Bastingius, on the Heidelberg Catechism:

20. Is salvation then restored by Christ to all men that perished in Adam?

Answer.

Not to all, but only to those who are en-grafted into him by true faith, and do lay hold upon all his benefits.

Here he prevents an abjection : for seeing it confessed that Christ is the redeemer of mankind, as the Gospel does teach, some man may ask the question also to salvation in Christ; and if not so, who then are restored unto salvation? To which question the answer is plain; namely, that not all, nor every man is restored to salvation by Christ, but only those who believe in him.

And that all are not saved by Christ the Mediator, is so true and so well known out of the Scriptures, as nothing more, Christ himself bearing witness: “Not everyone that says, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven”: and “Narrow is the gate, and straight is the way that leads unto life, and few there be that find it” [Mat. 7:13, 14; Mat. 25:34; Mat. 22:14.]; to this may be added the description of the last judgment, and that which he says elsewhere, “Many are called, but few are chosen,” [Mat. 22:14.].

Although nevertheless that abides true, which John affirms, that “Christ is the Propitiation for our sins, and not for ours alone, but for the sins of the whole world,” [1. Joh. 2:2.]: because Christ’s death is indeed sufficient for all mankind, but effectual only for the elect, who shall believe in his Name, to whom also he reveals the will of his Father, and whom he regenerates by his Holy Spirit, whom he preserves; and in the end shall crown with everlasting glory [Joh. 17:20; Mat. 11:27; Joh. 15:15; Joh. 6:45; Rom. 8:30.]. For John had no other purpose, but to make the sacrifice of Christ common to the whole church” [Joh. 11:52.], so that under the name (all) he comprehends not the reprobate, but notes out of those, who (as I said) should also believe, and were scattered throughout divers coasts of the world.

Jeremias Bastingius, An Exposition or Commentary Vpon the Catechisme of Christian Religion, which is taught in the Schooles and Churches both of the Low Countries, and of the Dominions of the Countie Palatine (Printed at London by Iohn Legatt, Printer to the University of Cambridge, 1614), 68-69. [Some spelling modernized, italics original, marginal references cited inline, and underlining mine.]

Read the rest of this entry »

Baxter:

1) 11. Christ is a sufficient Savior, able and willing to save only those that he died for. Supposing that he satisfied not for any Man, he is not sufficient or willing to save that Man though he should believe. How can it be said that by the sufficiency of his Ransom he is able to save them, for whom it was no Ransom? Indeed the sufficiency of Christ’s satisfaction is on principal object of that part of Faith which consists in Assent. But I shall show anon, that if any Man be bound to believe Christ’s satisfaction sufficient to justify him for whom it was never paid, he is bound to believe an untruth.  Richard Baxter, Universal Redemption of Mankind by the Lord Jesus Christ, (London: Printed for John Salusbury at the Rising Sun in Cornhill, 1694), 115-116.

2) Arg. 9^th A Sufficientia pretii pro omnibus.

If Christ died for all men quad sufficientiam pretii, then he has satisfied for all. But he died for all men, quoad sufficientiam pretii Ergo, &c. The Minor is maintained by the generality of our Ancienter Protestant Divines, who use ordinarily this distinction to solve the doubt, whether Christ died for all? viz., he died for al sufficiently, and for the Elect only effectually. And indeed this one distinction rightly understand, and this answer thence fitted, is most full and apt for the resolution of the question. The Schoolmen go the same way. The consequence of the Major proposition is acknowledged by our late most rigid Anti-Arminians, who on that reason deny the Minor. For our new Divines have utterly forsaken the old common opinion, and in stead of saying [Christ died for all men sufficienter] they will not so much as say that [His Death was sufficiens pretium pro omnibus.] For all our former Divines (and the most of these times; so far as I can discern) who acknowledge that Christ died for all men quoad sufficientiani pretii, and for the Elect quoad efficaciam; they say the same, and as much as I, and therefore I need not say much more to them.  Richard Baxter, Universal Redemption of Mankind by the Lord Jesus Christ, (London: Printed for John Salusbury at the Rising Sun in Cornhill, 1694), 133-134. [Contents within square brackets original.]

Read the rest of this entry »

Booth:

While cheerfully admitting the sufficiency of Immanuel’s death to have redeemed all mankind, had all the sins of the whole human species been equally imputed to him; and had he, as the Universal Representative, sustained that curse of the law which was due to all mankind; yet we cannot perceive any solid reason to conclude, that his propitiatory sufferings are sufficient for the expiation of sins which he did not bear, or for the redemption of sinners whom he did not represent, as a sponsor, when he expired on the cross. For the substitution of Christ, and the imputation of sin to him, are essential to the scriptural doctrine of redemption by our adorable Jesus.–We may, therefore, safely conclude, that our Lord’s voluntary substitution, and redemption by his vicarious death, are both of them limited to those, for whom he was made sin–for whom he was made a curse–and for whose deliverance from final ruin, he actually paid the price of his own blood.

Abraham Booth, “Divine Justice Essential to the Divine Character,” in The Works of Abraham Booth (London: Printed by J. Haddon, 1813), 3:61. [Underlining mine.]

[Notes: It should be kept in mind that Thomas Nettles, following Shedd’s overly generous representation of Owen, confusedly attempts to juxtapose Booth’s definition of Christ’s sufficiency over and against that of John Owen’s, when in fact, the two expressions (with regard to the extrinsic and external sufficiency), are theologically identical. The benefit of the comment from Booth lies simply in the fact that he explicitly connects the sufficiency of Christ’s satisfaction with the imputation of sin. Booth is absolutely correct, for any man for whom Christ did not sustain a direct penal relationship, there can be no sufficient satisfaction for that man, for none of the penal barriers between God and that man have not been dealt with. The sufficiency of the satisfaction with respect to that man can be nothing but a hypothetical sufficiency. That is, perhaps in other (possible world) circumstances, the satisfaction of Christ could have been sufficient for him too.  See: Thomas J. Nettles, By His Grace and For His Glory (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House), 1986, 303 and 312-313.]

Credit to Tony for bringing this to my attention

Mayhew:

Now that which I here intend is this, That Mankind have, since their Fall into a State of Sin and Death, had so much done for them, in order to their Recovery out of that miserable Estate, as thereby to be put into a State of Salvability: For otherwise there would be no Room for an Offer of Salvation to be made to them. Now Mankind, since their Apostasy, may be conceived to be in a salvable Condition in two Respects, or on a two-fold Account, (1) In Respects of the Sufficiency of God to find out and provide a Way for their Salvation, whatever seeming Difficulties, in Respect of the Threatening denounced against Sinners, and of his own Truth and Justice, seemed to lay against it; yet this notwithstanding, I say, the Wisdom, Goodness, and Power of God was such, that it was, in that Respect, possible for him to find out and provide a Way, in which such Sinners as Mankind were, might be eternally saved. But this is not what I principally here intend. Wherefore, (2) Mankind may be said to be in a salvable State, in Respect of a Price already paid, or undertaken to be paid, for their Redemption. I say, either paid

or undertaken to be paid, because this was the fame Thing in Respect of the Efficacy of the Atonement I intend. It was as available, in Respect of all the saving Ends of it, before it was actually paid, as it was afterwards; and on this Account our Savior is called the Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World. It is in Respect of this Price of Redemption, that I here affirm Mankind to be in a salvable Estate. They are so now, in Respect: of a Price already paid for them, in order to their eternal Happiness. And this I suppose to be a Truth, with Respect to all Mankind without Exception: So that though there are many who never will be saved, yet the Reason of this is not, because there is not a sufficient Price paid for their Redemption, nor because this is not a Remedy applicable to them, according to the Tenor of the new Covenant, but for other Reasons hereafter to be mentioned.

This State of Salvability, which Mankind are by me supposed to be in, has its Rise and Foundation, as I have said, in the Price of Redemption paid for them, by their grant Savior; and that this was of sufficient Value to save the whole World I here take for granted. That it was a Price laid down for all, without Exception; and, according to the Tenor of the New Covenant, applicable to any one, and to every one of the sinful Children of Men, I suppose to be a Truth clearly revealed in the Word of God; and that the Reason why it is not so generally believed so to be, is not because it is not sufficiently asserted in Scripture, but because many have, without sufficient Grounds, supposed that a Belief of this cannot be reconciled to some other Articles of Faith, which they think clearly and fully revealed: But this I shall have Occasion hereafter to confider. Experience Mayhew, Grace Defended in a Most Plea For an Important Truth; Namely, That the offer of Salvation made to Sinners in the Gospel comprises in it an Offer of the Grace given in Regeneration (Boston: Printed by B. Green, and Company, for D. Henchman, in Cornhil, 1744), 40-42.  [Some spelling modernized; underlining mine.]