Calvin:

VIII.2. God’s will that all be saved All this Pighius contradicts, adducing the opinion of Paul (I Tim 2.4): God wills all to be saved. That He does not will the death of a sinner is to be believed on His own oath where He says by the prophet: As I live, I do not will the death of a sinner, but rather that he may be converted and live (Ezek 18.23, 33.1 I). But I contend that, as the prophet is exhorting to penitence, it is no wonder that he pronounces God willing that all be saved. But the mutual relation between threats and promises shows such forms of speech to be conditional. To the Ninevites, as also to the kings of Gerar and Egypt, God declared that He would do what He was not going to do. Since by repentance they averted the punishment promised to them, it is evident that it was not firmly decreed unless they remained obstinate. Yet the denunciation had been positive, as if it were an irrevocable decree. But after terrifying and humbling them with the sense of His wrath, though not to the point of despair, He cheers them with the hope of pardon, that they might feel there was room for remedy. So again with the promises which invite all men to salvation. They do not simply and positively declare what God has decreed in His secret counsel but what He is prepared to do for all who are brought to faith and repentance. But, it is alleged, we thereby ascribe a double will to God, whereas He is not variable and not the least shadow of turning falls upon Him. What is this, says Pighius, but to mock men, if God professes to will what He does not will? But if in fairness the two are read together: I will that the sinner turn and live, the calumny is dissolved I without bother. God demands conversion from us; wherever He finds it, a man is not disappointed of the promised reward of life. Hence God is said to will life, as also repentance. But the latter He wills, because He invites all to it by His word. Now this is not contradictory of His secret counsel, by which He determined to convert none but His elect. He cannot rightly on this account be thought variable, because as lawgiver He illuminates all with the external doctrine of life, in this first sense calling all men to life. But in the other sense, He brings to life whom He will, as Father regenerating by the Spirit only His sons

Calvin, The Eternal Predestination of God (London: James Clark, 1961), 105-106.

Mayhew:

At present I will show, what is in Scripture affirmed, with Respect to the Extent of Christ’s Death, with Relation to the End and Object of it. And here, not to insist on what is said about his mediatorial Righteousness, in Rom. Chap. 5. betwixt the 12th and the 19th Verses, where his Righteousness is opposed to the Sin of the First Adam, as a sufficient Remedy against the Mischiefs and Miseries brought on Mankind by it; I shall only recite some of those Passages of Scripture, wherein the Universality of Christ’s Death, as it respects the Persons for whom he died, seems to be plainly and fully asserted. Thus we are told, that God so loved the World, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting Life, John 3. 16. That he is the Propitiation for our Sins: And not for ours only, but for the Sins of the whole World, 1 John 2. 2. That he tasted Death for every Man, Heb. 2. 9. That he gave himself a Ransom for all, 1 Tim. 2. 6. That he died for all, 2 Cor. 5. 14, 15. And that he is the Savior of all Men, especially of those that believe, 1 Tim. 4. 10.

That the most obvious Sense of these Texts of Scripture, is, That Jesus Christ died for all Men without Exception, I think very evident. Nor is it at our Liberty to recede from this, without some urgent Necessity compelling us to it, which I suppose can never be shown; but instead thereof, I will show a Necessity of taking of them in the full Latitude in which they are expressed. I do not therefore wonder, that there have been a great many eminent Divines, in the English Nation, who have been far from being Arminians, that have plainly and fully asserted Christ’s dying for all, as I could easily manifest, did I rely on human Authorities, as I do not.

Yet I shall mention one Instance of this, not so much on the Account of the Authority of the Man (though I know of no Man whose Authority would go farther in this Case) as because I think he fairly states wherein the Difference lies betwixt himself and some others, and particularly betwixt what he held and I now hold, and consequently wherein the Crisis of this Controversy does, in my Apprehension, lie.

The Person I intend is the learned Dr. Twisse: And the Book from which I shall take some Passages, is entitled, The Riches of God’s Love to the Vessels of Mercy, &c. Part 1. Page 5. “We are often demanded,” says he, “whether every one that hears the Gospel be not bound to believe that Christ died for him? Now I say this Phrase, Christ died for me, includes many Things, as the Benefits which arise unto me by the Death of Christ, may be conceived to be many. But let these Benefits be distinguished, and we shall readily answer to the Question made, and that perhaps differently, as namely, affirmatively to some, negatively to others; as thus, Do you speak of Christ’s dying for me, that is, for the Pardon of my Sins, and for the Salvation of my Soul, I answer affirmatively and say, I am bound to believe that Christ died for the procuring of these Benefits unto me, in such Manner as God hath ordained; to wit, not absolutely but conditionally, to wit, in Case I do believe and repent. For God hath not otherwise ordained, that I should reap the Benefits of Pardon and Salvation, by virtue of Christ’s Death and Passion, unless I believe in him and repent.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Sclater:

The second argument was, as I conceived it, on this manner: To faith justifying, all men are bound: To particular persuasion, of God’s will to pardon sins, all are not bound: For God binds no man to believe an untruth: there are some of whom it never was, nor shall be true, that God will pardon their sins as Reprobates: Ergo. Answ. That which is the ground of his Argument I confess I found amongst our Divines, more resolutely determined, then distinctly explained. Their conclusion is, that all men, even Reprobates, are bound to believe, that they are in Christ Elected to Salvation [Zanch. de natura Dei, lib. 5.c.2.]. These reasons seem to make against it. First, for that there are, and ever have been many, to whom the name of Christ, or the benefits in him conveyed unto us, were never known. And Paul seems to say “of such, as sin without the Law, they shall perish without the law.” By proportion we may say, “They that sin without the Gospel, shall perish without the Gospel.” The not giving credit thereto shall not be imputed to their condemnation, in as much as it was never revealed unto them. By consequence therefore, there is no bond upon their conscience to believe. Moreover, particular assent rises from that particular Testimony of God’s Spirit with ours, Rom. 8:16. Which who can say to be vouchsafed to Reprobates? But yield ex abundanti that Reprobates at least in the Church are bound to believe it. What then? Answ. An untruth in the thing, No untruth to them, except by their own default; because, that howsover God has revealed that there are some Reprobates; Yet reveals he to no man, in this life, his own Reprobation. And as the rule of our actions is not God’s secret, but revealed will; so the rule, and measure of Faith is not truth secreted, but truth revealed. S^t. Augustine sticks not to say, that a man may will what is contrary to the will of God [August. Enchirid. Laurent.]. He means his secret will, and yet in so willing Not sin. For example, A child in the mortal disease of his father, may desire the life of his father; such desire the proves contrary to the will of God; yet is no sin; because God’s will revealed warrants such desire to us. Let us see, whether we may find some semblance i this the point of Believing. In Hezekiah his sickness, the Lord sends Isaiah with that message: “Thou must die,” [Isa. 38.]. An untruth in the event, and according to God’s secret purpose; yet can we doubt, but Hezekiah therein was bound to give credit to the Prophet? Similiter, To make full answer: Thus let us conceive; Look as God’s promises are propound to be believed in the particulars; so and no otherwise are we bound to believe them. How are they propounded? Hypothetically, rather, then Categorically; with limitation, rather than Absolutely. For example, How to believe, I shall be saved? To wit, Hypothetically: if I keep precisely the way that leads unto life. Separate the Hypothesis, either in mine understanding, or practice, I am bound not to believe it. For there is no mandate in the word, that types an impenitent sinner, so continuing, to believe, that his sins are forgiven; nay, there is something equivalent to a mandate, enjoining, in such case, to believe the contrary; inasmuch as God has revealed, that he will not be merciful to such an one, as goes on still in his wickedness. The sum is this, Reprobates are bound to particular faith Hypothetically; Absolutely they are not bound. Shall we say now, their binding to such belief binds them to believe an untruth? Nothing less. For it is true, of every particular, “if he repent, His sins shall be forgiven him:” This is even true, and thus only are promises propounded to faith of particulars. And it is never true, that God will pardon any man’s sins except he repent, and believe the Gospel. Thus far by the way, in answer to these Arguments; rather wittily couched, then foundly concluding the purpose.

William Sclater, An Exposition on The Whole Fourth Chapter to the Romanes (London: Printed by J.L. for Christopher Meredith at the sign of the Crane in Pauls Church-yard, 1650), 173-174.

[Notes: Some spelling modernized, some reformatting; underlining mine. I have edited some of Sclater’s frequent use of the colon, replacing it with a period which is followed by a new sentence. Sclater is here cited primarily for his recognition of Zanchi’s position, rather than his particular rebuttal. Lastly, I would suspect that Sclater has misread Zanchi on this point, as it is probable that when Zanchi claimed that “all men are bound to believe they are elected”: this was an election according to the revealed will. That is, all men must believe they are appointed to life, in and by the Gospel, such that no man may exclude himself from salvation.  And this “appointment” or “election” to life is conditional, or hypothetical to use more classic terminology.]

Kimedoncius:

The 8, Testimony,
Musculus.

The same thing I say of Musculus, whose judgment who so looked into, I know very well he will marvel at Huber’s wit, and at his desire and captious kind of speaking to pervert all things. These are his words: “That the grace of remission of sins is appointed for all mortal men,” [De remiss. pecc. q.2. Thes. 86.] This Huber catching at greedily, sets in his book in great letters: but maliciously altogether pulled away from the words following, wherein lies the meaning of that saying: to wit, that, “the grace of remission of sins is appointed for all mortal men, as far forth as the Gospel is to be preached to every creature, and the mercy of God is to be set forth to all.”  And so Musculus understands the sayings: “So God loved the world,” “Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole word: not that remission of sins by the grace of God befalls all, without difference of believers and unbelievers:” which is the opinion of the adversary, and not of Musculus. Nay thus he testifies openly: “If we consider them, who by the grace of God obtain remision of their sins, as of the elect: so of those also there is a small number in respect of the reprobates, whose sins he says are for ever retained.” Let the same man also be weighed, loco de Redemp. where he says: “We know that all men are not partakers of this redemption.” Again says he: “Men reprobate and desparately wicked recieve not redemption.” The contrary hereof  Huber with full mouth avouches, “that all by Christ are made partakers of redemption: that all receive it, but that the reprobates havin once received it do lose it again.”

Three reasons
of Musculus
why redemption
is universal.

Nevertheless, according to the reasons assigned of Musculus, this redemption is rightly termed universal. 1. Because it comes not to pass by the defect of grace, that many do perish, but by the defect of faith, seeing grace is prepared for all, to wit that do not refuse it, as all things were ready for the marriage. 2. Because all are called unto it. 3. Because so it is appointed for all, that no man without it can be redeemed. Where now he does understand this appointing otherwise than before: yet rightly, because albeit many are not redeemed nor justified, yet all by Christ are redeemed and justified, because no man is redeemed but by him. Of all which things plainly appears, that Musculus, as well as others, is against the adversary, and nothing at all on his side.

Iacob Kimedoncius, Of The Redemption of Mankind (London: Imprinted by Felix Kingston for Hvmfrey Lownes, 1598),  144-145.      [Some reformatting, some spelling modernized, marginal comments and citations included, underlining mine.]

[Notes: While Musculus does not directly speak of a conditonal predestination, the idea here flows from the same theological sentiment. All men are appointed to life by the revealed will and that through the call of the Gospel. Grace and remission of sins have been prepared for all. Regarding Huber (otherwise known as Huberus), he was a Universalist advocating that all men will finally be saved. Kimedoncius (as with Ursinus in his time) confronted this heresy. Huber for his part attempted to cite various orthodox Reformed and Lutheran theologians to sustain his argument. In this work, Kimedoncius seeks to demonstrate how Huber has misquoted the good men he cites.  For more from Musculus go here for the main file, and here for Marlorate’s numerous quotations from Musculus.]