B. H. Carroll (1843–1914) on “Christ’s Atonement and Paul’s Prayer”

Before taking up this part of the exposition I will answer a question arising from the discussion in the previous chapter, viz.: "Did Christ expiate the sins of all men, or the sins of the elect only, and does not universal expiation demand universal salvation?" This question belongs to the department of systematic theology. Without desire to intrude into that department, yet as biblical theology cannot be altogether separated from the teaching of the English Bible, I submit a reply for the benefit of those who may never study systematic theology. It is every way a difficult question, and calls out in its answer all the theories of the atonement advocated in the Christian ages. In general terms it is the old question – is the atonement general or limited? Perhaps no man has ever given a precise answer satisfactory to his own mind even, and it is certain no one has ever satisfied all others.

It must be sufficient for present purposes to deal with the question briefly, relegating to systematic theology the critical and extended reply derived from a comparison of all the prominent theories of the atonement in the light of the Scriptures. The following passages of Scripture doubtless suggest the question: Hebrews 2:9, "Jesus hath been made a little lower than the angels . . . that by the grace of God he should taste death for every man." There must be some real sense, some gracious sense, in which he tasted death for every man. 1 Timothy 4:9-10: "Faithful is the saying and worthy of all acceptation. For to this end we labor and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of them that believe." Here again it is evident that God in some real sense is the Saviour of all men, but not in the special sense in which he is the Saviour of believers. A more pertinent passage is 1 John 2:2, "And he [Jesus Christ] is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world."

The first question is answered here if anywhere. The question is, "Did Christ expiate the sins of all men?" And this passage says, "He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world." Further on in the letter (4:14) John says, "And we have beheld and bear witness that the Father hath sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world," this language doubtless referring back to John 1:29, "On the morrow he [John the Baptist] seeth Jesus coming unto him, and sayeth, Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world!" Here "Lamb of God," the vicarious sacrifice and "taketh away the sin" must refer to the expiation in some real sense. Moreover, it accords with "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life," and quadrates particularly with the sincerity of the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:16, and the intense earnestness with which the apostles pressed home upon every heart the duty and privilege of all men to accept the salvation offered.

The case of Paul is much in point, because of the use of the very word in question, 2 Corinthians 5:1-20, "But all things are of God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses, and having committed unto us the word of reconciliation. We are ambassadors therefore on behalf of Christ, as though God were entreating by us: we beseech you on behalf of Christ, be ye reconciled to God." This particular passage is the more pertinent and important since it discriminates so clearly between the two reconciliations, to wit: (1) God was reconciled to us through the expiation of Christ, satisfying the claims of justice and placating the wrath of the law on account of sin. (2) Our reconciliation to God through acceptance of Christ tendered in the ministry of the word.

Here it is evident that expiation becomes effective to us through faith in Christ. And it is perfectly clear from many scriptures that no matter in what sense expiation was effective toward God for all men, it cannot result in universal salvation, since "he that believeth not, shall be damned." The second question is answered, to wit: No matter in what sense expiation was for all men Godward, it can avail to usward by faith alone. The question of universal salvation is not therefore bound up with reconciliation Godward, whatever its extent, but with the ministry of reconciliation and our acceptance or rejection of the tendered mercy. Speculate theorize, philosophize as we may on the extent of the atonement Godward, we are shut up peremptorily by the Scriptures to the conclusion that "he that believeth not, shall be damned."

It is the opinion of the author that universal or limited salvation is not connected with the atonement Godward, but with the ministry of reconciliation. In other words, the question is not, "Unto how many was God reconciled through Christ?" but, How many of us are reconciled to God through faith in Christ?

It seems to the author that the crux of the whole matter lies in three thoughts: (1) That in the final judgment the supreme test for men and angels is the question, "What was your attitude toward Christ, either in himself, his people, or his cause?" See particularly Matthew 25:31-46, where this principle is applied to all men. And see  1 Corinthians 6:3, where the test is implied toward angels, else saints could not judge them. Again, this decisive principle of the final judgment is expressly taught in Matthew 12:41-42 in the reference to the men of Nineveh and the Queen of Sheba, and yet again in our Lord's denunciation of the Galilean cities, (Matt. 11:21-24). (2) The second thought lies in our Lord's teaching that only one sin is an eternal sin, having never forgiveness in either world (Mark 3:2-30); Matthew 12:31-32, showing that condemnation comes from action in the Spirit's realm of application. See the culmination of unpardonable sin in "doing despite to the Spirit of grace" (Hebrews 10:26-29). (3) The effect of the death on the cross conferred on the Messiah, i.e., not the Son of God in eternity, but the Son of God by procreation, born of the virgin Mary, the sovereignty.[sic] of the universe. See Philippians. 2:5-11.

I hold James P. Boyce to be the greatest all-around Baptist ever produced by the South. While in his Systematic Theology he teaches that expiation of the sins of all men must mean universal salvation, yet before he closes his discussion he uses these remarkable words, which I cite:

(1) While for the elect he made an actual atonement, by which they are actually reconciled to God, and because of which are made the subjects of the special divine grace by which they became believers in Christ, and are justified through him.

(2) Christ at the same time and in the same work, wrought out a means of reconciliation for all men, which removed every legal obstacle to their salvation, upon their acceptance of the same conditions upon which the salvation is given to the elect. Abstract of Theology, revised by F. H. Kerfoot, p. 296.

(3) On page 297 he says,

The atoning work of Christ was not sufficient for the salvation of man. That work was only Godward, and only removed all the obstacles in the way of God's pardon of the sinner. But the sinner is also at enmity with God, and must be brought to accept salvation, and must learn to love and serve God. It is the special work of the Holy Spirit to bring this about. The first step here is to make known to man the gospel, which contains the glad tidings of salvation, under such influences as ought to lead to its acceptance.

For the purpose of comment I mark these paragraphs (1), (2), and (3). It seems difficult to reconcile (1) with (3) but (2) and (3) are in perfect harmony. In (1) he says that "for the elect he made actual atonement" . . . "they were actually reconciled to God." But in (3) he says that "the atoning work was not sufficient for the salvation of man, that work was only Godward, and only removed all the obstacles in the way of God's pardon for the sinner." This language applies of course to the elect. But in (2) he says, "Christ wrought out a means of reconciliation for all men which removed every legal obstacle to their salvation." Then for the elect the atonement "was not sufficient for the salvation of man" and "only removed all the obstacles in the way of God's pardon for the sinner," and if for the nonelect the atonement wrought out a means of reconciliation," "removing every legal obstacle to their salvation," what is the difference Godward? What is the difference so far as Christ's work is concerned? Does not the difference come in the Spirit's work in connection with the application of the atonement and the ministry of reconciliation? Do election and foreordination become operative toward atonement or toward acceptance of the atonement? These questions are submitted for consideration in the realm of the study of systematic theology. The author does not dogmatize on them. While he has only a very moderate respect for philosophy in any of its departments as taught in the schools, and prefers rather to accept every word of God without speculation, and believes it true and harmonious in all its parts, whether or not he is able to philosophically explain it, yet he submits merely for consideration along with other human philosophizing on the atonement the philosophy of Dr. Wm. C. Buck on this matter. It is found in his book, The Philosophy of Religion. On the question of general or limited atonement he takes this position, as I recall it: Jesus Christ through his death repurchased or bought back the whole lost human race, including the earth, man's habitat. The whole of it and all its peoples passed thereby under his sovereignty. What debt they once owed to the law they now owe to him, the surety who paid the debt. From his mediatorial throne he offers to forgive this debt now due him to all who will accept him. But all alike reject him. The Father, through the Spirit, graciously inclines some to accept him. Thus those really saved are saved according to the election and foreordination of God, not operative in the atonement which was general, but in the Spirit's application which was special. Those thus saved were originally promised by the Father to the Son. He dies for the whole world as the expression of the Father's universal love. He died for the elect, his church, as his promised reward.

Dr. Buck illustrates, so far as such an illustration can serve, by supposing a raid by Algerian pirates on a Spanish village, leading a multitude into captivity in Moorish North Africa. A philanthropist, touched by their piteous condition, ransoms all of them by one price, and now, owning them all, offers remission of the debt and free passage back to native Spain to all who will accept. Some prefer bondage and remain, others accept joyfully and go back home. Of course this illustration takes no account of the Father's work or the Spirit's work, touching only the question of ransom for all, the passing of the debt over to the surety, his sovereignty, in its remission and their acceptance or rejection.

Let us do with this or any other philosophy what we will, but let us not hesitate to accept all that the Scriptures teach on this matter. When we read John 10:14-16; 11:26-29; Acts 13:48; Romans 8:28-29; Ephesians 5:25-32, let us not abate one jot of their clear teaching of Christ's death for the elect and their certain salvation. And when we read John 1:29; 3:16; 1 Timothy 4:10; Hebrews 2:9; 1 John 2:2; Ezekiel 33: 11; Matthew 28:19; 1 Timothy 2:4, let us beware lest our theory, or philosophy, of the atonement constrain us to question God's sincerity, and disobey his commands. There are many true things in and out of the Bible beyond our satisfactory explanation. Let faith apprehend even where the finite mind cannot comprehend.

B. H. Carroll, “Colossians, Ephesians, and Hebrews,” in An Interpretation of the English Bible (Nashville,: Broadman Press, 1948; repr. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978), 86–92.

Bio:
Wiki

John More (d. 1592) on Christ’s Sufficient Death for the World

Here then you see the Son of God, taking upon him our nature hath borne and overcome for us whatsoever God of his justice and truth can lay against us. And here behold the depth of the mystery of God’s eternal wisdom, his mercy and his justice joined together: his mercy in forgiving our sins, his justice in punishing our sins: his justice that would not suffer one of our sins unpunished, but even with his heavy curse doth reward them: & yet his mercy toward his elect, that he doth not punish their sins in themselves, but layeth them all upon the shoulders of his own dear son for us. Here behold the wonderful wisdom of God, who in saving of his children, yet omitteth no part of his justice, but punisheth their sin even to the full with that self same punishment which he himself hath appointed: & this which he hath suffered is a full recompense for all our sins, according as the Holy Ghost allegeth, ‘If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father (1. Jn. 2. 1, 2), even Jesus Christ the righteous, and he is the propitiation or ransom for our sins, so much as is sufficient, & well pleasing the Lord our God, it is a sweet smelling sacrifice before our God (Eph. 5. 2). This then is sufficient for the sins of the whole world. But here yet ariseth a doubt, for seeing Jesus Christ hath sustained and borne the punishment of our sins, so much as the sins of the whole world deserveth, it should seem then that all the world should be saved: but we see the clean contrary (Matth. 7. 13) even by the testimony of Jesus Christ himself, who saith, that many run to damnation, and few in comparison to salvation. How can this be then that Christ hath satisfied the punishment of all our sins? True it is that Jesus Christ hath borne whatsoever is due for all our sins, & that which he hath borne is also sufficient punishment for all the sin of the earth, and yet as true it is also that a great number are damned notwithstanding, and that because they have not the hand of faith to take some part of this recompense for their sins. For the blessed word of God, which setteth forth unto us Jesus Christ a full ransom of our sins, doth also give us to understand, that none are benefited to salvation, saving only those, which do believe. ‘So God loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, to the end that all that believe in him should not perish, but have everlasting life’ (Jn. 3. 16): he saith not, all the world; but, all that believe: he saith on the contrariwise, whosoever doth not believe is damned (vs. 18. 36).

John More, Three Godly and Fruitful Sermons (London: Printed by John Legatt, Printer of the University of Cambridge, 1594), 56–58. Some spelling has been updated.

Bio:
DNB (2)
Brook
Wiki

One can see that More, a classic-moderate Calvinist, takes an unlimited reading of the world in 1 John 2:2 and John 3:16, and then follows an Ursinus-like trajectory (as stated in the Heidelberg Catechism) in reply to the double payment argument, saying some perish because they do not believe, not that they were never died for (i.e., the later Owenic/Turretinian trajectory). He’s also following the classic Lombardian Formula in his understanding of Christ’s sufficiency.

Credit to Alan Clifford for the find.

William Lorimer (1640–1722) on the Theology and History of the Middle-Way Controversy

(4thly.) Yet by some Passages in his Letter [a yet unknown critic], we guess that he Points at the controversie about the extent of Christs Death, which hath been amongst Protestant Divines since the Reformation, or since the time that Beza and Piscator began to write on that Head after the Reformation.

And if that be the thing he Points at without naming it, we will, First, Give the true State of the Controversie. Secondly, Declare briefly what our Opinion is, as to that matter. And for the State of the Controversie:

First, There are some Divines in the World, who are said to hold that Christ died equally for all men, Elect and Non-elect; and that God on the account of Christs Death, gives a common sufficient Grace to them all, whereby they may all (if they will) apply to themselves the Vertue of Christs Death, and thereby obtain Justification and Salvation. But that Christ did not dye for the Elect, out of any special Love to them above others; and that God through Christ doth not give any Special Effectual, Determining Grace to the Elect more than to the Non-elect. This is the Arminian extream.

Secondly, There are other Divines, who hold that Christ died for the Elect only and exclusively of all others, and that he died not for any of the Non-elect in any proper tolerable true sense; that he no more died for any of those Men, who are not elected to Eternal Life, than he died for the Devil; and that such Men have no more to do with the Satisfaction and Merits of Christ, than the Devil hath. This is the other extream. And we suppose that this is that which our Author accounts the Orthodox side, and that he is of this side himself.

But Thirdly, Between these two extream Opinions, there is a Golden mean, there is a Middle-way, which hath been many hundred years ago, and still is expressed in this form of Words, That Christ died only for the Elect Sinners of Mankind both Sufficiently and Efficaciously, but that he died for the Non-elect only Sufficiently but not Efficaciously. This is the State of the Controversie.

2. If, Secondly, It be now demanded Whether we be for this Middle-way or not? In Answer to that demand we say, That there are a great many of us, who are Calumniated by our Author as corrupters of the Gospel, by holding a Conditional Covenant, and tho' we do not doubt, but we all agree in the foresaid General form of Words, and in admitting the Distinction of Christs dying for the Elect Efficaciously, and for the Reprobate only Sufficiently; yet it may be, that when we come to explain what we particularly mean by Christs dying Sufficiently only for the Non-elect, there will be some little Difference amongst us in some of our Notions and Expressions, and possibly some of us may not in effect differ from our Author, further than in the manner of our Expression, and in the Method of our Conceptions and Notions.

But (1.) We are all of one Mind and of one Faith with respect to Christs dying Efficaciously for the Elect only, and we hope also that our Author himself agrees with us herein: Which is the main thing wherein our Agreement is necessary. And then,

(2.) As to the Non-Elect, especially those of them to whom the Gospel is preached; we hope all of us do and will agree to this, That Christ died for them sufficiently in such a sense as he did not dye for the fallen Angels, so that if they should believe in Christ and repent of their sins, as they are bound to do, according to the tenour and terms of the Gospel, they should be saved through Christ; and not perish as they do by persevering in Unbelief and Impenitence: And being thus far agreed, we hope we shall keep in the unity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace; and as to any little difference of Judgment that may remain, we shall bear with one another in Love, after the example of the famous Synod of Dort, whereof the Members differed in the Synod upon this very point, and yet they bore with one another, and wisely agreed against the Arminian extreme, as most manifestly appears from the Acts of that Synod. And we would hope also that our Author and those of his way, will not be against this mutual forbearance, when they consider that the said middle-way was not only tolerated but even approved by the Synod of Dort, in that the suffrages which expressly asserted it, were approved; and that long before, it was held by our first Reformers both at home and abroad. For instance, the Universality of Christs death in the sense before explained, was believed and professed by the Blessed Martyrs Latimer and Hooper, in England, and also by the Church of England her self; and by Luther in Germany, and Calvin at Geneva, as shall be proved by their own words, to be seen in their writings extant at this day, if any have the confidence to deny it. At present we shall only give our Brethren to understand, First, that Luther on John 3.16. God so loved the World, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever, &c. says [Latin omitted] Now truly, thou and all men must confess, that the whole race of Mankind is called the World, comprehending in one, all men in general and every man in particular; do'st thou believe therefore that thou art a man? or if thou canst neither believe nor know that, put thy hand in thy bosome, or feel thy Nose, make an experiment whether thou hast not all thy Members full of flesh and blood, as other men? Wherefore then wouldst thou exclude thy self out of this word (World), since Christ expressly declares that God did not send his Son to the Virgin Mary only, nor gave him to Peter or Paul, but to the World, that all might lay claim to him, even as many as are called the Sons of Man, &c.

Secondly, That Calvin on 1 John 2.2. says, [Latin omitted] 'I confess that saying to be true, That Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole World, but efficaciously for the Elect only.'

And on Rom. 5.18. [Latin omitted] 'The Apostle (saith Calvin) Makes Grace common to all Men, because it is exposed to all Men, not that it is really and effectually extended unto all. For tho Christ suffered for the sins of the whole World, and through the goodness of God, he is indifferently offered unto all; yet all do not apprehend or receive him.' Here is that which is called the middle-way owned by Luther first, afterwards by Calvin as plainly as can be expressed in so few words. Whereupon we demand, Did out First Reformers, Luther and Calvin, by this, Corrupt the Old, and Preach a New Gospel, or not? If they did corrupt the old true Gospel, and preach a new false Gospel, Then (1.) We owe no great thanks to them, or respect to their Memory, for their Service in Reforming the Church.

(2.) If we grant this to be true of Luther and Calvin, we betray the Reformation, and yield to the Papists that which their hearts do most earnestly desire, that Luther and Calvin may be accounted Two imposters and Deceivers, who deluded the People, corrupted the Christian Religion, and Preached a new Gospel to the World. For our parts, we dare not thus far betray the Protestant Cause to the Papists; rather than do so, we maintain that Luther and Calvin by holding universal Redemption in the sense explained, did not corrupt the Christian Religion, nor preach a new Gospel. And if they did not, then those amongst us who hold universal Redemption as they held it, do no more corrupt Religion, nor preach a new Gospel than they did; and consequently it is a vile Calumny and Reproach cast upon us (and through us upon our First Reformers,) that by the middle-way aforesaid we corrupt Religion, and preach a new Gospel.

William Lorimer, An Apology for the Ministers Who Subscribed Only Unto the Stating of the Truths and Errours in Mr. William's Book (London: Printed for John Lawrence, at the Angel in the Poultry, 1694), 191–192.

Bio:
Freedom After Ejection

Analyzing John Piper's Comparison of John 11:52 and 1 John 2:2

At 12:01pm on Nov. 18th, Piper tweeted the following remark:

On definite atonement: Compare 1 John 2:2 ("for the whole world") with John 11:52 ("to gather into one the children of God")

What does this mean? It's only a Tweet, but let's analyze it anyway.

First of all, "definite atonement," in Piper's view, means more than Jesus died for all the elect as such, or all the believing elect." It means that Jesus died ONLY for the sins of the elect, which obviously includes the believing elect. So what does his comparison prove?

Well, the preceding verse says this:

ESV John 11:51 He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation,

What is meant by "the nation"? I take it to mean all the Jews in Israel, at least living at that time, whether elect or not. That seems like the most natural reading of the text. Piper cannot take it that way if "died for" means "died for the sins of" since he holds to a limited imputation of sin to Christ. And, since he is comparing this verse to 1 John 2:2, "died for" must mean "as a propitiation for," on his comparison. Either he has to think "die for" does not mean "died for the sins of," or he has to oddly (see John 11:50; 18:35) take "the nation" as code language for only the elect within the nation of Israel. He might try to take "the nation" to mean an abstract class meaning "Jews" in general, but that still boils down to the particular elect individuals among the Jews, for him. Piper can't take the verse to mean Jesus died for the sins of all in the nation of Israel at that time, so he must go some other way, otherwise his view of "definite atonement" is undermined by the previous verses (John 11:50, 51) in his comparison.

The next verse says:

ESV John 11:52 and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.

Notice that the second part of the verse ("the children") has a particular people in view, so it would be very awkward for "the nation" to mean something abstract, like a class of thing called "Jew," without specifying particular or individual Jews. So, for him, either "the nation" means 1) all of the elect as such in the nation, whether believing or not-yet-believing or it means 2) all the believing elect in the nation of Israel, on Piper's theology. Who then are the "children of God who are scattered abroad"? Are they other Israelites scattered abroad, i.e. the diaspora? Are they other believers who are gentiles? The visible church? Given Piper's baptistic ecclesiology, he's probably not following Augustine's theology, so he probably thinks "the children of God" are either all of the elect gentiles scattered abroad, or all of the presently believing elect gentiles [not the visible church]. It would also be awkward for the Apostle John to call unbelievers "the children of God," as they are still hostile and not sharing in adoption, so Piper may be more inclined to take "the children" as the believing gentiles.

Keep in mind that he is comparing this to 1 John 2:2:

ESV 1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

Piper is probably reading the passage this way:

Option 1: He is the propitiation for our [all believing Jews, i.e. "the nation"] sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world [all the believing gentiles, i.e. "the children scattered abroad"].

Or possibly, but less likely, this way:

Option 2: He is the propitiation for our [all the elect Jews, whether believing or not, i.e. "the nation"] sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world [all the elect among the gentiles, whether believing or not, i.e. "the children scattered abroad"].

Since Piper may be more inclined to take "the children" as the believing gentiles in John 11:52, he probably likes Option #1 above. But if Option #1 is the case, 1 John 2:2 says nothing more than Christ is the propitiation for all believers, whether Jew or Gentile. That's not in dispute. Even an Arminian can agree with that. It doesn't get him "definite atonement," or that Jesus ONLY died for believing Jews and Gentiles. In fact, he himself would have to admit that Jesus died for more than believing Jews and Gentiles, since all in the elect class are not yet believing. Again, Option #1 does not get him "definite atonement," even on his own theological assumptions.

How about Option #2? The verse would be saying nothing more than Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of all elect people as such, whether Jew or Gentile. That also is not in dispute, as it does not say that Jesus ONLY died for the sins of elect people. That in no way establishes his case for "definite atonement."

The most he can possibly do by his comparison is try to negate the argument of others that 1 John 2:2 means that Jesus died for more than the elect (thus neutralizing the text), not establish "definite atonement." If he tries to do the latter, then he is doomed to failure, as that text would only be saying, on his theology, that Jesus died for all of the elect, or at least all the believing elect. It would be like arguing that Jesus only died for the sheep because he died for the sheep, or only died for his friends because he died for his friends, or only died for the church because he died for the church, or only died for Paul because he died for Paul [Gal. 2:20]. As is so commonly the case among advocates of "definite atonement," it would be an attempt to infer a negative (Christ died only for these) from a bare positive assertion (Christ died for these).

Thomas Lamb’s (died c. 1672 or 1686) First Words to the Reader in a Treatise of Particular Predestination

For as much as the glory of God ought to bee most deare in our eyes, which wee ought to seeke, and preferre more than our lives; I could not with good conscience and reason, but publish these few lines following, (especially being earnestly desired by some of my deare friends,) and the reasons are, first, because the truth of the Gospel, which holds forth Christs giving himself a ransome for all men, 1 Tim. 2. 6. A propitiation for the sinnes of the whole world, 1 John 2. 2. and that he tasted death for every man Heb. 2. 9. (which is such a glorious truth, as without which first the Gospel of Gods free grace cannot be preached to all men, secondly neither can wicked men nor unbelievers be required to believe; and thirdly neither can the not believing in Christ be concluded to be a sinne,) all which being professed by the people of God (who desire in all sincerity to walke in all the wayes of God, and to bee led wholy by the rule of his word, whatever the hazard be thereby) they are thereby scandalized to hold free-will, and to denie particular election of persons, and persons hereby kept from the truth: to the end therefore that these stumbling blockes might be taken out of the way: these following lines doe manifestly declare Christs dying for all, and particular Election to stand together, which therefore can be no let to hinder people from the wayes of God, nor yet from discerning this particular truth of Christs dying for all, the excellency whereof none can prize, but those that know it; the which excellency if others could know, I am confident they would not bee such enemies to their owne soules as to slight it.

From Thomas Lamb’s initial words “To the Impartial Reader,” in A Treatise of Particular Predestination (London, 1642), i–ii. [No Pagination; Pages Numbered Manually from the Beginning]

Bio:
Brook
McClintock & Strong
DNB

Thomas Lamb (died c. 1672 or 1686) on Christ's Death for All as a Ground to Preach to All

"...and seeing Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, Joh 14.6. and without him there is no way but wandring, no truth but errour, no life but death; and seeing also that Christ is no otherwise the Way, Truth, and Life, than as He is the Propitiation and atonement for the sins of the whole world, by which He took whatsoever was against us out of the way, nailing it to his Cross, Col. 2.14. It cannot but be truth, that Christ died for the sins of all and every man, as a ground for preaching glad tidings to all and every man, as a ground for faith for every man, as a ground to conclude unbelief a sin in every man; this as Gospel-truth I have preached and disputed for a long time, and been a great sufferer in witness thereof, and do still look upon it as such a glorious Truth as ought to be countenanced and encouraged; yet some there be that both think and say that this cannot stand but by denying Gods election of some above others; and also it maintains free-will, and the liableness of the best of Saints to fall away both totally and finally from God. And I myself have been aspersed to hold these Errours, as I verily believe it not altogether unknown to your Highness."

From Thomas Lamb's dedicatory letter to "His Highness Oliver Lord Protector of England, Scotland, and Ireland," in Absolute Freedom from Sin by Christ's Death for the World, as the Object of Faith in Opposition to Conditional, Set Forth by Mr. John Goodwin in his Book (London: Printed by H. H. for the Authour, and are to be sold by him, 1656), iii-iv. [No pagination; pages numbered manually from the beginning of the dedication]

Bio:
Brook
McClintock & Strong
DNB

Gardiner Spring (1785–1873) on the Accessability of the Cross to All

The cross respects men as sinners; it addresses them as sinners. In its boundless all-sufficiency, it has no concern with them in a numerical view; but regards them as those whose relations to the law of God are so changed by this effective propitiation, that all external obstacles to their salvation are graciously removed. No matter who he is, or where he dwells; no matter what his ignorance, or how many or how aggravated his sins; if he belongs to the lost family of man, the Cross is the remedy fitted to reach him in all his woes. There is no locality, or condition, and no variety of the human species, to which the narrative of the Cross, and its great and glorious truths, and its ineffable love and mercy, are not alike applicable. They furnish the great remedy which consults the guild and misery of all classes of society, all periods of time, all climes, all nations, all languages, all men. They are equally fitted to the lost condition of one man, as another. They are sufficient for the race, and, so far as their unembarrassed sufficiency goes, were designed for the race. There is no man whose forgiveness the Cross of Christ does not render just and righteous, on his repenting and believing the Gospel. In this view, the Cross is a deliberate, designed and honest provision for all men; a privilege of which many may be ignorant, and many fail to improve, but one which, wherever the Gospel is known, is as truly in the hands of those who misimprove it and perish, as of those who improve it and are saved.

The proof of these remarks from the Scriptures is abundant, and familiar to every reader of the Bible. "Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature." "Whosoever will let him take the waters of life freely." "Ho! every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters." These, and a multitude of passages of similar import, are expressly addressed to all men, and from design. If it be said, that in commissioned messages like these, God requires the ministers of the Gospel to make this indiscriminate offer of salvation, because they do not know who will accept them, and because it is not their province to distinguish between those who are and those who are not his chosen people; it must be born in mind that the offer is God's own offer, and that his ministers make it only in his name. He endorses it, and speaks through them. He knows who his chosen people are; and the gracious overture is made by his authority and on his behalf. "Warn them from me." "Speak to them my words." "As though God did beseech you by us, we pray you, in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God." We wish to vindicate the unfeigned sincerity of the Gospel offer, and we do not perceive how it can be vindicated, unless he is willing his offer should be accepted; and unless the offer be made on reasonable terms. He offers to all men salvation, through faith in the blood of his Son. This he is able and has a right to do, because there is infinite sufficiency in the death of Christ. This he is willing to do, or he would not offer it, nor so solemnly have sworn, "As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that he turn and live." And the terms on which the offer is made are as reasonable and as low as they can be; for nothing excludes any man from the richest blessings of the Gospel, but his own cherished rejection of them to the last. I cannot see that it is necessary to the sincerity of the offer, that God should make men themselves willing to accept it. There may be, there are, good reasons for his not doing this, in relation to all those who are finally lost, which do not at all conflict with the sincerity of the offer. The offer he makes is in every view expressive of his own mind and heart, of the infinite merit of his Son, and of the munificence of his condescending grace. Upon this same ground, the obligation rests on all who come within the range of these published invitations to accept them. The obligation is of the highest authority, and right in itself. It is the "commandment of the Everlasting God," to all men, everywhere. It is an obligation, the neglect of which is not only rebuked and punished, but the sin of sins, and one which, while it cuts off the incorrigible from hope, seals him up to that "sorer punishment" of which those are thought worthy who tread under their feet the blood of the Son of God. The foundation which is laid in Zion is, therefore, strong and broad enough to sustain the confidence which is required with so much authority, and enforced with such solemn and affecting sanctions.

There are not a few passages of Scripture which seem to me to give strong proof of this conclusion. "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son;"—He is the "propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world;"—"Who gave himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time;"—"The Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world;"—"Christ the Saviour of the world;"—"The bread of God is he that giveth life unto the world;"—"My flesh which I gave for the life of the world;"—"If one died for all, then were all dead;"—"That he, by the grace of God, should taste death for every man." Passages like these must teach either that it was the design of God, by the death of his Son, to save all men, which none but the rashest Universalist believes; or that his Son was set forth to be such a propitiation as is amply sufficient for the salvation of all mankind, if all should repent and believe the Gospel.

If the question be asked, what good ends the death of Christ secures by this redundancy of merit, since it is not designed to secure the salvation of the race; the inquiry is substantially answered by the general scope and design of the preceding remarks. Is it nothing that it unfolds the love of God to a lost world; that it throws upon men themselves the responsibility of plunging into the pit from this world of mercy, and in defiance of all the Cross has done; that it leaves the despisers of his grace without excuse and speechless; and that for the honor of the just God and Saviour, it plants in their bosoms the soul-withering conviction, that because they would not come unto Christ that they might have life, they are the authors of their own destruction? Who shall tell the influence which the scenes of Calvary have exerted, and will yet exert, even where they fail to be the "wisdom of God and the power of God to salvation?" Is there not a vastly less amount of wickedness in this lower world, even among those who will finally perish, from the very fact that it is a world of hope and mercy, and under the government of the great Mediatorial Prince? Is there no development of character, that is of importance to the interests of his kingdom, which would otherwise never have been made? I do not know where to limit the effects of this mighty movement in the divine empire. The appeal is one to human ignorance; but it is not a solitary one, in the government of God. Why does the light shine upon the eyes of the blind, or melodious sounds play around the ears of the deaf? There is no more reason to believe that the privilege of a preached Gospel, of an instructive and inviting sanctuary, of a Christian education, of private or social prayer, of advancement in any department of human science, or any other privilege, spiritual or temporal, were in vain given to those who never improve them, than that Christ died in vain in respect to those who reject his salvation. All these things answer important ends even where they are most perverted and abused. For the same reasons that "a price is put into the hands of a fool to get wisdom when he hath no heart to it," so the provisions of the Cross possess a sufficiency, an amplitude as large as the sins and woes of men, through not accepted by all.

Gardiner Spring, The Attraction of the Cross; Designed to Illustrate the Leading Truths, Obligations and Hopes of Christianity, 9th ed. (New York: Published by M. W. Dodd, 1854), 93–98.

See also David's post on Gardiner (click).

Bio:
Wiki
McClintock & Strong's Cyclopedia

John Witherspoon (1722–1794) on the Extent of Christ's Death

II. I proceed now to the second thing proposed, which was, to consider the extent of this propitiation, founded on the last clause of the text: "And not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." In general, when we remember that this epistle was written chiefly to the converts of the circumcision, it may convince us, that in all probability this expression was intended against the great and national prejudice of the Jews, of which we see very frequent notice taken in the New Testament. As they had the oracles of God committed to them, as for the wise purposes of his providence he had separated them from other nations, and the Messiah was to descend from them according to the flesh, they apprehended that all the blessings of his reign were to be confined to themselves: therefore they are often given to understand, that the purpose of mercy was far more extensive, and that Christ came with a view to fulfill that promise made to the father of the faithful, Gen. xxii. 18. "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice." The expression in the text, then, undoubtedly implies, that redemption through the blood of Christ was to be preached to sinners of the Gentiles; that as he had been the Saviour of all ages, by the efficacy of that sacrifice which he was to offer in the fullness of time, so the virtue of it was not to be confined to the house of Israel, but to belong to sinners of every nation under heaven.

I am sensible, my brethren, that very great controversies have been raised, in another view, as to the extent of Christ's death, and the import of this and other such general expressions in the holy scriptures. In this, as in most other debates, matters have been carried a far greater length than the interest of truth and piety requires; and, as is also usual, they have arisen from an improper and unskillful mixture of what belongs to the secret counsels of the Most High with his revealed will, which is the invariable rule of our duty. Without entering, therefore, into these debates, which are unsuitable to our present employment, or rather giving my judgement, that they are for the most part unnecessary, unprofitable, or hurtful, I shall lay down three propositions on this subject, which I think can hardly be called in question, and which are sufficient foundation for our faith and practice.

1. The obedience and death of Christ is of value sufficient to expiate the guilt of all the sins of every individual that ever lived or ever shall live on earth. This cannot be denied, since the subjects to be redeemed are finite, the price paid for their redemption is infinite. He suffered in the human nature, but that nature intimately and personally united to the divine; so that Christ the mediator, the gift of God for the redemption of sinners, is often called his own and his eternal Son: Rom. viii. 32. "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" Such was the union of the divine and human nature in Christ, that the blood which was the purchase of our redemption is expressly called the blood of God, Acts xx. 28. "To feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." This is the great mystery of godliness, God manifested in the flesh, in which all our thoughts are lost and swallowed up.

2. Notwithstanding this, every individual of the human race is not in fact partaker of the blessings of his purchase; but many die in their sins, and perish for ever. This will as little admit of any doubt. Multitudes have died, who never heard of the name of Christ, or salvation through him; many have lived and died blaspheming his person, and despising his undertaking; many have died in unbelief and impenitence, serving divers lusts and passions; and if the scripture is true, he will at last render unto them according to their works. So that if we admit, that the works of God are known to him from the beginning of the world, it can never be true, that, in his eternal counsels, Christ died to save those who, after all that he hath done, shall be miserable for ever. "He is a rock, his work is perfect." His design never could be frustrated; but, as the apostle Paul expresses it, Rom. xi. 7. "The election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded." But,

3. There is in the death of Christ a sufficient foundation laid for preaching the gospel indefinitely to all without exception. It is the command of God that this should be done: Mark, xvi. 15. "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." The effect of this is, that the misery of the unbelieving and impenitent shall like entirely at their own door; and they shall not only die in their sins, but shall suffer to eternity for this most heinous of all sins, despising the remedy, and refusing to hear the Son of God: Heb. x. 26. 27. "For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgement, and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries." Let us neither refuse our assent to any part of the revealed will of God, nor foolishly imagine an opposition between one part of it and another. All the obscurity arises from, and may be resolved into, the weakness of our understandings; but let God be true and every man a liar. That there is a sense in which Christ died for all men, and even for those who perish, is plain from the very words of scripture: 1 Tim. iv. 10. "For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all me, especially of those that believe." 1 Cor. viii 11. "And, through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?" Thus it appears, that both in a national and personal view, Christ is "the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

John Witherspoon, "Christ's Death a Proper Atonement for Sin", in The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: Printed for J. Ogle, Parliament-Square; M. Ogle, Glasgow; Ogles, Duncan, & Cochran, London; and T. Johnston, Dublin, 1815), 107–108.

Bio:
Wiki
McClintock & Strong

More from John Humfrey (1621–1719) on Redemption

As far as I can tell, this paper from John Humfrey has not been referenced or quoted in any other source dealing with moderate Calvinism since the work was originally published in 1673. I accidentally stumbled across his name and this work while doing EEBO searches. It took me some time to type this section on redemption, and I have tried to accurately reproduce the original, so I have retained the older spellings (or misspellings). The italics are also in the original.

Of Redemption.

I do not remember any thing in St. Augustin that is peculiar about this Doctrine; Only I take notice from several passages, that he goes still the Narrow Way: That the Elect only are redeemed: That none but those who are brought into the Church, by receiving all her Articles, and being Baptized, can be of that Number. That no Heathen, no Heretick, no Separatist from the Church, no Donatist, no Infant, though of Believing Parents, that dies unbaptized, can be saved. I must confess here I am not of the mind with this Father. And, as I apprehend, that Justine Martyr, and some such Ancients, who were Philosophers as well as Christians, have spoken more nobly than thus: So do I think that he goes not here the way of the Scriptures. There is the universal Grace of God; and special Grace of God, I count, held forth therein: and both consistent with one another. When Christ sayes, He came to save the World, that The Father so loved the World, as to give his Son, That he tasted Death for every Man, and the like; let not any think, but the Grace of Redemption doth concern all the World: And when we yet maintain special Grace with this, let not any confine the same to this or that Sort or Sect of Religion, but let him judge rather, that the Elect are scattered throughout the Earth; and it is God alone knows who are his. There is the universal Grace of Origen, that all at last shall be saved, of Pelagius, of Arminius. There is also gratia universalis aqualis & Pracedanea, of John Camero; we are not bound to maintain either of these: but there is Gratia universalis simpliciter, which if we maintain not, we must leave our Preaching, and the Gospel. The Followers of Truth and Mediocrity will be afraid to hold any other universal Grace, but such as I suppose St. Ambrose holds in his Books, De vocatione Gentium; that will agree well with the special Grace also and Election of St. Augustine; that is, such only, I count, as may justly lay the

Page 25 begins here--------------------------------

blame of mans Sin and his Destruction, altogether on himself, when it gives the whole Glory of his Salvation unto God. They that observe lying vanityes, forsake their own mercy.

For my proceeding on this point, it is not sutable to my purpose to be critical upon any words in the original Languages that Redemption is expressed by: or, to pretend to curiosity in the Laws and Customs of the Jews or other natious [nations?] about Redemption at large, which might be alluded to: I will rather leave this Note in my way, that, as the curious oftentimes are least apt for plain things, so must I say, that whatsoever notion is offered upon this or any other head of Divinity by any, who perhaps are of more exquisite learning and search in some things than others are, if when they are sufficiently declared, they are not apprehensible by common and ordinary people as well as themselves, I do account them little worth in the Christian Religion. They were plain men who at first Preached the Gospel, and they were plain men for whose sake it was Preached, and is Written. When I see evidently that there must goe more skill to the finding such or such things out, more learning, subtil distinction, and wit, than, I beleeve, any of the Apostles if they were living ever had, I cannot but think presently, There is none of Christs disciples would have delivered this, and it matters not my salvation whether it be so or not.

Neither do I entend a Common place upon this, or other of the Heads which I treat on, but an Exercitation onely, in order to my particular design: you must not expect any more. There is one thing then I account here to be mainly of necessity or moment; and that is, the understanding our Redemption by Jesus Christ but so, as that we may be solidly able to fix upon what that is which indeed accrewes to man from it, or which we may avouch for the immediate and uncontrolable fruit, or benefit, to us by it. I will not therefore make many words. The Redemption of man by Christ, I humbly conceive, does lye chiefly in this, The delivery of him from the Law as it was a Covenant of works, that is requiring of him such conditions as he is not now in his faln estate ever able to perform; and so must inevitably perish, if he were not delivered from it. When the fulness of time was come (sayes the Apostle) God sent his Son, made under the Law. &c. The

Page 26 begins here--------------------------------

Law as given to the Jews was a representative of the Law of Nature or Covenant of Works: and in Christs redeeming the jewes from it as given by Moses, he does redeem the World from that covenant which it represented, and there, I say, does lye the chief point of our Redemption. That very thing then, or that great immediate effect or benefit which accrewes to man from Christs dying for him, is his having other terms procured upon which he may be justified and saved, than those which by the Covenant of nature were due from him to obtain that end. For, God so loved the World that he gave his onely begotten son that whosoever beleeveth in him should not perish but have everlasting life. What is the immediate end here of God's giving his Son, That must be the Immediate fruit of Christs coming, dying, and redeeming the World. And what is that, but that Whosoever beleeveth in him, may not perish? That is, The delivery of him from the law of Works, and bringing him under the Covenant or law of Faith, that, upon the performance only hereof (who could not have it else without perfect doing) he may obtain everlasting life. And whether this favour of Christs procuring new terms upon which man may be saved does belong to the Elect only, or to all the world, there will need no more but to ask, To whom the Gospel is to be preached, to decide that question.

It is true, that the freedom of the Jewes from the Mosaical law; the breaking down the partition-wall thereby for the Gentiles to be incorporated into one Church visible; and a power in Christ himself to dispense all assistances necessary to both for their obedience to the Gospel; as also a discharge of mankind from damnation for Adams sin onely, are fruits of Christs death, which may be said too, immediate and universal: but the great benefit which indeed comprehends these and the like in it, and appeares so notorious in the whole New Testament, is, The reconciliation of the world unto God by his death or Redemption. And what else such a reconciliation can eminently consist in, but that I have named, I leave to the understanding to give judgment.

Neither are we to forget that our Redemption in the Scripture is said to be from Sin, and the Devil, as well as from the Law; for the one is the Foundation of the other. When man fell from God, the Devil obtained a right and dominion over him.

Page 27 begins here--------------------------------

This was not a right as Lord, and Proprietour, but as Goaler and Executioner; that is, by vertue of that sentence which the Law as the Covenant of works passed on him. When Christ then by his Satisfaction to the Justice of God, did put an end to that Covenant; this Right which the Devil held thereby, must cease with it. In the Cessation of this Right; As the Slave who is redeemed from his slavery, is redeemed also from the work which he lives in as a Slave: So must all Mankind be redeemed from sin; only this Redemption must be distinguished, in regard of Title, and in regard of Possession. It follows not because the World lies in Wickedness, and the Prince of the Air still rules in the Children of Disobedience; that Christ hath not done His part in their Redemption: No, while the Law which held them under an impossible Duty (that is, the Law of Sin and Condemnation) is taken off, and the New Law is such, as every one is capable to perform the Terms of it, if he will: It is not for want of Right to come out of this slavery; it is not for want of Power; but it is because they are not willing to come out of it, because they love their sins; that the Devil keeps them still in Possession. Even as the Hebrew Servant, when the Jubile came; if he said, he loved his Master, and would not go out free, he was to have his Ears boared to the Door-posts of the House, and remain his Slave for ever. There is a double work, therefore, Christ has to do as our Lord-Redeemer. The one is to procure Deliverance if we are willing; that is, our Redemption in regard of Title: And the other is, To make us Willing, which is, to put us also in Possession. The one of these is that which is properly the work of our Redemption, and Universal: The other is peculiar to the Elect, and hath another name in Scripture; that is, our Vocation, Effectual Calling, or Conversion. Unless when this Possession comes to be perfectly compleat, that is, at Death; and then it is again called the Day of Redemption. Whom he did predestinate (saith the Apostle) them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified: And whom he justified, them he also glorified. If Redemption were not of a larger extent than Election, Vocation, Justification, and Glory, then would the Apostle have said; Whom he did predestinate, he redeemed: And whom he redeemed, he called.

Page 28 begins here--------------------------------

But when we find no such Link in this Chain, it is a convincing Argument to my understanding, for the Universalitie of Redemption.

It is said of Chirst, that he is the Saviour of the world; especially of his own body. In that Sentence we have both universal and special grace together; and the one is Applicatory, not Destructive to the other. The Redemption of Christ is universal: The Grace whereby a Man savingly believes, and repents, and so becomes one of his Body, is special, and belongs to Election. The Death of Christ may be considered, as it redounds to the purchasing Remission of Sin and Salvation upon condition; or, as it redounds to the purchasing the Condition for Remission and Salvation. In the first sense, Christs Redemption and Grace of the Gospel is universal; Doctor Twisse, and the like Divines, will say twenty times over: In the second sense, they will have it for his Elect only. For my own part, I must go from them here, and account, That the work of Christs Redemption and whole Mediation upon Earth, does terminate in the former consideration. The business of a Mediatour between parties, does lie in this, To bring them to some New terms, wherein they may be agreed when they were at odds before. The business of Christs Mediation, Redemption, Reconciliation, Propitiation, Satisfaction; or whatsoever word out of Scripture, or Orthodox Writers is used, does lie, I account, in this altogether, That he hath taken that course with the Father, that he shall not deal with the world according to the Covenant of our Creation; which requires such terms, as no Man now thereby can be justified or saved; but according to the Covenant of Grace, which is such, that whosoever he be, that trusting in his Mercy and Goodness through Christ, does repent, and walk sincerely before him; though imperfectly, shall be Pardoned, Accepted, and Saved, and yet he be Righteous in so doing. This I say, is the res ipsa, (as I take it) the thing it self, intended in all these sorts of words, with the connotations only of the modus also, the mode or qualification thereof, according to such several Expressions.

Here then appears a Truth (as it seems at least) very agreeable to my Reason; and will be found as Consonant perhaps to

Page 29 begins here--------------------------------

the Judicious, with the Scripture; that the Merit, or Purchase of Christ's Death, or the Price he laid down for our Redemption, was not offered to the Father, to procure of Him, that he should give Faith and Repentance to any; but that he should give Remission to those that Repent, and Salvation to those that believe on him. I humbly offer you these Reasons:

1. The holding otherwise than thus, does make Christ's Redemption a double thing; one thing for one man, and another thing for another: It shall be procuring Salvation for Judas, if he repent; and it shall be the procuring Repentance for Peter, that he may be saved. 2. It goes quite against the hair to reason, that Christ should procure the Benefit upon Condition, and only on Condition, and not otherwise; and yet that he should procure also the Performance. To what purpose do we make such a Labour about as this? Why do you not say, He purchased the Benefit rather free altogether without condition? 3. If our Believing, and Repenting, be also purchased, then is there nothing in Man's Salvation but of Purchase; and we shall be beholding to Christ for all, and to God for nothing. But if we are beholding to Christ for his Purchase; that Salvation may be had if we repent, and to God for this Repenting; then do we see, how highly Both are to be magnified for the Contrivance. 4. The Death and Redemption of Christ is for All, for every man; for our sins, for the world's. Distinctions to answer this, are but Evasions. But if Faith and Repentance be the purchase of Christs Death or Redemption, then cannot his Death and Redemption be universal, according to so many Scriptures. Let me double this, and add also, that the Purchase, or Redemption of Christ being universal certainly, as it is in Scripture, if by his Death he had procured the Condition, as well as the Covenant, and abatement of Terms, then must all Men Actually have been saved. I have one Reason yet more to offer; which is, That the want of knowing this, is, I take it, the great Stumbling-block, or Temptation to our Divines, in the receiving universal Grace, to cast special Grace quite off; when they should learn the true Mediocrity of reconciling both these together, according to the Scriptures.

When the Arminian then argues here, Christ hath died for

Page 30 begins here--------------------------------

All and Every man and that is not to be put off with the genera singulorum, or, the Gentiles as well as the Jewes: therefore the grace of God is universal for all and every one to repent and beleeve that they may be saved. I answer, this is manifestly inconsequent, because it is true that what Christ hath done by way of Redemption is universal, and belongs to all the World, and every man alike, which is terminated in procuring these terms to be offered to the World for salvation. But as for mans belief, repentance, sincere obedience, which are the terms, they come directly and immediately otherwise, not from the grace of Redemption, nor from the fountain of mans free will with them, but from the grace of Election. God gives us his Son, and he gives us his Spirit. His sending his Son is one thing, and his sending his Spirit another. The work of drawing persons to Christ, I do observe, is attributed to the Father and the Spirit, because this is Peculiar: when the work which is attributed to Christ in distinction to them, is Generall to all mankind. He sent his Son to purchase salvation, if we Beleeve: he sends his Spirit to work that faith and repentance in us that we may be saved. In the one does lye the mystery of our Redemption, in the other, I say, the mystery of Election. Let it be true on one hand that Christ by his Redemption hath indeed procured no more for Paul and Peter, than for Judas and the reprobate, and so the honour of his Redemption be kept up with the Arminian to the height they contend for it: Yet may it be true, I hope likewise, on the other hand, that the grace of God towards Peter and Paul was more in giving them saving faith and repentance, than to Judas or the reprobate, and so the doctrine of Special Grace and Election need not neither be discarded.

For caution, There is the Direct, and Collateral issue (if I may so speak) of Christs merit, purchase or death. It is certain that the Lord Jesus may be said by his death and merit to have procured his own exaltation, and as he is become thereby the Dispensatour of those treasures that are in his Fathers Election, so repentance or faith in a collateral way may be accounted to issue from thence. Whom God hath exalted to be a Prince to give repentance, as well as be a Saviour, to procure remission to Israel. But repentance, faith perseverance, or the condition which God

Page 31 begins here--------------------------------

requires of us, and not of Christ, in the business of our salvation, does not flow to us directly from, or is no direct and immediate fruit of, his Death or Redemption. I know moreover the Scripture tells us that we are blessed with all spiritual blessings in him: But that may be true I hope, though some of those blessings only are the purchase of his death, and others the effect of his Intercession: or some the fruit of his Purchasing, others the effect of his Administring of the new Covenant.

This is certain, the Spirit is the Authour of our faith, repentance, all grace: but the Spirit is obtained by vertue of Christs intercession. I will pray the Father, and he will send the Comforter. I offer you one argument. The Spirit proceeds not from the Son alone but from the Father and Son. The mission or giving of the Spirit therefore cannot be the effect of our Redemption which is peculiar to the Son, and belongs to all the World: but is the fruit or offspring of our Election. It is true, we come in the name of Christ to ask his Spirit, and grace, that is, we ask it through Christs merits: but there is the merits of his Person, as well as the merits of his Death; & it is one thing to be the Propitiation for our sins, and another to be also our Advocate with the Father. This is that I will pitch upon, that we are not so to attribute all things to his Oblation, as to make any other part, or parts of his Mediator-ship, more then needs.

There is a distinction the Scripture makes of Christ in the Flesh and in the Spirit. He was of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the son of God according to the Spirit, in his Resurrection from the dead, and in his living ever to make intercession for us. What he did for man in the flesh I account he did for all mankind, for he took not on him the flesh of David onely and the elect, but of all man-kind, or of human nature: but what he does in the Spirit, that may be peculiar (in some points at least) onely to his elect. Hence it is, that when he tells us he Laid down his life for the World, yet I pray sayes he not for the World, but for those thou hast given me out of the World. The prayer of Christ is a part of his intercession, which is Distinct from his oblation, and it is no argument from his not Praying for the World, that therefore he Died not for it. If ye being evil know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more

Page 32 begins here--------------------------------

shall your heavenly Father give his holy Spirit to them that ask him. God hath given his Son to those that never ask him, even to the whole World: but he gives the Spirit of the Son only to his Children, even to such as can cry Abba Father, when they have received it. I will pray the Father and he shall give you another Comforter, even the Spirit of truth, whom the World cannot receive. When he prayes not for the world, that he prayes for is the Spirit, and the Spirit which works grace in the heart whereby we are sanctified, and perseverance to bring us to glory, is peculiar to those whom God does give to Christ, and of whom Christ can say, For they are thine, and all mine are thine, and thine are mine, and I am glorified in them.

You may say, on the one hand, If it be no more which Christ hath purchased for Peter than for all, then Peter might perish for all Christs Purchase. I answer, you may say so, and without ignominy to his Redemption, provided you know also that the Election of God and Christs Prayer will provided for Peter that further which it provides not for all, and Jesus Christ when he hath made his purchase, is the Executor of Gods Election. On the other hand it may be said, But to what purpose is this Redemption universal when none but those that perform the condition are saved? I answer, it is therefore universal, that none of those who performe the condition may misse of Salvation. As also, that though it be all one to him that does not perform the same, in regard of the event, as if he was not all Redeemed: Yet it is not all one as to God, and the Verity of Scripture, and his Judgement according to it. The Scripture sayes often, Christ Dyed for All; and that God will Judge the World according to this Gospel. He that believes, shall be saved, he that believeth not, shall be damned; the Foundation whereof is Christs Death, which must reach so far, as to make this good. And who knows not, that the very business of our whole Religion, does depend upon the Establishment of the Verity of the Holy Scriptures?

I must confess, I should most willingly hearken to any, that could make Christs Death more Advantagious; and when his purchase hath procured Faith and Repentance to no body, but Remission and Salvation to All, upon their Faith and Repentance,

Page 33 begins here--------------------------------

if they are willing to say, that there is sufficient Grace also purchased for the World, that all, and every one should Repent and Believe, and apply that Redemption; I am indifferent to the use of their Thoughts: But if when I rather grant a universal Power, arising from Christs purchase, not as a direct fruite of his Death, but as a consequential Event (N.B.) from the Abatement only of the terms; that God is not wanting to any in necessariis, and consequently, that all men have sufficient Light, Spirit, Grace, or Power, to be saved, if they in gratuitis, and to give the Will and Deed it self, is more than to give Power, (as to have given Adam the Ipsum velle, had been more, and a gratuitum wherein he might have abounded, if he had pleased, than in giving him only Posse velle) I cannot see by any means, but when Christs Death is made universal, the Fathers Election must be left still, Per modum decreti efficaciter operantis, By way of a decree effectually operating, free and absolute, in regard to the condition of it's Application. If all men have alike the Posse velle, The Power to will, and no more, then must the reason, Why one man Repents, and is Saved, and not another, be resolved into his own self only, and so may and must he say, it is I, I myself have made the difference, when the Scripture does say, Who is it, O man, that hath made thee to differ? But if we allow (as Redemption to be universal so) a Posse velle from general: (I say, not a Posse velle as to the Covenant of our Creation, but as to the Terms of the Gospel:) And to the Elect, the Ipsum velle from special Grace, we shall neither have any thing to charge God, nor give occassion to Mans boasting. Neither shall the condition be held impossible; nor when we have performed it, shall we rob God of his Glory.

It is pleaded, That unless Faith and Repentance does lie in every Man's own Breast, Christ's purchase of Pardon upon that Condition, is but a Mock. I answer, To deny that to Believe, and to Repent, does lye in our Power, were indeed, to evacuate Christ's Death to All, besides the Elect: But to say, that Faith and Repentance therefore does flow from our Wills, is another matter. I must offer moreover; If Christ had purchased Faith and Repentace for some which All have not, the

Page 34 begins here--------------------------------

Reprobate might here have something to say, That the Reason why he Repented not, as the Elect did, was, because Christ purchased Repentance for the One, and not for the Other: But if Christ hath purchased nothing for One, but what he hath purchased for All (which directly is true,) then cannot the purchase of Christ be a Mock to any, seeing some do reap a real Benefit by it, and if others do not, it must be their Own fault. Indeed those Divines, who confound the Blessings we have in Christ, so as to make them All alike the direct Fruits of his Death with no difference, must be under some manifest Prejudice here against St. Augustine, and his Doctrine. It stands not with reason, that any thing which is part of Christ's Purchase, should be peculiar, for how then hath Christ dyed for All? That which is of meer Favour, is fit for the Elect; that which is of Purchase, should be universal, or for All Mankind. If that Grace then, whereby we Believe and Repent, is a Fruit flowing from Christ's Death, no otherwise than the Covenant itself does, these Divines alone must speak agreeably, who will allow no other, but that which they call sufficient, putting all men into an æqui librium, or equal Ballance, between Choosing and Refusing, and so leaving it upon their own Wills, to make the Difference, Who are saved, and who are not saved? But to what little purpose such Grace as this, is distinguished at all from Nature, and into what inconveniences, especially in reference to our Prayers, they must be lead that maintain it, I shall not be able to say presently. Cur admonemur orare pro inimicis nostris utique nolentibus pie vivere, nifi ut Deus in illis operetur & velle? Item cur admonemur petere ut accipiamus, nifi & ab illo fiat quod volumus, a quo factum est ut velimus. Again, Cur petitur quod ad nostram pertinet potestratem, si Deus non adjuvat veluntatum? Why are we bid to pray for our Enemies, whose Hearts we know are Averse? Why are we to bid to ask any thing which is in our Power, but that it is God who turns the Will? Augustine. Enchir: ad Laur. c. 31. Item De Gra. & alibi passim.

It is certain, that St. Austine, speaking of what Grace Adam had, and what We have (De correptione & Gratia. c.11.) does ascribe the Posse permanere si vellet, The power of standing if he would unto Grace. Prima gratia qua data est Adam, est qua fit

Page 35 begins here--------------------------------

ut habeat homo justitiam si velit: Secunda ergo plus potest, qua etiam fit, ut velit. Again, Posse permanere si vellet, quia dederat adjutorium per quod posset. He could have stood if he would, because God vouchsafed help whereby he could. I must confess, I should have judged it not to be of Grace, that Adam had his Posse perseverare, his strength to persevere, but of Nature, or his Original Righteousness: And that Grace (which he calls Adjutorium) is proper to our falne Estate, for the relieving of Nature. But if it were of Grace, that Adam had the posse only, when he had not the velle, then may we assert universal Grace with the more Authority; while we say, that there is a posse not in Man falne, as to the performance of the Covenant of Grace, no less than in Adam at first, as to his keeping the Covenant of Works: when yet the velle, which is of special Grace, is not vouchsafed.

There may be here indeed, a most difficult Demand, and that must not be baulked; Whether the Power, which is universal, be of Nature or Grace? And I must profess, it is an Entaglement to my Thoughts, to distinguish Nature at all, from that Grace which is universal. Although for the sake I suppose of some Texts, which attribute our sufficiency, our can, our power, as well as our will and deed to God, when they say too it is not of our selves, Divines do it. There is that Concourse, or Operation of God with Us, as reaches to the Endowing us with Power: or that which reaches to the Endowing us with the Will. The last of these only, if I might choose, I would have called Grace: Yet seeing Divines speak otherwise, whether the former also, be called Grace or Nature, so long as it be held universal, I desire to move no Contention. And you see me speak as one indifferent in it.

If we consult the Schools, we shall find them giving as little to the strength of nature as any others can doe. Nullum initium justificationis potest fieri sine gratia, Sive Illud initium sit causa, sive meritum, condigni aut congrui, sive impetratio, dispositio, conditio ad quodlibet aliquid, quocung; modo per se & ratione sui, conducens ad justificationem. There is nothing that we can doe of our own strength without grace that is any cause, merit, disposition, condition, or occasion of our justification, or the beginning of it. Ruiz.

Page 36 begins here--------------------------------

De prædestinationis exordio. Trac. 3. Disp. 17. By justification they understand in effect regeneration, and they distinguish of an occasion which is active or given of men, and passive or taken of God. They will allow indeed that we doe may be a Passive occasion or opportunity to God for the infusing his grace, which is with them to justify us, but no Active. Illa occasiones perse, & ratione sui, nullam Physican, nec moralem causalitatem exercent, ad obtinendam misericordian Dei, sed Deus pro sua intriuseca boxitate & Sapientia, ex illis occasionem accipit. Jb. Dist. 16 Sec. 2. The sum is, that whatsoever man does by the strength of nature, conduces to his effectual conversion onely (as a removens prohibens) by removing the hinderance which otherwise we might put, if we withdrew from the means that God hath appointed to obtain his grace. Licet enim aliquis per motum liberi arbitris divinam gratiam nec promereri nec acquirere possit: potest tamen serpsum impedire ne eam recipiat, sayes Aquinas. Though a man by the motion of his freewill cannot merit or procure the divine grace: yet can he hinder himself from receiving it. They said unto God, Depart from us we desire not the knowledg of thy ways. Quilibet acuis qui a nobis eliciatur per vires nature sine auxilio gratiæ nihil ad gratiam justificantem, nee(?) ad auxiliatricem gratiam influit: nihilue conducit aut convert perse ratione sui, sed solummodo quasi causa per accidens remonendo prohibens, aut tan quam occasio & opportunitas passina & a Deo accepta, non ab hominibus data. Jb. Dist. 20.

Having gon thus far in abasing the strength of nature, we shall find how they make it up again, with advancing an universall Sufficient grace, by the help of which lever the free will of man shall be lifted into the same throne, from when before they threw it down. For when that grace which they set up, must be such only as gives a next power to beleeve and repent if we will, but leaves the will undetermined and uninclined, and this being Supposed to be vouchsafed to all according to the condition they are in, whether Elect or Reprobate alike, it is apparent that mans free will by the cooperation with this grace, or refusal, is that which begins, or puts by his own justification, and causequently makes the difference (in the upshot) between him that is saved, and him that is damned. Supponimus omnibus adultis

Page 37 begins here--------------------------------

nullo excepto, dari auxilia sufficientia ad salutem, & non impedita, sed ita expendita, ut in poestate (?) cujusque sit, illis cooperando, ulteriora auxilia obtinere, quanruis per vires naturæ non possint obtinere auxilia gratis. Again, Barbari ignorantissimi per interiorem gratiam moventur ad cognoscendum (non explicite sed implicite & virtualiter, non certo sed subdubio, non in particulari sed in universali) aliquid supernaturale, atque ad illud desiderandum: Idque sufficit ut illustrationes & inspirationes suit quidditative supernaturales & sufficientes ad justificationis initium. Idem ib Disp. 25. Now what my thoughts are on this, I have offered as I pass; and more particularly, at the end, upon the first Head, of Election. There is universal Grace consistent with the Special Grace of Gods Elect: Or inconsistent with it. The former, I shall like to have well explained. The latter, I take to be against St. Augustine, and the Scriptures. The Grace of God is without, or within us. There is the Love, or Good-will of God to Mankind, who would have All to be saved: Our Redemption by Christ; The remedying Covenant; The Gospel. This is Grace without, and that some Grace there is then sufficient, and universal, that yet hath no Effect on the most, is out of doubt. There is moreover, that Grace which lies in the Help, or Assistance of the Spirit within, and the Fruit of it (Gratia Auxiliatrix, & Infusa) and this our Divines doe distinguish into Common and Saving. By Common, they understand not the universal sufficient Assistance of the Schools before, but some particular Operation of the Spirit, Effecting so much as it is given for, only because those Effects reach no farther than what is Common to the Elect and Reprobate, they call such Help or Grace only Common Grace. Thus far we are safe; As for any Grace besides all this, if there be any, not opposing Electing Grace, I shall be glad to hear it; but my own mind, I perceive, hangs thus. There is a Power to will or nill, to act of not to act, which is the power of Nature: And there is a Disposition on the Will, being touched by the Holy Spirit, to the doing what is good. Between these two, Nature, and Grace, to advance a middle Power, arising from an Assistance sufficient, preceding Effectual, that is to say, To make God by a supernatural Help, to produce a New Power,

Page 38 begins here--------------------------------

which they call, a next Power, in every man, over and above that Power which we have by Nature (which is the Remote Power, though the Schools mean it not so, and which alone will render the Sinner inexcusable without any other) antecendent to the giving the Will and the Deed, wherein effectual Grace does lie: Even a New Power, I say, Supernatural, of Believing, Repenting, or Willing, besides the Natural, antecendent to Faith, Repentance, or the Will it self: I do not see to what purpose else, if it be no a Device under the Cover of that Name, to advance Free-will, and slap off St. Augustine (as I take it to be in the Schooles) it can be made to serve. What need is there of Grace, to put the Will only in æquilibrio, which it is in by Nature? If it encines not the Will, and carries the Heart and Life: What shall I say of it, but as of the Wood or the Vine? Is it meet for any Work? Yet if it be, I refuse not to hang my Vessel on it.

Auxilium, aliud est proxime & immediate sufficiens, quod videlicet formaliter & actualiter continet omnes causas, & conditiones, ex parte principii requisitas ad eliciendum actum quo immediate dispo umur ad justificationem: Aliud vero non sufficit ad salutem nifi mediate atque remote, quatenus immediate sufficiens est ad eliciendum aliquem actum supernaturalem minus perfectum & remote distantem a justificatione; quem actum si peccator eliciat, de congruo merebitur, & impetrabit ulteriora auxilia supernaturalia, quibus possit elicere Perfectiores actus, proximius disponentes ad justificationem, quousque ipsam obtineat. Ruiz De præcip. effec. benevol. Dei erga reprob. Sec. 2. Auxilium vel immediate vel mediate sufficiens, omnibus adultis, quamdiu sunt viatores, tribuitur ad omnes actiones quæ sunt ad salutem simpliciter necessariæ. Ib. Sec. 3. Auxilium remotum simpliciter necessarium cujus virtute fit absolute possibile proximum Auxilium obtinere, nunquam subrahitur, etiam, propter gravissimas culpas. De prin. imped. justif. Sec. 5. I present this to the Reader only for Light, out of courtisie, that he who would without more pains, may yet see, how the Schools order their Matters. And the truth is, if they would order it but a little otherwise, without its Antecedency and Equality, This sufficient universal Grace of theirs might do well. There is an Equality in regard of Quantity,

Page 39 begins here--------------------------------

which no body will contend for: Or in regard of Principle, Ratione principii in actu primo causantis Operationem. The concourse of God, as the first cause, with Nature in all her Acts, and so with Mans Free-will, is one principle of Operation: And that Assistance which we call Grace, is another. Of Grace likewise, the Assistance which is Common, and which is Effectual, are two Principles according to us. If we shall therefore make the Assistance of God, which belongs to all, to be equal, we destroy special Grace: But if we seperate this Equality from the Universality, and tye not an Antecedency to the sufficiency (for what hinders, but God may work effectually on some Persons altogether graceless at once?) I see no hurt in the Maintenance of it, if I were first convinced of a necessity for it.

From hence there is a Point of another sort, that is, of Practical Divinity comes in upon us: To wit, How far a Natural Man may go, and yet fall short of True Grace, and Salvation? To answer which, we are to know, that it is one thing to ask what a Natural man can do? And another, What he may do, and yet be an Unregenerate Man? The first Question, is the Controversial Point in hand, between Us and the Arminians: And I say, it is agreeable to that Righteousness of God, which is Revealed in the Gospel, and to Common Reason, that when Christ dyed to Redeem the World from the Law of Works, because through the Weakness of the Flesh, it was impossible for us to perform the same; the New Terms which he hath procured for us in the Remedying Law, should be so Adapted to our Falne Estate, as to be made no less possible to us, or within our Power now, than the Terms of the Covenant of Nature, was to Adam in the state of Innocency. There is no Interpretation of any Scripture, must be admitted against universal Reason, and the goodness of God. For the second Question: Take a Drunkard, or the like Sinner, I say, this man can, and may presently resolve to keep his ill Company no more; he may command his outward Man, and so his leggs to carry him from the Ale-house, if he will. If he does thus, he leaves that sin, so may he others. He may Hear, Pray, set up Duty in his Family: He may Receive the Word, which is more, and bring forth Fruit,

Page 40 begins here--------------------------------

with this difference only, that the Regenerate man, does it with an honest Heart, which he hath not. There is the matter of our Duty, and the manner of Performance. This Question which seems so difficult, perhaps to many, is easily determined. The Unregenerate Man can do if he will, and may will, and do, that, and all that which the Regenerate man does, in the matter: but as for the manner, this is certain, that the Regenerate man, only does act out of that Principle, and to that End, and with those Circumstances (particularly, in regard to the Predominancy of Gods Interest, over the Flesh and the World) as brings up what he does, to answer the Covenant Terms, and so alone is entituled to the promised Reward, which is to be justified and saved. In conclusion, we see how the Mistery [sic] of Election shews it self; when there is no man but can, if he will, and yet there is no man ever will, as he ought without this special Grace of the Elect; What shall we say, but, Great is the mystery of Godliness! It is he hath wrought us for this self same thing; Blessed be the God of Grace!

And here are there some Socinian, as well as Arminian Disputes might be Touched, under this Head of Christ's Redemption, especially in relation to his Satisfaction. For it may be, that such a less intricate Conception only of what we are to understand by Christ's Satisfaction, might bring the most of several Parties to Agreement. It is a Question, Whether God could pardon a Sinner without Satisfaction? And consequently, Whether there be any necessity of Christ's Dying to that purpose? I answer, There is no Mortal, upon the Terms of Covenant of our Creation, can be justified. (Hence it is (N. B.) that by Nature, we are all said to be the Children of Wrath,) It is necessary therefore, these Terms be altered. This is that which Jesus Christ hath procured for Us by His Redemption, by the Merits of his Life and Death, by his Satisfaction; that is, such a well-pleasing of the Father, in the whole course of his Life and Death, that for his sake, he might (without any Dishonour to him, or to his Law, as Rector) and does condescend to do it: And there should be an end, if I might over-rule the more Intelligent, of such, and the like kind of Questions.

Deo Gloria, mihi Condonatio. J. H.

John Humfrey, The Middle-Way in One Paper of Election & Redemption (London: Printed for T. Parkhust, at the Three Bibles in Cheap-side, 1673), 24–40.

Bio:
Wiki
DNB