Fergusson:

8. As all men are guilty of their conception, Psal. 51:5, and therefore, in the course of divine justice, liable to the stroke of God’s vindictive wrath and justice, and this by nature also; So the misery of unregenerate men is never sufficiently seen, until it be traced up to this bitter root and fountain, even the sin and misery wherein they were born: for, saying they were children of wrath by nature, implies they were also sinners by nature; seeing wrath does always follow sin, and this he serves last, as that which was the root, fountain and head-stone of all their misery; And were by nature the children of wrath.

9. Though those, who are born within the visible Church, have a right to Church-priviledges even from their birth, and by nature, which others have not (See Gal. 2. Vers. 15. Doct. 1.), yet all men, whether born within, or within the Church, are alike by nature, sa to the point of original sin inherent in all, which wrath is due to all: for, says he, speaking fo the Jews, We were by nature the children of wrath, even as others, by which others he mean the unchurched Gentiles.

James Fergusson, A Brief Exposition of the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians, (London: Printed for the Company of Stationers, 1659), 89-90.

De Jong:

Hoeksema has always maintained that there are four indispensable elements which constitute the idea of offer. First of all, the term contains the idea of an honest and sincere desire on the part of the offerer to give something. Without such an earnest will and desire on the part of him who makes the offer, the offer would not be honest or upright. Second, there is included in the idea of offer the fact that the offerer possesses that which he extends to some person(s). In the event of acceptation the offerer must be in a position to impart that which is offered. Third, the offerer reveals by his offer the desire that it be accepted. This means that God “de ernstige begeerte openbaart, dat alle menschen zullen zalig worden, ieder, hoofd voor haofd on ziel voar ziel.”  Four, the one who offers something does so either unconditionally, or upon the condition that he is aware that the recipients of the offer are able to fulfill the condition. This would imply that God knows that all men are able to accept the offer of grace. If anyone of these elements is eliminated from the concept, the idea of offer is no longer retained. It is apparent that so conceived the idea of a gospel offer would deny such Biblical truths as unconditional election, limited atonement, total depravity and irresistible grace.

A.C. de Jong, The Well-Meant Gospel Offer: The Views of H. Hoeksema and K Schilder, (Franeker: T. Wever, 1954), 43.  [C.f., de Jong on the offer.]

Hardy:

Suitably hereunto it is that divines conceive a double covenant to be intimated in Scripture—the one universal and conditional, the other special and absolute; the one made with all, and every man, upon these terms, ‘Whosoever believeth in Christ shall not perish,’ John iii. 16; the other made with Christ concerning a seed which he should see upon making his soul an offering for sin, Isa. liii. 10, to whom he promiseth not only salvation by Christ upon condition of believing, but the writing his law in their hearts, Heb. x. 16, whereby they are enabled to perform the condition, and so infallibly partake of that salvation. By all which, it appeareth that notwithstanding God’s special affection, and decree of election whereby he hath purposed this propitiation shall be actually conferred upon some, we may truly assert, God hath a general love whereby he hath ordained the death of Christ an universal remedy applicable to every man as a propitiation for his sins, if he believe and repent. And hence it is that this propitiation, as it is applicable, so it is annunciable to every man. Indeed, as God hath not intended it should be actually applied, so neither that it should be so much as actually revealed to many men; but yet it is, as applicable, so annunciable, both by virtue of the general covenant God hath made with all, and that general mandate he hath given to his ministers of preaching the gospel to all, so that if any minister could go through all the parts of the world, and in those parts singly, from man to man, he might not only with a conjectural hope, but with a certain faith, say to him, God hath so loved thee that he gave his only son, that if thou believe in him, thou shalt not perish; and that this is not barely founded upon the innate sufficiency of Christ’s death, but the ordination of God, appeareth in that we cannot, may not, say so to any of the fallen angels, for whom yet, as you have already heard, Christ’s death is instrinsically sufficient.

Nathanael Hardy, The First General Epistle of St John the Apostle, Unfolded and Applied (Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1865), 141. [Underlining mine.] [This is reprint from the original 1654 edition. Hardy was an Anglican Puritan in the spirit of John Davenant.]

Credit to Tony for finding Hardy

From the Minutes of the Westminster Assembly:

Mr. Calamy–I am far from universal redemption in the Arminian sense; but that that I hold is in the sense of our divines in the Synod of Dort, 2 that Christ did pay a price for all–absolute intention for the elect, conditional intention for the reprobate in case they do believe,–that all men should be salvabiles, non obstante lapsu Adami… that Jesus Christ did not only die sufficiently for all, but God did intend, in giving of Christ, and Christ in giving Himself, did intend to put all men in a state of salvation in case they do believe.

Mr. Palmer–He would distinguish from the Arminians; they say all equally redeemed, but not so the other, and

Mr. Reynolds–This opinion cannot be asserted by any that can say he is not of the Remonstrants’ opinion… upon a condition that they cannot perform, and God never intends to give them.

Mr. Calamy–The Arminians hold that Christ did pay a price for this intention only, that all men should be in an equal state of salvation. They say Christ did not purchase any impetration…. This universality of Redemption] doth neither intrude upon either doctrine of special election or special grace.

Mr. Seaman–It is nothing whether the opinion of Remonstrants or not. We must debate the truth and falsehood of it…. He doth not say a salvability quoad homines, but quoad Deum … so far reconciled Himself to the world, that He would have mercy on whom He would have mercy.

Mr. Palmer–I desire to know whether he will understand it de omni homine.

Mr. Calamy–De adultis.

Mr. Whitakers…

Mr. Young–This controversy, when first started in the Church, they used a distinction: they said it was pro natura humana…. In the application he expresseth it only electis. Some speak of the former branch as that…

Mr. Gillespie–Nothing to the thing itself; but for the state of the question, let more be looked upon than that expressed in the proposition, because there is a concatenation of the death of Christ with the decrees; therefore we must see what they hold concerning that which in order goes before and what in order follows after…. Camero[n] saith for all upon condition of believing, but Amyrauld he hath drawn it further. . . . Whether he hold an absolute reprobation of all that shall not be saved…. A parte post what follows upon that conditional redemption.

Mr. Calamy–In the point of election, I am for special election; and for reprobation, I am for massa corrupta…. Those to whom He… by virtue of Christ’s death, there is ea administratio of grace to the reprobate, that they do willfully damn themselves. I neither hold sufficient grace nor special grace.

Mr. Marshall–For order, you shall not need to know what this or that man’s opinion is; if you dispute the thesis, you will state it so as that it rejects all contrary opinions.

Mr. Reynolds–The Synod intended no more than to declare the sufficiency of the death of Christ; it is pretium in se, of sufficient value to all, nay, ten thousand worlds. There are two Adams, one a fountain of misery, and the other of mercy…. To be salvable is a benefit, and therefore belongs only to them that have interest in Christ.

Mr. Seaman–All in the first Adam were made liable to damnation, so all liable to salvation in the second Adam.

Mr. Calamy–I argue from the III. of John 16, In which words a ground of God’s intention of giving Christ, God’s love to the world, a philanthropy the world of elect and reprobate, and not of elect only; It cannot be meant of the elect, because of that ‘whosoever believes’ .  .  .  xvi. Mark, 15. ‘Go preach the gospel to every creature.’ If the covenant of grace be to be preached to all, then Christ redeemed, in some sense, all–both elect and reprobate; but it is to be preached to all; there is a warrant for it. . . . For the minor, if the universal redemption be the ground of the universal promulgation, then . . . the minor, else there is no verity in promulgation. All God’s promulgations are serious and true. . . . Faith doth not save me, but only as an instrument to apply Christ. There is no verity in the universal offer except founded in the . . .

Mr. Rutherford–All the argument comes to this: there can be no truth in this proposition except this be first granted, that Christ died in some sense. . . . I deny this connection . . . be[cause] it holds as well in election, justification, as in redemption; if he believe, he is as well elected and justified as redeemed.

Mr. Calamy–We do not speak of the application, for then It would bring it in, but we speak of the offer. It cannot be offered to Judas except he be salvable.

Alex Mitchell and John Struthers, Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster Assembly of Divines (London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1874), 152-154. C.f., Chad B. Van Dixhoorn’s new edition of the minutes, Reforming the Reformation: Theological Debate at the Westminster Assembly, 1643-1652, 6:202-204.

Read the rest of this entry »