Polhill:

4. Grace is in a very eminent manner lifted up in the gospel. Grace gives Christ, and faith to believe in him. Grace justifies and sanctifies. Grace saves, and crowns with a blessed immortality. Everywhere in the gospel sounds forth, grace, grace! but if God might not justly have stood upon the old terns, the giving of new ones to man was not grace, but debt; not mercy, but justice. Those novatores who say, that it would have been unjust for God to have condemned Adam’s posterity for the first sin, do thereby overturn the grace of the gospel. The apostle, who is much rather to be believed, says expressly, “That by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation,” (Rom. v. 18;) that is, according to the terms of the old covenant; but if the old terms might not have been stood upon, the new ones must be necessary and due to mankind, and so no grace at all. They who deny the justice of the old covenant, overturn the grace of the new.

God, as we see, might have stood upon the old terms, even to the utter ruin of fallen mankind. But oh! immense love! He would not; he would do so with angels, but he would not with men; an abasement was made to them, not afforded to those nobler creatures, once inmates of heaven. In the case of Sodom, God came down lower and lower, from fifty righteous persons to forty-live; and so at last to ten: “I will not do it for ten’s sake.” (Gen. xviii. 32.) But in the case of fallen man, when all had sinned, when there was none righteous, no, not one, God comes down from !the first terms made with man, to such lower ones as might comply with his frailty. Under the law there were sacrifices called by the Jewish doctors, gnoleh vajored, ascending and descending. The rich man offered a lamb; the poor, whose hand could not reach so far offered two turtle doves. While man was rich in holy powers and excellencies, God called for pure, perfect, sinless obedience; but after the fall, he being poor in spirituals, altogether unable to pay such a sum, God stoops and accommodates himself to human weakness; a faithful conatus a sincere though imperfect obedience, will serve the turn in order to man’s happiness. This is the first step which infinite mercy takes in raising up man out of the ruins of the fall; the old terms were not stood upon.

But now, that new terms might be made find established, that the second covenant might have an happier issue than the first, mercy goes on to give the Son of God for us: “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John iii. 16.) This (so) is unutterable, this love immeasurable, diffusing itself, not to Jews only, but to a world, and that overwhelmed in sin; giving, and that freely, without any merit of ours, a Son, and an only begotten Son, that we through faith in him might have life eternal, and there enjoy him who is love itself, forever. Here is a mine of love too deep and rich for any creature to fathom, or count the value of it. But before I open it, I shall first remove the il use which the Socinians make of this love, to overturn Christ’s satisfaction. If God, say they,¹ so loved us, as to give his Son for us, then he was not angry with us; and if not angry, then there was no need at all of a satisfaction to be made for us. Unto which I answer, anger and love are not inconsistencies; in Scripture hath are attributed unto God: He gave his Son for us: was not. that love, immense love? He wounded and bruised him for our iniquities: he made him to be sin and a curse for us: was not there wrath, great wrath? We have both together in one text: “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” (1 John iv. 10,) The high emphasis of his love, was in giving his Son to be a propitiation for us: unless there had been a just anger, a propitiation would have been needless: unless there had been immense love, his Son should not have been made one of us. We have a plain instance in Job’s friends; God’s wrath was kindled against them, and yet in love he directs them to atone him by a sacrifice. (Job xlii. 7. 8.) God could not but be angry at the sin of the world, and yet in love he gave his Son to be an expiatory sacrifice.

Edward Polhill, “A View of Some Divine Truths,” in The Works of Edward Polhill (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1998), 19-20. [Some spelling modernized; and underlining mine.]

______________________

¹Soc. de Ser,” i,l, c, 7, Sclicting, cantr, Mein.

Davies:

Thus you see the death of Christ may be called the great price with which we are bought, and by which all spiritual and everlasting blessings were bought for us. As for believers, it is beyond all dispute that they have been thus dearly bought; and on this account they are not their own, but God’s. They are his on the footing of redemption; and therefore he has the strongest claim to their service. O! shall not those favored creatures whom he has redeemed from hell, redeemed from sin and Satan, redeemed with the precious blood of his Son, devote themselves to their Deliverer as his servants for ever? Can you bear the thought of withholding his own from him, when he redeemed you when lost, and purchased a right to you by the blood of his Son? one drop of which is of more value than a thousand worlds!

A thousand worlds so bought were bought too dear.

Must not the love of Christ constrain you, as it did St. Paul, to judge thus: That if this illustrious personage “died for you, then you that live should no longer live to yourselves, but to him that died for you and rose again:” 2 Cor. v. 14, 15.

Thus, you see, the argument concludes with full force as to believers, who are indisputably purchased by the blood of Christ. But will it conclude also as to those who are now unbelievers? Were they so redeemed, or bought by Jesus Christ, that they are no longer their own but God’s, and upon that footing obliged to devote themselves to him? There is hardly any subject in divinity more intricate than the extent of Christ’s redemption; and it would by no means suit the present occasion to perplex a practical discourse with this controversy. I shall, therefore, only lay down a few principles which are indisputable, and will fully answer my present design.

(1.) As to those who believe that Christ laid down his life as a price for the redemption of every individual of mankind, the argument concludes with full force; for by their own confession they are bought with a price, and therefore they are not their own, but God’s.

(2.) You all hope that Jesus Christ died for you: unless you have this hope, you can have no hope at all of being saved according to the gospel; for the gospel allows you no hopes of salvation at all, but upon the supposition of Christ’s dying for you. Have you, then, any hope of salvation? Undoubtedly you have; for you do not look upon yourselves as shut up under remediless despair. Well then, just as much hope as you have of salvation, just so much hope you have that Christ died for you; and consequently, upon your own principle, you are so far obliged to act as persons bought with a price, and therefore not your own but God’s; that is, as far as you hope for heaven, so far are you obliged to devote yourselves to God as his, and no longer to live to yourselves. And if you deny his claim to you upon the footing of redemption, you renounce all hope, and give yourselves over as lost and hopeless. And what can bind you more strongly than this? Will you rather rush into despair, and fling yourselves headlong into ruin, than acknowledge God’s right, and behave as those that are his, and not your own?

(3.) I venture to assert that Christ died for every man, in such a sense as to warrant all that hear the gospel to regard the offer of salvation by his death as made to them without distinction; and to oblige all indefinitely to embrace that offer, or to believe in him, and to conduct themselves towards him as one that, by his death, placed them under a dispensation of grace. Therefore, all are obliged to behave themselves towards him as their Redeemer, and to own that he has a right. to them upon the footing of redemption. This is sufficient to my present purpose: for if this be the case, then I may enter a claim to you all, in the name of God, as his property: and you cannot refuse to resign yourselves to him, without denying the Lord that bought you. He claims your souls and bodies as his due, and requires you to glorify him with both, upon the footing of redemption.

Samuel Davies,  “Dedication to God Argued from Redeeming Mercy,” in Sermons on Important Subjects (New York: Robert Carter, 1845), 2:84-86. [Some reformatting; underlining mine.]

Wycliffe:

¶The first parable stondith in a question of Crist [Christ]; he axith [asked] which man of hem [them] hadde an hundrid shepe to kepe, and he were nedid [needed] to save hem [them] ech on, and he hadde lost oon [one] of hem [them]; ne wolde he not leeve fourescore and nyntene in a sikir deserte and go and seke pis lost sheep til pat he fond it ; and when he haddefounden it, wolde leien it on his shuldris wip joie and whanne he comep hoom, he clepep [called] togidre his frendis and neigboris, and seith to hem, Be ye gladde and panke me, for Y [I] have founde my sheep that was perishid. Certis [Certain] Y [I] seie to you that there shal be joie in hevene upon oon [one] synful man pat doith penaunce, he tho more than upon foure score and nyntene rigt-wise that have no nede of penaunce. This man is Jesus Crist that was of the Jewis, and he was herty [hearty] and wyse and hadde in his kepynge the aungelis confirmed in hevene, and with hem [them] mankynde. Nynty and nyne bitokeneth thes aungelis, for thes nyne ordres that ben knytted in Crist; and this oo [one] sheep is mankynde, that acordith more to-gider than these nyne ordres of aungels. This oo [one] sheep that was lost perishide by synne of Adam, as the psalme seith. Hevene is clepid [called] disert by many enchesouns, for it is selde visited of men, that slowly comen thidir, and it is not tilid as is erthe here with us, and it is florishid with goostly trees that evermore ben grene, for grenesse in virtues may nevere faile in hevene. And this is a sykyr place; for fendis tempten men not there. Crist lefte this aungel kynde dwellyng in hevene; for Crist toke not angels kynde but toke here mannis kynde, and bi his greet virtue he suffride peyne as other men thre and thitty [thirty] yeer [year], and brougt mankynde to hevene, and bade the aungelis his frendis, and man next him in manhede, rejoyeshe hem [them] with him, for he hadde saved mankynde that was perishide. And bi this aungels in hevene, mankynde, and feendis, shulde be gladde bi resoun [reason]; for the more that ben dampned the more is fendis peyne, and thus is more joie in hevene of this oo [one] sheep, than of nyne ordris of aungels that neden noo penaunce, for the synneden nevere.

This o [one] sheep that is mankynde synede for the more parte, and was quykid [quickened] bi Crist, that was oon [one] with his bretheren; and he, algif he mygte not synnen, suffride peyne for his sheep. And more joie is in hevene of him and his membris than of nyne ordris of angelis, for thei ben beter and lyveden more medefully as trewe knygts of God.

The seconde parable of Crist stondith in this, that a wyse womman that hadde ten dragmes, if she hadde lost oon [one], she wolde Iigtne her lanterne, turne up hir house to seke this lost dragme, and whan she hadde founden it, she wolde make joie as it was seid bifore of him that lost th sheep.

–¶ This womman is Jesus Crist, wysdom of the fadir [Father]; these ten dragmes ben his resonable creaturis, for thei ben maid alle to ymage and licnesse of the Trinite. The tenthe dragme that was lost is mankynde, the lanterne that was ligtid [lit] is the manhede [manhood] of Crist, the turning up of this house is changinge of statis that ben maid in this world by manhede of Crist. For the angel wolde not suffren [suffer] Joon [John] to knele and worshipe him, for his lord was Joones [John’s] brothir, and the aungelis weren hise servauntis; and so many thingis of this world weren turnid [turned] up so down, sith evry parte of this worlde was beterid [bettered] bi Cristis [Christ’s] manhede.

We may touche in this gospel what spedith men and what thing lettith [prevents] men for to be saved, for men mote [must] nede do penaunce in berynge of this sheep, and have ligt of this lanterne for to fynde this lost dragme.

John Wyclif, Select English Works, ed. by Thomas Arnold (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1869), 1:8-9. [Some reformating, orginal italics removed; and underlining mine.]

[Notes: 1), I have retained all the original font/type characters except for 2 characters. The original typeset character “Þ,” I have converted to “th” for the ease of reading. One other symbol I have replaced  either with “g” or “y” where appropriate, or even deleted; as in the case of gif or yif, meaning “if”. This symbol has no corresponding font or symbol that I can find on my font and symbol maps. 2) In some places I have inserted the modern equivalent in square brackets. 3) There are some words which I am still not able to decipher; 4), Lastly, a question has been raised by one academic that none we have in English was written by Wycliffe himself, in spite the of the compelling circumstantial evidence to the contrary. Even if this claim was correct, it is more than probable that these sermons were based on Wycliffe’s Latin sermons.]