Calamy:

2. Let us put things together, and take notice, that general grace and special are very reconcilable: For God may be so far willing of the salvation of all, as to be ready to shew mercy to them if they repent and believe; from which they are hindered by nothing but their own wilfulness: And yet he may be so much farther intent on the salvation of some, as to use effectual means to bring them to repent and believe, to will and run, that so they may be secured within the compass of his special mercy. The Scripture appears clear as to both; and where’s the inconsistency? why must we deny general grace to exalt that which is special? or deny and depress special grace, to advance that which is general? Is not the honor of God’s special grace and mercy sufficiently secured by our acknowledging that it is that that brings any of the fallen race of Adam to will and run, and so makes the difference between them and the rest of the world, who live and die in their unbelief and impenitency? and is not this very consistent with our owning that God so loved the world in general; as that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish, but might have everlasting Life? And on the other side, is not general grace sufficiently secured by our maintaining god’s love to the world, and his willing the salvation of all men, on condition they turn to him? And is not this consistent with our owning that a special divine excitation alone can bring any that are in a state of corruption, to will and run in the ways of God? And that he takes away the heart of stone, and gives an heart of flesh to all that become his real people? And why then should we go about to dash these truths against each other which are fairly consistent, and agree well together? Let us beware of extremes: and stand upon our guard, least for fear of one error, we fall into another.

Edmund Calamy, Divine Mercy Exalted: Or, Free Grace in its Glory (London: Printed for Tho. Parkhurst at the Bible and 3 Crowns in Cheapside; J. Robinson at the Golden Lion in St. Pauls Church-yard, and J. Lawrence at the Angel in the Poultry, 1703), 44–45. [Some spelling modernized; italics original; and underlining mine.] [The reader should keep in mind that this is not the Edmund Calamy of the Westminster Assembly, known as Edmund Calamy the Elder.]

Credit to Tony for the find.

Overall:

So that out of the side of Christ’s dying upon the Cross, not only the Sacraments of the Church, but likewise all saving Goods and Graces must be understood to flow. And this opinion is so manifest in the Scriptures, that Calvin has every where interpreted them of All. Thus upon Heb. 9.20 he says, that [Many] is taken for [All.] So again upon Rom. 5.18, 19. “It is certain,” says he, “that all men do not receive advantage from the death of Christ, but then this is owing to their own infidelity that hinders them (who was otherwise sufficiently rigid about Predestination) in explaining those very places, which others brought to take away the universality of Christ’s death (as in some it is said that he died for Many). Which words do plainly enough favor the common opinion.

John Overall, “The Opinion of the Church of England Concerning Predestination,” in A Defence of the Thirty Nine Articles of the Church of England by John Ellis (London: Printed for H. Bonwicke, T. Goodwin, M. Wotton, S. Manship, and B. Tooke, 1700), 133. [Italics original and underlining mine.]

Overall:

Therefore it must not be said, that this which is so clear in it self [that Christ died for all] ought to be explained from an extravagant and rigid Conception of Secret Predestination; but we are rather to interpret that Secret by a thing which is plain in itself; that so it may be truly consistent with what was rightly enough delivered in a common Saying of the Schools, That Christ died for All sufficiently; For the Elect and Believers effectually: Had they not corrupted their meaning by the following Hypothesis: The Death of Christ had been sufficient for All, if God and Christ had so intended.”

John Overall, “The Opinion of the Church of England Concerning Predestination,” in A Defence of the Thirty Nine Articles of the Church of England by John Ellis (London: Printed for H. Bonwicke, T. Goodwin, M. Wotton, S. Manship, and B. Tooke, 1700), 133-134. [Original italics removed; italics mine; and underlining mine.]

[Notes: 1) The subject here is theology behind the classic Lombardian sufficiency-efficiency formula. 2) Overall makes the proper point that for some, the secret will had become the ground and baseline from which our understanding of God’s predestination was mediated and understood. Rather, Overall wants  his readers to locate the grounds of our knowledge of God’s predestination (and plan of salvation by implication) in the revealed will. The revealed should mediate our knowledge of the secret will, and not the other way around. It cannot be denied that all lapsarian speculations thoroughly inverted the natural biblical order and original spirit of the first Reformers on this point.  3) Overall appears to be the earliest, whom we have documented, who rightly spots and condemns the emerging revision of the Lombardian formula. This revision he calls, and accurately so, a corruption. 4) More importantly, Overall correctly notes that the revised formula converts an actual sufficiency into a bare hypothetical sufficiency. Again, this insight from Overall is the earliest example of this critique that we have been able to document so far.]

Lorimer:

1) (4thly.) Yet by some Passages in his¹ letter, we guess that he points at the controversy about the extent of Christ’s 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 controversy. Secondly, declare briefly what our opinion is, as to that matter. And for the state of the controversy:

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 Christ’s death, gives a common sufficient grace to them all, whereby they may all (if they will) apply to themselves the virtue of Christ’s 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 extreme.

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 has. This is the other extreme. 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 extreme 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 controversy.

Read the rest of this entry »