it (he may give Faith) where he pleases, so as it lies upon Election, not on Man's Free Will therefore but on God's, for him to give it unto one and not another: and thus Election takes care that Redemption be not in vain.

To establish us the more, we are to consider, in this great Matter of Election and Salvation, that God is to be acknowledged as Rector and Lord both in it; and consequently these Divines that hold the Death of Christ to be for all, in purchasing Pardon and Salvation on Condition, but that the Condition flows not from the Power of Man's Free Will, nor directly from Christ's Purchase, but from Election, do manifestly give God his Glory, while they make him as Lord to give the Condition to his Elect; and as Rector, to judge of them as of all the World according to that Condition.

For my Objection now against the Proposition I am to offer, it is this, that instead of what they say against Universal Redemption, that it destroys Free Grace, I must tell them, that Redemption Special does indeed do it. For the Free Grace of Election we all know to lie in this, that out of the Mass of Mankind, who have no Merit one more than another, God does choose whom he will for no Cause but his own Free Pleasure. Now if Christ hath purchased the Condition for the Elect, then does God choose them from the rest upon Merit, the greatest Merit that can be, even Christ's Merit; and when the choosing the one that hath his Merit is the Reason of his Choice, and not the other because without it, this does destroy the Freeness of Election altogether. This Objection is the firmer, because the Calvinists do all contend about Election, that it has no respect to Christ's Merit and our Faith, but only as they are the Effect of it, that is, because God does elect, choose or determine some to be saved, therefore he sends his Son to procure by his Redemption their Salvation, and gives them Faith to that end: And why do they stand on this, that Christ's Merits must not be considered in Election, but because Election is free, and so free that there must be no Merit even from Christ to the Elect, as the Reason why he chooses one and not the other. I need not add as to them, that nothing without God, and done in time, as Christ's Death was, can be the Cause of his Eternal Will. His Will is himself, and God has no Cause.

The Lutheran here contends with the Calvinist, and stands upon that Text, He hath chosen us in Christ. The Preposition έν in Greek signifies through, and when it is join'd with Christ, through, is through his Merits. This appears (say they) in a former Verse of the same Chapter; He hath blessed us with all Blessings, έν Χριστω, in Christ; and in a following Verse, In him, έν ω, we have Redemption; now when these Words, He hath chosen us in him, is in the middle Verse between them, and they won't understand them as they must be understood, the Lutheran is offended as if the Calvinist would not acknowledge the Truth when convinced. He chooses us, says the Calvinist, that we may believe and be holy, not because we believe and are holy; and because he hath chosen us to Salvation, he hath sent his Son to redeem us (as before) as the means to procure Pardon and Life, and Faith for his Elect, that we may be saved: But the Lutheran says, God chooses the Believer, and that the Redemption of Christ is the Cause, the meritorious Cause of our Election, as well as of our Justification or Salvation. Here is extream Opposition: One says, Election is the Cause of Redemption; and the other says, Redemption is the Cause of Election; and who shall find out a middle-way, or any thing towards it, between them? I pray give me leave, and what if I shall say this, that tho' Christ by his Redemption hath purchased no more for any but Pardon and Life upon Condition, as it belongs to all; yet may we conceive that he hath thereby so pleased the Father, as to obtain that there shall be an Election, that he will give his Grace (the first Grace) to some, that his Sons Obedience and Sufferings shall have their Effect; but tho' he gives it, he will be free in the giving; he will give it to some, but to whom he pleases; he gives it, but without Obligation by that Redemption to give it to any one more than another. As we are all faln in Adam, we are all redeemed by Christ, and all alike in the same Estate; no particular Man can say, Christ hath merited for him more than for others, that for his Merit he should be chosen, and have Grace given him, rather than the other, but all lies on Free Grace, or God's Free Will perfectly, and so Universal Redemption and Free Grace do both stand together.

For my speaking now farther of Redemption: Redemption is a metaphorical Word, and to speak of it according to the Law of the Jews, or the Law of the Romans, and supposing a Captivity or Slavery, to ask, what it is, who are the Captives, how they came to be so, whose Captives, what is the Price that redeems us, when and how, and to whom paid, and twenty such Questions may be ask'd, which any other may answer that will, it is not my Work? but if this Question in general be ask'd, what Redemption is, and the Apostle says it is Remission of Sins (In whom we have Redemption, even Remission of Sins) I will tell freely my Thoughts of it, not that it is, but that it hath obtained Remission; a Universal Conditional Remission, which will be best conceived by a Pardon at Law, an Act of Grace or Pardon by an Act of Parliament: Suppose the Nation in Rebellion, and under the Guilt of Treason, and the Prince to grant a General Pardon, an Act passes, and the whole Nation is pardon'd: The Gospel-Covenant is such an Act of Pardon for all the World; and if you object, then all the World must be saved, I answer, The Act must be read, we must see how it is drawn, and we find Conditions in it: All are pardoned indeed on Condition, but the Conditions must be performed and pleaded for suing out the Act, and obtaining the Benefit of it.

There are none of us must question but the Gospel, together with Remission of Sin, brings a Law (the Covenant of Grace is a Pardon and Law) requiring Obedience in order to our Salvation. He hath chosen us in Christ, that we should be holy: He hath redeemed us from Iniquity, that we should be a peculiar People, zealous of Good Works: We are his Workmanship, and created unto Good-works in (or through) Christ Jesus. By these Texts it appears, that to make us holy, or that we should be holy is the End (or one End) of Christ redeeming us, and yet did God create Man to this End, to be holy; he made us to serve him, and he put his Law in Man's Heart to obey it; and seeing Holiness was the End of his Creation, how can it be said the End of our Redemption? I know none have ask'd the Question, and I must take leave my self to answer, The Law of Creation was a Law of Innocency, requiring us to be so holy as to be without Sin; and when that was broke, and there was Sin committed, there could be no Righteousness according to that Law any more; and therefore was it necessary for Christ by his Coming not only to atone God in regard to the Sin, but to procure also another Law, and such as through Grace may be performed, that so a Righteousness (call'd by Daniel an Everlasting Righteousness) might be brought in (when else there could, I say, be none in the World) which together with Remission of Sin is required to Life everlasting.

And forasmuch as to the end that Men may repent, believe and be holy, Christ hath procured Remission and Salvation for all upon that Condition, which does encourage them to it, and is the Use they should make of it, and God would have all to repent, tho' none do but such as he chooses to give his special Grace to them to do it: We are not to think that none are redeemed but they that do attain that End, no more than you may argue, that when the Scripture says that God will have all to come to Repentance, and the Acknowledgement of the Truth, that yet God indeed will have none to repent, but those that do it: For God does use the Means to all so far as is fit for him to bring them to it. And when the Fault lies on them, you must not lay it on him, as if he willed it not. In like manner hath Christ done all he was to do, that Men should repent, believe, and be holy, in procuring this Encouragement, so as for his part he may be said to have redeemed them from their Iniquity (and when all are so redeemed, those that become godly are more peculiarly so) but all do not take the Encouragement to do it, and so the Fault does lie on themselves, and not on him, nor on God neither, that he does not give them all more Grace, because he acts herein as Dominus absolutus in regard to particular Persons, in choosing freely whom he pleases, without any Merit in themselves, or procured by Christ, for any one more than another, to give them his special Grace for their effectual Salvation, when he gives but his common Grace to others that effects it not.

Against Universal Grace by Christ you may say, One Man has such a Blessing, and not another, and Christ hath procured it. I answer, Christ hath procured all Blessings (especially spiritual ones) both for him and for others, on the Condition which is required to the obtaining them; and the one has them and not the other, because he performs the Condition, and not the other. Life (Life eternal) is a Blessing, and procured or purchased by Christ for all on Condition, for whosoever believes and repents shall live. The Elect now perform this Condition and have Life, the Reprobate does not and perishes. Life here is the Blessing, and procured or purchased by Christ; but the Condition is not purchased or procured (as before) Or if procured, procured only to be given, and that by Free Grace to whom God will, but not procured to be given to this Man and not that, or more to one than another. I may yet be more easy, and distinguish between what Christ hath purchased for Mankind, by his dying for us, and what he gives in executing his Father's Will and Free Pleasure. It is reasonable that Christ taking on him our Flesh, the Flesh of all, and dying for all, to hold that what he hath purchased with the Price of his Blood is for all, and all alike; tho' what he does in Execution of his Father's Will, which is free, be bestowed on one rather than another. And consequently, that what he asks his Father, be such as he may ask for Peter, which he asks not for John, and for his own Disciples, what he prays not for others. I pray not for the World, says Christ, he prays not for all; yet, that he died for the World, and for all, is express in Scripture. I speak it mainly in regard to Salvation for Sinners, and Redemption to be for all, though Faith, Repentance, and the Grace for Application be given by Christ so some only, not as Purchaser, but Executor of his Father's Election.

An APPENDIX to this Second Head.

If Redemption be Universal, according to the Scripture, it is but reasonable to believe the Grace of God, which is given for the Application of it, to be Universal also: and I will not question therefore but as to those that have the Gospel (saying nothing to the contrary neither as to others) that God does vouchsafe so much Grace to the Adult, that they may believe, repent, and be saved, if they will; and when they may if they will, who can deny that Grace to be so much as may be said necessary, and sufficient? And yet if they will, I acknowledge it to be of farther Grace, which we call special, or the Grace of God's Elect. This doctrine appears by these Scriptures. God will have all to repent and be saved, 2 Pet. 3:9. He would, but Man will not, Matt. 23:37. Whosoever will may come, Rev. 22:17. And yet none do come unless the Father draws him, John 6:44. The Command, Work out your Salvation, includes that all have Power, and yet is it God that must work in us to will and to do, or the Work will never be done, Phil. 2:13. By these Scriptures and the like we may see how Truths of Scripture are mystical, deep, and to be founded by Faith; for if I followed only my Reason, I confess I should be apt to think otherwise, that seeing the Grace which is Universal reaches thus far, that Man may, if he will, it seems enough to leave there; for if he will not (when he hath so much Grace that he may if he will) God is just to condemn him; and if he will, he must attribute it to this Grace, which is Universal, as that without which he could not have willed, and with it he does both will and do, and is saved.

In the Council of Trent, Father Paul in his History of it, does tell us of an Opinion broached by Ambrosias Catharinus, to this Effect, (whose Book I have seen) that there are some singular Persons, as Paul, the Disciples, and the like, that God does take an extraordinary Care of, so as it is impossible for them to fail of Salvation, Matt. 24:24. and these only are the Elect (as John writes to the Elect Lady, unto whom this Grace which is special doth belong) but as for the Generality of Mankind, or Christians, they have the Gospel and the Grace of God, which is universal, and according to their Improvement thereof, some there be that are, and others that are not converted by it, and saved.

Unto this Opinion, without mentioning that Author, there is an excellent person, Dr. Henry More, who gives his Suffrage, in these Words; "I do profess I do verily think, that there is such a thing as discriminating Grace (as they call it) in the World; and that to such a Difference for Good, that some few of Mankind by virtue thereof will be irresistibly saved; but that the rest of the World are Probationers, that is, have Free Will, and are in a Capacity of being saved, some greater, some less, and that whosoever is damn'd, it is long of himself. For as Syracides saith, God hath no need of the wicked Man." Dr. More's Mystery of Godliness, p. 502.

We take it for granted, that the whole World is divided into the Elect and Reprobate, and that no Reprobate, and none but the Elect, can be saved: But may not it be a Question ask'd, where either of these are expressly said in Scripture? Examine your selves, prove your own selves, know you not Christ is in you, unless ye be Reprobates? May not a Man examine himself, and find not Christ in him, but be reprobate and unapproved, at present, and yet have Grace given hereafter, so as to repent, believe, and be saved; I say only, may not this be ask'd?

Of the Opinion therefore of Catharinus and Dr. More, my Genius, which leads me still into the middle-way of disputed Points, would make me a ready nad thankful Follower; but yet it is the Scripture alone that won't let me. Scripture is the Rule of my Faith, and the very Truth of the Scripture, as I believe it, is as I have said, and I must be unsay and unbelieve to say any more.

John Humfrey, Free Thoughts (London: Printed for T. Parkhurst at the 3 Crowns in Cheapside, and Jonathan Robinson at the Goldon-Lion in St. Paul's Church-yard; and sold by J. Morphew near Stationers-hall, 1710), 8–15.

Bio:
Wiki
DNB

Richard Baxter (1615–1691) on the Wedding Feast, Christ’s Objective Sufficiency and the “New Futile Evasion”

The 8th. Text which I will insist on is Matt. 22:2-4, 12, 13. The Kingdom of Heaven is like unto a certain King, which made a Marriage for his Son, and sent forth his Servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding, and they would not come: And he sent forth other Servants, saying, Tell them that were bidden, saying, Behold, I have prepared my Dinner, My Oxen and my Fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: Come unto the Marriage, &c. Then said he to his Servants, the Wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy, So 12. 13.

Here it is agreed on that God is the King: The Wedding feast, is Christ and the benefits of his Death offered by the Gospel. The killing of the Fatling most say, doth intimate the killing of Christ that he may be to us the Bread of Life, and his Flesh Meat indeed, and his Blood Drink indeed. The Messengers are Preachers: The message is the Gospel Invitation or Offer. Hence therefore I thus argue; If all the things are ready before hand which upon coming in to Christ are to be received, yea and ready for those that refused to come, and only their not coming, or not coming preparedly do hinder their participation, then Christ was a Sacrifice made ready even for all that refused to come. But, &c. Ergo, &c.

I mean not that Christ was appointed to save final refusers considered as such: But he was a Sacrifice for all the Sins of the same Men, except their final refusal, and thereby made ready for them all those saving benefits, which upon coming in they were to receive. This message any Minister of the Gospel may now deliver to unbelievers: Come in to Christ; accept him as a Redeemer, Lord and Saviour, and with him pardon and Salvation; for all this is ready: All that is prerequisite to believing or coming in, is done by Christ, as far as concerned him as a Sacrifice and a Donor of his Testamentory benefits; and as far as unsatisfied Justice did require: All things that are requisite objectively to your believing are ready. Now this could not be a truth; if Christ had not been a sacrifice for these Mens Sins: For how is all ready when the very first and most needful thing is unready, that is, an expiatory Sacrifice for sin? When satisfaction to justice is unready? Can they make this? Or are they called to make it? Or would their coming in make it, which was not before made? Or would coming in serve turn without satisfaction? Rather it should be said to them (as to the Devils) come not, for nothing is ready. For where Christ is not ready, and satisfaction for sin not ready, there nothing is ready which a sinner is called to by the Gospel. The Cause being wanting, all the Effects must needs be wanting.

Obj. All may be said to be ready, in that Christ's Death is sufficient for All.

Ans. That's true; and I desire no more; if you understand it as Divines have hitherto done, and as this Text proves it; that is, that it is a sufficient Ransom, Sacrifice, &c. for All. But according to the new futile evasion, it is false, viz. that Christ’s Death was only sufficient to have been a Sacrifice or Ransom for All, if God or Christ had so been willing: but indeed was no Ransom for them at all. For is this making all ready? Is Christ any readier for those he died not for, than for the Devils? or than if he had never died at all? Will you send to a Prisoner and say, I have paid 1000 l. for thy fellow Prisoner that owed by 500 l. the sum is sufficient to have discharged thy debt too, if I had ever intended it, therefore come and receive a discharge, for all is ready? Or will you bid your Servant go to all the Town and say, I have killed and dressed meat enough for you all, resolving that some of you shall never taste of it on any conditions, therefore come now and partake of it all, for all things are ready? The Readiness that Christ speaks of here is such, as supposeth all things to be ready except receiving by Faith: nothing but coming is wanting.

Richard Baxter, Universal Redemption of Mankind by the Lord Jesus Christ (London: Printed for John Salusbury at the Rising Sun in Cornhill, 1694), 343–45. While Baxter called the language “Christ’s Death was only sufficient to have been a Sacrifice or Ransom for All, if God or Christ had so been willing” a “new futile evasion,” John Davenant, in his Judicia or reply to Hillerbrand, called it “useless language” (Futilem … orationem) and an “inept gloss” (inepto glossemate): “Futilem illorum orationem recte a te taxatam agnoseo, qui sufficientiam hujus expiatorii sacrificii, de quo loquimur, imminurum eunt hoc inepto glossemate (sufficiens esse potest pro omnibus haec mors Christi, si Deus sufficientem esse voluisset).” For an English translation, see John Davenant, “Letter to Herman Hilderbrand,” in On the Death of Christ & Other Atonement Writings (Landrum, SC: Davenant Press, 2024), 357–62 [359, §6].

Bio: 
Wiki
DNB

Richard Baxter (1615–1691) on Christ’s Death for Those Already in Hell

6. It is as good arguing, to say, some were in Heaven when Christ died, therefore he died not for them, as to say, some were in Hell, therefore he died not for them. For it may as wisely be said, those in Heaven were past all need of satisfaction, as that those in Hell were past all hope and remedy.

The time was, when they had hope from that satisfaction set before them, and when it was a sufficient remedy for them, and wanted nothing but their own consent to make it fully effectual: As the time was when those now in Heaven had need of it, and did accept it offered them.

Abraham saw Christ’s day and rejoiced, and Moses counted the reproaches of Christ greater Riches than the Treasures of Egypt: But the impenitent then refused Christ, and his Government, and therefore were justly denied his further Mercies.

7. Only this much may be concluded by this arguing; that Christ at the time of his dying, did not intend the Saving of those that were then in Hell; and so it is as true, that Christ at his death did not intend for the future to give Regeneration, the first Reconciliation, Pardon, Adoption, Union with him, or Glory to those in Heaven; for they had received them all long before, as the Damned had lost them all before by their Rejection.

But it follows not hence, that therefore Christ bore not the punishment of all mens sins, according to his first undertaking.

Richard Baxter, Universal Redemption of Mankind (London: John Salusbury, 1694), 440–41.

See also the post, “Did Christ Die for Those Who Perished in the OT?”

Amyraut and Baxter PDFs

Both of these works are rare. To my knowledge, they are the only copies of these particular works online. This is the only work by Amyraut in English available online. Both of these pdf's are about 20mb in size.

Amyraldus / Amyraut, Moïse / Moses (1596-1664)

A Treatise concerning religions, in refutation of the opinion which accounts all indifferent; Wherein is also evinc'd the necessity of a particular revelation, and the verity and preeminence of the Christian religion above the pagan, Mahometan, and Jewish rationally demonstrated. Rendered into English out of the French copy of Moyses Amyraldus late professor of divinity at Saumur in France. London: Printed by M. Simmons for Will. Nealand bookseller in Cambridge and are to be sold there and at the sign of the Crown in Duck-lane, [London], 1660. [24], 539, [1] pp. British Library.

Baxter, Richard (1615-1691)

Universal redemption of mankind, by the Lord Jesus Christ stated and cleared by the late learned Mr. Richard Baxter; whereunto is added a short account of Special redemption, by the same author. London: Printed for John Salusbury ..., 1694. [8], 502, [5] pp. Harvard University Library.

These sources were found HERE.

(HT: DWP)

Hans Boersma on Justification in John Owen (1616–1683)

Justification before Faith: Several Views

John Owen

Ius ad rem and ius in re

It would be misleading to argue that there is one standard Calvinist doctrine of justification to which Baxter reacts.²⁴⁶ Not all of Baxter’s opponents held to justification before faith. Furthermore, the ensuing discussion will make clear that there were also varying shades of opinion among those who did accept this particular position. Despite these differences, however, there are common elements in the positions that will be outlined below: none of them restricts justification to an act of God which follows faith. All of the views under discussion place at least some aspect of justification prior to faith. The result is that justification by faith is interpreted as the enjoyment of something which was, at least in a sense, already present prior to faith. For a clearer picture of the type of doctrine which Baxter opposes in his rejection of the view that justification precedes faith it is necessary to study the views of Baxter’s opponents in more detail.

Baxter’s most notable antagonist was John Owen. Much of the controversy between Baxter and Owen concerns the immediate benefits of the atonement. In his Death of Death (1647) Owen – in line with Pemble and Twisse – objects to the idea that Christ purchased “not salvation, but salvability."²⁴⁷ To maintain the immediate procurement of the benefits of the covenant, Owen distinguishes between stipulations about the future that are sub conditione and those that are sub termino.²⁴⁸ In the former case, the future event is uncertain; in the latter, it is certain. Having defined the nature of a condition in such a way as to imply uncertainty, Owen concludes that “it oppugns the whole nature of the Deity, and overthrows the properties thereof, immediately and directly.”²⁴⁹ Owen does acknowledge that the benefits of Christ’s death are not received without some intervention of time. They are granted sub termino. The reason for the delay is that Christ’s death is not a physical cause. If it were a physical cause it would immediately bring about its effect. Since Christ’s death is a moral cause, however, a law or covenant intervenes between the sacrifice and the enjoyment of the benefits.²⁵⁰

The use of the distinction between moral and physical causes enables Owen to maintain a temporal distance between Christ’s procuring the benefits and his actual granting of them. Owen can now make an analogous temporal distance between ius ad rem and ius in re.²⁵¹ The former is a right to be enjoyed in due time; the latter means the present possession of that to which one already has a right. A man who has an estate has a ius in re. The son, however, will enjoy this estate only upon the father’s death, though he has a present ius ad rem.²⁵² Owen maintains that Christ’s death has procured an ipso facto delivery from the curse.²⁵³ This delivery gives the elect a right to justification or ius ad rem.

Justification As Terminating in Conscience

It is only a small step from the assertion that Christ has procured an ipso facto delivery from the curse to the statement that justification by faith is only the process of becoming conscious of one’s justification. It has been stated in Owen’s defense that he categorically denies adhering either to justification from eternity or to a justification which is only in foro conscientiae.²⁵⁴ To some extent, such a defense is justified. Owen explicitly disavows justification from eternity and also argues that justification is not only in conscience.²⁵⁵ While full justice must be done to Owen on this point, it cannot be denied that there is, at the very least, some tension in his thinking. As Gavin McGrath suggests:

There was, however, a modicum of contradiction in Owen’s thought: on one hand, he insisted that the death of Christ merited ipso facto the justification of the elect, his death was a cause independent from the faith and repentance, for the truest sense a person was not justified before personal faith.²⁵⁶

The tension in Owen’s thought can be put in even sharper terms. Owen not only suggests that Christ’s death merited justification ipso facto, but he goes as far as to suggest that the elect thereby acquired a right to justification.

What is more, while Owen does not hold that justification was in foro conscientiae alone, this is definitely an essential part of justification. Owen suggests rhetorically “whether absolution from the guilt of sin and obligation unto death, though not as terminated in the conscience for complete justification, do not precede our actual believing…”²⁵⁷ Thus, justification is a process. It begins prior to faith and is terminated or completed in the conscience.²⁵⁸ Owen thinks that this absolution prior to faith may be the justification of the ungodly (Rom. 4:5).²⁵⁹

Owen bases the ius ad rem not only on Christ’s purchase, but ultimately on the covenant of redemption between God and Christ.²⁶⁰ Baxter is correct in stating in Owen’s own words:

One learned man <i.e., Owen> saith, that, Absolution in heaven, and Justification differ as part and whole; and that Justification is terminated in conscience; and so makes a longer work of Justification, then they that say it is simul & semel; or, then I whom Mr. Crandon blames for it …²⁶¹

For Owen, justification begins with the pactum salutis between God and Christ and with Christ’s atoning sacrifice. Baxter is therefore correct in suggesting that justification from eternity is not far removed from Owen’s thinking. The ius ad rem is procured for the elect on the twofold basis of the covenant of redemption and Christ’s death. This right to justification is a benefit which follows immediately upon the sacrifice.

Justification and Union with Christ

Owen appears to base the ius ad rem on the covenant of redemption and the atonement. Elsewhere, however, he links the ius ad rem to union with Christ. As C. F. Allison observes:

A sinner in justification becomes truly righteous as he becomes a member of Christ whose righteousness is thereupon imputed to him in such a union. A justified person is truly righteous, then, because he is in Christ. Owen places more explicit emphasis on this union with Christ than even Downame does, and perhaps more than anyone of the period with the exception of John Donne.²⁶²

Owen is of the opinion that a person is truly righteous in Christ. Strictly speaking, therefore, it is no longer forensic righteousness. The question must be raised whether such a concept of mystical union is compatible with the idea that payment is not made by the debtor but by Christ.²⁶³ Does Owen’s concept of mystical union still allow for such a differentiation between the person of Christ and the person united to him? Owen makes some strong statements regarding man’s right to justification: “Where merit intercedes, the effect is reckoned as of debt; that which is my due debt I have a right unto… They, then, who are under merit have also a right unto that whereof it is the merit.”²⁶⁴ Owen bases this right on the union with Christ. He states that Christ is “their <i.e., those "under merit"> surety, doing that whereby he merited only on their behalf, yea, in their stead, they dying with him…”²⁶⁵

On the one hand, Owen insists that it is the covenant of redemption and the death of Christ which give the ius ad rem. On the other hand, he also argues that union with Christ gives the ius ad rem. These two positions are incompatible.²⁶⁶ It is not difficult to see why Owen comes to this confused position. It originates from a combination of two irreconcilable thought patterns. He wants to do justice both to the immediacy, the absolute character, of Christ’s benefits – which demands a ius ad rem at the time of Christ’s sacrificial death – and to the fact that “no blessing can be given us for Christ’s sake, unless, in order of nature, Christ be first reckoned unto us.”²⁶⁷ When, on one occasion, Owen links up the ius ad rem with the pactum salutis and the atonement, and, on another occasion, with union with Christ, this illustrates that he has ultimately not succeeded in separating the ius ad rem from the ius ad re. Having isolated the ius ad rem he is uncertain as to its proper position in the process of justification.

Owen maintains that it is the “ungodly” who are united to Christ.²⁶⁸ The ungodly are united to Christ prior to faith. It is true, Owen admits that “Christ is ours before and after believing in a different sense.”²⁶⁹ But what exactly is lacking prior to faith? It is God’s act of pardoning mercy which is to be “completed in the conscience.” It is the “hearts persuasion” regarding God’s promise. It is “the soul’s rolling itself upon Christ.”²⁷⁰ These are all descriptions of assurance of faith. It seems that only assurance is lacking before faith. This implies a far-reaching identification of faith and assurance.²⁷¹ Once faith, or assurance, has been given justification is complete. Owen maintains that the elect do not have union with Christ before faith, even though justification is not yet complete at this time.

The following process of justification emerges from Owen’s argument:

Justification is based on the pactum salutis and the purchase of Christ. Because these give the actual right to justification, they must be included in the process of justification. Following Christ’s atoning death comes union with Christ, which preceeds faith. The right to justification is also connected to this union with Christ. Finally, justification is terminated or completed in the conscience, when one attains assurance of faith.
________________________
246. Iain Murray, for instance, is inaccurate when he states that "with respect to the great doctrines of salvation" the theology of the Puritans "was united, cohesive and homogeneous," and that Baxter is the "one outstanding exception" ("Richard Baxter-' The Reluctant Puritan'?" in Advancing in Adverisity, Proc. of the Westminster Conference, 1991 [Thornton Heath, Surrey: Westminster Conference, (1992)], pp. 7-8).
247. Owen, Death of Death (1647), in Works 10.207.
248. Owen, Of the Death of Christ, in Works 10.465.
249. Owen, Of the Death of Christ, in Works 10.465.
250. Owen, Of the Death of Christ, in Works 10.459, 472. Owen may seem to contradict himself when he speaks of the immediate effects of Christ's death as a moral cause. On the one hand, he states: "Moral causes do never immediately actuate their own effects, nor have any immediate influence into them" (p. 459). On the other hand, he says: "By the death of Christ we are immediately delivered from death with that immediation which is proper to the efficiency of causes which produce their effects by the way of moral procurement" (p. 472). What Owen likely means, is that Christ's death is not immediate in a temporal sense: its benefits are only enjoyed sub termino, once the new law or covenant has taken effect and is interposed. Christ's death is immediate in a logical sense: the enjoyment of its benefits is not dependent on the uncertain fulfillment of another cause, as would be the case if the benefits would be granted sub conditione.
251. Owen, Of the Death of Christ, in Works 10.466, 476. Cf. p. 478; Vindiciae Evangelicae, in Works 12.607, 610.
252. Owen, Of the Death of Christ, in Works 10.466.
253. Owen, Death of Death, in Works 10.268; Of the Death of Christ, in Works 10.474-75. J.I. Packer's description of the Calvinist view on redemption may serve as an description of Owen's insight: "Christ did not win a hypothetical salvation for hypothetical believers, a mere possibility of salvation for any who might possibly believe, but a real salvation for his own chosen people. His precious blood really does 'save us all'; the intended effects of his self-offering do in fact follow, just because the cross was what it was. Its saving power does not depend on faith being added to it; its saving power is such that faith flows from it. The cross secured the full salvation of all for whom Christ died" ("Saved by His Precious Blood'," pp. 133-34.). To regard this viewpoint as the general Calvinistic stand seems to me an overstatement since it does not do justice to the variety of opinion within Calvinistic thought.
254. Allison, Rise of Moralism, p. 174; Wallace, "Life and Thought of John Owen," pp. 283-85; Wallace, Puritans and Predestination, p. 146; Daniel, "Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill," p. 319.
255. Owen, Death of Death, in Works 10.276-77; Vindiciae Evangelicae, in Works 12.592, 596, 601-04.
256. McGrath, "Puritans and the Human Will," p. 264.
257. Owen, Of the Death of Christ, in Works 10.470.
258. Owen states explicitly: "Neither yet do I hence assert complete justification to be before believing. Absolution in heaven, and justification, differ as part and whole" (Of the Death of Christ, in Works 10.470).
259. Owen, Of the Death of Christ, in Works 10.470.
260. Owen, Of the Death of Christ, in Works 10.477. Bass draws attention to the important place of the pactum salutis as the basis of Owen's soteriology ("Theology of John Owen," pp. 38-39; Bass, "Platonic Influences," pp. 106-09). Bass suggests that Owen's idea of a covenant of redemption between the Father and the Son stems from his reading of Platonic literature: "His thinking of the covenant was tempered more by the vertical ladder of ascent and descent than in a horizontal development of the covenants of Jehovah who was progressively revealing himself through the course of an eschatological history" (p. 109). Bass correctly draws attention to the importance of the covenant of redemption for Owen's theology. He provides no proof, however, for his assertion that Platonic influences lie at the basis of this concept in Owen.
261. Baxter, Confession, pp. 190-91. Baxter gives here a direct quotation of Owen (cf. above, n. 258). Cf. Confession, p. 218.
262. Allison, Rise of Moralism, p. 175. Union with Christ is a central theme in Owen's theology. Cf. Owen, Discourse concerning the Holy Spirit (1674), in Works 3.463-67, 478, 516-18; 4.383-86; Of the Death of Christ, in Works 10.468-71; Doctrine of the Saints Perseverance (1654), in Works 11.336-41; Duty of Pastors and People Distinguished (1644), in Works 13.22-22; R.W. De Koeyer, "Pneumatologia: Een onderzoek naar de leer van de Heilige Geest bij de puritein John Owen (1616-1683)," ThRef, 34 (1991), 244; Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life, pp. 32-36; B. Loonstra, Verkiezing - verzoening - verbond: Beschrijving en beoordeling van de leer van het pactum salutis in de gereformeerde theologie, Diss. Utrecht 1990 (The Hague: Boekencentrum, 1990), p. 106; Wallace, Puritans and Predestination, pp. 154-55. For a discussion of Owen's views on union with Christ in the context of communion with Christ, see Jonathan Jong-Chun Won, "Communion with Christ: An Exposition and Comparison of the Doctrine of Union and Communion with Christ in Calvin and the English Puritans," Diss. Westminster Theological Seminary 1989, pp. 258-91.
263. Baxter is fearful that a high Calvinist view of imputation leads to the idea that we merit our own justification (cf. below, pp. 236-37).
264. Owen, Of the Death of Christ, in Works 10.468.
265. Owen, Of the Death of Christ, in Works 10.468. Cf. Duty of Pastors and People Distinguished, in Works 13.23.
266. Owen clearly sees the atonement and union with Christ as temporally separate. Union with Christ takes place when the Holy Spirit is first given in regeneration (Discourse concerning the Holy Spirit, in Works 3.464, 478, 516-17; Doctrine of the Saints Perseverance, in Works 11.337). Cf. Baxter's comment: "If we are Absolved, Pardoned, Justified, and have Right to heaven from eternity, or before Faith, then we have all these before we in Christ, or joyned or united to Christ, or are made his members. But the Consequent is false: therefore so is the Antecedent" (Confession, p. 283).
267. Owen, Of the Death of Christ, in Works 10.469. Christ had obtained a right for Peter, though he only received Christ and faith when "the term was expired" (pp. 469-70).
268. Owen, Of the Death of Christ, in Works 10.470.
269. Owen, Of the Death of Christ, in Works 10.470.
270. Owen, Of the Death of Christ, in Works 10.470.
271. This view is supported by Beeke's careful analysis of Owen's views on assurance. (Joel R. Beeke, "Personal Assurance of Faith: English Puritanism and the Dutch 'Nadere Reformatie:' From Westminster to Alexander Comrie (1640-1760)," Diss. Westminster Theological Seminary 1988, pp. 177-263; and in Joel R. Beeke, Assurance of Faith: Calvin, English Puritanism, and the Dutch Second Reformation, American University Studies: Theology and Religion, 89 [New York: Lang, 1991], pp. 213-80. Beeke's 1991 publication is a revised form of his earlier dissertation.) Beeke argues that in an earlier stage Owen held that "assurance is part and parcel of faith" (Assurance of Faith, pp. 213-14). The shift away from this close identification of faith and assurance is noted first in Owen's Doctrine of the Saints' Perseverance (1654; Assurance of Faith, p. 219).

Hans Boersma, A Hot Pepper Corn: Richard Baxter's Doctrine of Justification in Its Seventeenth-Century Context of Controversy (Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 2004), 103–108. This work is based on the author's doctoral dissertation (Th.D.) at the State Univ. of Utrect, 1993.