[comments below]

Baxter:1

1) Prop. XL. Faith is a fruit of the Death of Christ, (and so is all the good which we do enjoy): But not directly as it is a Satisfaction to justice; but only Remotely, as it proceeds from that jus Dominii which Christ has received, to send the Spirit in what measure and to whom he will, and to succeed it accordingly; and as it is necessary to the attainment of the further ends of his Death, in the certain gathering and saving of the Elect. So that most directly it flows from the good pleasure of God and the Redeemer, which we call Predestination. So that is is an unmeet Speech (and such as Scripture never uses) to say, that [Christ died to purchase us Faith] though it be a Fruit of his Purchase. As if a Prince should Ransom or Buy a condemned Malefactor, agreeing and resolving that yet he shall not be saved, if he will spit in his Redeemers Face and refuse him and his kindness. And if it be known that this Malefactor is so desperately wicked, that he will thus reject and abuse his Redeemer and refuse his kindness, except the Prince send a bosom Friend to persuade him, who is the most powerful and irresistible Orator in the World: If the Prince because he is resolved neither to lose the Man, nor his Price of Ransom, doth send this Orator with a Charge that he shall take no denial, nor cease till he have procured the Malefactors consent; is it a convenient Speech to say, that he gave his Ransom Money to purchase the Malefactors consent to be delivered? Or to cure his wicked nature? No: Yet it is true that his Price was a ground-work and Preparative to this effect; so is it in our present Case. Richard Baxter, Universal Redemption of Mankind by the Lord Jesus Christ, (London: Printed for John Salusbury at the Rising Sun in Cornhill, 1694), 42-43. [Some spelling modernized; italics original; bracketed inserts original; and underlining mine.]                                                                                      [Credit to Tony for this find.]

2) The second Argument against Universal Satisfaction answered.

Arg. II, Christ hath purchased Faith infallibly to be given to all that he died (or satisfied) for: But Christ hath not purchased Faith infallibly to be given to all men, but only to the Elect, Therefore Christ died not for all men, but only for the Elect.

The Major is thus proved. Christ hath purchased all things necessary to the Salvation of all he died for: But Faith infallibly to be given, is necessary to their Salvation, Ergo, &c.

The Major is thus proved, Christ is a perfect Savior to all those to whom he is a Savior or Redeemer: Therefore he hath purchased for them all things necessary to their Salvation. The Minor of the main Argument is proved by experience.

Ans. The Major is not true, nor can be proved from Scripture; but the contrary may abundantly be proved. The argument by which they would prove the Major, is sick of the same disease; viz. Its Major is false: and the Minor if not well explained is false too. To the Major I say,

First, Christ hath done all that belonged to him as a Redeemer by dying, or as a Satisfier, or all that for which properly an expiatory Sacrifice was required, far all those for whom he died: But I shall anon show that the thing in question is not such.

Secondly, Christ did not purchase all things necessary to Salvation, for all that he died for: I wait the proof of the affirmative. In the mean time I mind the arguers, that themselves confess.

1. He did not purchase Predestination.

2. Nor that Love which caused God to send Christ.

3. Nor Creation and our Natural Being.

4. Nor his own Death and Merits: He purchased not these for any man.

For the Minor, if it mean. [Personal Faith] which it saith is necessary to Salvation; It is not true of Infants: If it mean the same Faith, which now is necessary to our Justification (to believe that Jesus is the Christ, that he Died, Rose, Ascended, &c.) this was not necessary to the Salvation of all before Christ’s Incarnation. As to the Argument by which they would prove the Major, I answer to it.

I. To the Major, by distinguishing [Christ is called a perfect Savior] in several respects.

1. As to his plenary Power and Authority: so we confess he is a perfect Savior.

1, As to the sufficiency of his Satisfaction, or expiatory Sacrifice, or of whatsoever he was to do as satisfier of Justice: and so I confess he is a perfect Savior. And do not all the opposers confess that Christ’s Death was sufficient for All men? and all till a few of late do confess that Christ died for all men quoad sufficientiam pretii: And if it be sufficient for all men, even for those that perish, then he is quoad satisfactionis vel pretii sufficientiam a perfect Savior to all men: For they perish not through any Imperfection or Insufficiency in Christ’s Satisfaction or Sacrifice.

3. Or else it is in regard of the Application of his benefits, and conveyance of the fruits of his Death, that he is said to be [a perfect Savior to all that he died for.]

And so 1. Distinguish still of the term [Savior] as it signifies [a satisfier of Justice, or Redemptor per sacrificium expiatorium] Christ is perfect quoad opus, as to his Work; and not only in himself and ability, and the material sufficiency of his Sacrifice: but, this is not to the present point.

2. A [a Savior] signifies, an actual Deliverer, by personal application and collation of his benefits; so again Christ is to be considered in a double Relation.

1. As Dominus Absolutus ex novo Jure Redemptionis.

2. Ut Rector per leges ex eodem novo Jure: As he is become the Absolute Owner or Proprietary of all: Or as he is become the Rector and so the Legislator, (for under one of these two respects he makes over all his benefits.)

II. And accordingly you must distinguish of those benefits which Christ is to convey as Rector per Leges; and those which be is to convey as Dominus Absolutus, and as above or besides his Laws arbitrarily without pre-engagement. And so I answer, that Christ doth all that belongs to him as Legislator and Rector according to the Tenor of the New Law and Covenant, perfectly to all, as well as to the Elect: But he doth not all that he may do, (and mans necessity requires that he should do) as absolute Proprietary or Owner; either to all, or equally to the Elect: yet is he not therefore an imperfect Savior: For that belongs not to the making of him a perfect Savior, though it belong to the perfection of the Sinners Salvation. And therefore the consequence of this Enthymeme is denied on these grounds.

That these things may be yet more clear, I shall briefly open a little further, the Nature of these distinctions, and the difference between these several effects of Christ’s Death; and so show you that be is a perfect Savior though he give not Faith to all that he died for; having showed you in what sense Christ may be said to have purchased for us the Habit or Act of Faith. For I find that a good explication lets in more light into the understanding, and prepares it more for the entertainment of Truth, than doth the most subtle Argumentation.

And 1. You must understand that the first main distribution of the Works of Christ in our Redemption (comprising the whole) is into the work which he did for the satisfying of Gods Justice, in offering himself a Sacrifice for sin.

2. And those which were to be done hereupon, for the sake of this: and that,

I. By God the Father.

1. To Christ, (accepting his sacrifice, acquitting him, making him owner and R

2. To us, Delivering us.

1. From our Legal necessity of Perishing.

2. To Christ as our Lord and Ruler, to be dealt with on terms that have a tendency to our recovery.

II. By Christ the Redeemer, who being thus made both Owner and Rector of us all, doth according to these two respects give out all the following Fruits of his death to Mankind. So that Christ’s first work of satisfaction which is terminated as it were on God, is a perfect entire work of it self. And (as Dr. Ames says in the place before cited, Anti-Bellarm.) it is to the work of Grace, as Creation is to the work of Nature.

And therefore as none can deny but the Non-Elect have common grace, as Conditional Pardon, Illumination, the Holy Ghost, &c. (else how do they turn grace into wantonness?) so none can well deny but they have it from the general Fountain of Redemption.

Let us then consider what is the proper use of satisfaction as such, and what it was that made satisfaction necessary.

And it is evident that it was the justice of God Creator, as Rector according to the Law of Works, and the misery of Man that had offended God by the breach of that Law, and was become liable to the Penalty, which he could not bear without his everlasting undoing. There made satisfaction necessary; God’s Justice required that either the Sinner must perish or satisfaction by an Expiatory Sacrifice must be made, by which the remote and main ends of the violated Law might be as well attained as by the Sinners Damnation they would have been; so that it was the death which was become due to Mankind which required the death of Christ their Sacrifice, (as on Man’s part;) and God’s Justice which would not remit sin but on a valuable consideration for the demonstration of its self, and or God’s Holiness, which required it on God’s part; so that you see, that on our part, which required a Sacrifice was guilt, that is, obligation to everlasting punishment. And it doth not belong to the satisfier as such, to see that the guilt be actually done away quoad eventum, or that the Damnation be actually escaped: but that a sufficient Sacrifice or satisfaction be given, on consideration whereof Remission and Salvation may be given on the terms as the Legislators and Redeemers Wisdom shall appoint.

How Christ doth give out this Pardon we shall show you anon, de quadruplici Remissione, so that it is apparent that the want of the act or habit of Faith, or the want of the Holy Ghost to effect Faith, is not the thing that required satisfaction to God’s Justice directly; but that Faith is only a remote effect of this satisfaction, and such an effect as hath no such Natural Connection with this Cause, but that the Cause (materially), may be and oft is without that effect in many; and the effect might have been without that cause from another, if God, had so pleased.

To manifest this (that it is not want of Faith that required satisfaction as such; and that satisfaction may be made for those that shall never believe) observe these things.

1. That Man’s Suffering is not a thing pleasing to God in and for it self, but for its end, viz. The Demonstration of Justice and Right Governing of the World. God professes that he hath no pleasure in the death of a Sinner, Ezek. 18. nor in the death of him that dies, Ezek. 33. but rather that he repent and live. Much less hath he pleasure in the death of the innocent, and least of all in the death of his own Son. God is not blood-thirsty, who abhors the blood-thirsty man.

2. It is not therefore for Christ’s Sufferings as in themselves considered, that God doth give men either Faith or any Mercy. God doth not sell his mercies for blood, as if he would give the World Remission of Sins, on condition he might put his Son to so much torment.

And therefore Faith is not the immediate effect of Christ’s death in sensu morali: It comes not from his death, as death or suffering; nor may it without Blasphemy be conceived that ever God made such an agreement with his Son, as to give Faith to Men merely on Condition that Christ would suffer death without first considering somewhat else that required that suffering, and suffering that put a value upon it.

3. So that the thing which did require Christ’s Suffering was (as is said before) the obligation to punishment, called guilt, on mans part, and vindictive Justice on God’s part. Unbelief as Unbelief did not necessarily require it, but the guilt of unbelief, or any other sin did require it, if ever it be pardonable.

4. That the following effects of Christ’s death do all presuppose the satisfaction of Justice, and hence Christ’s death becomes so pleasing to God, not as death, but as satisfaction, and so a means fitted to the attainment of his ends.

And because this means so pleases him, he esteems Christ’s satisfaction meritorious of further benefits, (joined with his meritorious obedience) upon which estimation and his own will (called the Covenant with Christ) he annexes further benefits thereto. For the end why be satisfied his justice by the Sacrifice of his Son, was that he might honorably, wisely, and justly give out the following benefits which he gives out hereupon. So that Christ’s death is as to God, first satisfactory, and then meritorious of further benefits. Now Faith very remotely follows all this, as shall be shown.

5. The thing that God could not do without satisfaction, was the remitting of sin, and freeing the delinquent from punishment: it was not directly, nor in its self the bestowing of Faith.

6. For I would desire any Judicious Man to consider, whether if Christ had by his death satisfied God’s justice for mans guilt, and had not at all done any more by his death for the meriting of Faith, might not God have given man Faith at his own pleasure, without the least show of injustice, or any other prohibiting inconvenience? though Christ de facto did merit more, yet we may well in dispute for searching out the truth, separate in our thoughts guilt of sin, and want of Faith in Christ; and we may suppose that Christ had done no more by his death, than to satisfy God’s justice for man’s guilt, by bearing that which was due to man. Now I would fain know this being once done, why God or the Redeemer might not give Faith to whom he will: Is there a further necessity of any new death or suffering to merit faith for us? If there be, what is that necessity? It is no injustice in God to do it: There is no Law standing in the way by which he is obliged to the contrary.

Perhaps some will object, that the same may be said of Pardon and Salvation, that there needs no new suffering to merit them, if once Justice be satisfied, and yet Christ dyed for our Justification, and Salvation.

To which I answer, All this is true, but then observe the difference; separate in your thoughts Remission, Justification, and Salvation on one side, from Faith in Christ on the other side, (as we by supposition may well do in disputation;) and you will find that God could not give Remission, Justification, and Salvation from Punishment, without Christ’s satisfaction; but he could have given Faith in Christ (if you will suppose it to go alone without the former benefits) without satisfaction, I say, he could not give the former; not by reason of any impotency or imperfection in God, but by reason of the perfection of his Wisdom, Justice, and Holiness. For them that deny this (as Twisse, and some others do, to the great hardening of Socinians, and Infidels) at present I refer them to the Writings of Divines that have proved it: As Voitius in Thesibus, Camero Passim; specially excellent well by Mos. Amyraldus in Thesib. Salmuriens. Vol. I. de satisfactione: and Essensius, Joh. Junius, and most against the Socinians on that point, say somewhat to it, and something I have elsewhere said my self, and therefore will not now so far digress.

But on the other side, that God might have given Faith (separated from these benefits) without satisfaction, is evident.

1. In that there is no injustice or other prohibiting inconvenience in it.

2. God doth give the Devils a belief that God is, and that he is a Rewarder of them that seek him diligently, and that Christ is the Son of God, and the Savior of the World, and that he was Incarnate, dyed for Sin, Rose and Ascended, and fits at the right hand of God, and shall come again to judge the World, some to life, and some to death, and that all the Scripture is Gods word, and all true, and that whosoever of Mankind believeth shall be saved, (for the Devil believeth the connection between Faith and Salvation,) all this Faith God giveth to those that look to the nature of things more than to bare words, and can see through the veil of metaphorical expressions, will not make any question of this; especially if they have so far studied the Civil Law and Politicks as is requisite for the right understanding of the nature and extent of these two relations. Indeed Christ is called a Father, but that signifies but:

1. His special propriety in us, as Fathers have in their Children (which is a branch of propriety in general.)

2. And his Authority over us, as a Father hath over his Children, which is part of his Rectorship. And withal it signifies that special love of Christ to those to whom he is thus related.

So he is called a Husband, which expressed the same special Propriety and Rectorship with the singular love accompanying them. He is called a Prophet, but that term expresses but the manner of his applying himself to men in the exercise of his Dominion and Rule; for he that teaches them, doth not teach them as a private man, but with Authority, and as their rightful King, whether they acknowledge him or no;) even as a King doth offer mercy to Rebels, and persuade them earnestly to accept it, showing them the danger of standing out against him: Or as he teaches his Subjects their duty; you may call this Man a Teacher, but the meaning only is this, he is a Teaching King, and so his Teaching is part of his Ruling, or subordinate to it: It signifies but the manner of his applying himself to them, so Christ’s Prophetical Office in its self belongs to his Rectorship: Not that all Teaching is Ruling, but in all his Teaching he doth it as their Ruler; in right at least, if not in exercise. For that Teaching by which he converts Sinners, is not properly an act of moral ruling those Sinners; but yet it is the Act of a King persuading Rebels to come in that they may be Ruled; and as their King doth he persuade them.

And then the diversity of the degrees of Gospel Light and Motions, (some having more, some less, some none,) is from Christ as absolute owner of all, that may do with his own as his lift.

It were easy to manifest how all his other Office-Titles and Relations are reducible to these two, at least as he is signified in relation to the Creature; For in his intercession he stands in a double relation.

The one is to God, with whom he intercedes, and so he intercedes as the Son of his Love, who having satisfied his Justice, hath all delivered up to him, and therefore is Owner and Ruler of all.

The other Relation is to the Creature for whom he intercedes and that is as their Owner and Ruler, and for his own chosen as their Owner and Ruler in a stricter sense than the rest, even as they are his Jewels, and specially beloved.

More is said of this in another place: peruse the Table of the effects of Christ’s death. Now let us see how it is that Christ hath purchased Faith, and how he giveth it, having satisfied God’s Justice by dying for all Mankind, God gives up all men to him as their Owner and Ruler by Redemption-Title (and giveth up also into his hands the former obligation, as is said,) hereupon Christ hath full power.

1. To alter the Law, or to make new Laws for them, and by these Laws to confer Salvation, and other Benefits, by ordaining on what terms they shall be obtained, and so giving right to them.

2. To give further mercies, over and above what he gives right to by that Law, being absolute Lord, he may do with his own. as he list; still supposing that his Fathers Will is his Will.)

Now Christ having received this Pleniporency, as Rector per Leges) he makes a free Universal Conveyance or Grant of Pardon, Justification. Reconciliation, Adoption, Sanctification, in the common Scripture sense) and Glorification to all Men on Condition they Repent, and Believe.

But he hath no where made any Conveyance of the first effectual Grace, or of Faith to any Man. He hath indeed prophesied or foretold us that he will infallibly give it to his Chosen, but be hath not named or described them by any antecedent distinguishing Character; so that no man can beforehand say this belongs to me, nor hath he by this Prediction made over to them any right to the thing, but only foretold that he will give them right hereafter.

Only he hath prescribed certain means to all men, either for the immediate obtaining of Grace to believe, or at least for the obtaining of Grace conducing thereto, which may bring them into a nearer capacity, who before were further off than the rest of the World. And he hath given them sufficient encouragement to use those means without despairing of success, even so much, as that no man that hath the use of Reason, can be named by the tongue of Man that did his best in the use of means to get Faith, or to get nearer to Christ, and yet lost his labor. Yet hath not Christ thought meet to engage or oblige himself to any Unbeliever to give him Faith; but when he doth it, he will do it as Do mimus Absolutus, and as not obliged; and indeed doth it only to chose whom he had an absolute purpose to save, and were given him to be infallibly brought home to God.

So that Christ gives not faith (the first Faith) as Rector per Leges, but as Dominus Absolutus. Those Mercies (if special) that are thus given, are said by some Divines to flow from Predestination alone, as did the gift of a Savior to fallen Mankind; but no doubt, it is mediante Sanguine Christi, and in a remote sense are fruits of Christ’s death.

By what hath been said it may appear that Faith is not the proper effect of satisfaction as satisfaction, nor is it any near or inseparable effect of satisfaction as it is meritorious. God did not give Christ Faith for his bloodshed in exchanged the thing that God was to give the Son for his satisfaction, was Dominion and Rule of the Redeemed Creature, and power therein to use what means he saw fit for the bringing in of Souls to himself, even to send forth so much of his word and Spirit as he pleased; both the Father and Son resolving from Eternity to prevail infallibly with all the Elect. But never did Christ desire at his Fathers hands, that all whom he satisfied for, should be infallibly and irresistibly brought to believe; nor did God ever grant or promise any such thing. Jesus Christ as a Ransom died for all, and as Rector per Leges, or Legislator he hath conveyed the Fruits of his death to all; that is, those Fruits which it appertained to him as Legislator to convey, which is right to what his New Law or Covenant doth promise. But those Mercies which he gives as Domimus Absolutus, arbitrarily besides or above his engagement, he neither gives nor ever intended to give to all that he died for; no nor to all his Elect doth he give all those fruits of his death, nor for ought I know to any in the same degree; for these are but remotely the Fruits of Christ’s death, and not constant nor inseparable Fruits. Peruse the foresaid Table of the Fruits of Christ’s death, and it will shew you which the mercies be that Christ gives by Law, and which arbitrarily, as besides his engagement.

Is it not manifest then that it is a desperate charge against the Lord Christ to say, that he is an imperfect Savior, if he do not perfectly save all that he Died for; or convey to them all the fruits of his Death?

The Preaching of the Gospel expressly, is a fruit of Christ’s Death: Some have this in great power, clearness and constancy; some but weakly, darkly, or seldom; and some not at all. Shall they that have been at one or two dark Sermons of Christ in all their Lives say, That either Christ Died not for them, or else was an imperfect Savior? Some are endowed with the gift of Prophecy, Tongues, Miracles, as fruits of Christ’s Death; shall all that receive not these say, that Christ is an imperfect Savior, because he gave them none of these fruits of his Death? Some are made Kings and Rulers, and some Apostles, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers, &c. and all are fruits of Christ’s Death: Yet all are not Apostles, Pastors, Teachers, &c: Some have Learning and some none: Some have good Parents, and good Education, and some bad: Some of the Elect have Health of Body, and Helps, Opportunities and Advantages to to serve God, which others want: Some are permitted to live long in sin, as Manassas: And others converted in the morning of their Days: Some are preserved in a more even and comfortable walking with God: And some are permitted to fall into most heinous scandalous sins, to the great dishonor of God and their Profession. and to walk sadly for it all their Days, Nay, some to suffer Death by the hands of public justice; Shall an these say, Christ is an imperfect Savior to them? Some are kept in vigor and growth in grace, and some remain Infants; and some lose their first degree of Love, and grow more lukewarm, and Die in a very low ebb of Grace, Comfort and Assurance. Some enjoy much fellowship with the Father and Son in the Spirit: And others are almost wholly strangers to it. Some are made instruments of doing God abundance of service and the Church much good, and bringing home or building up many Souls, and that to the end of their Lives: Others are kept without parts and gifts, next to useless, if not burdensome. Some Distracted, and after a Godly Life fall into stark madness, and so spend their days as being incapable of making use of their Affliction or of any Mercy. And some are cut off in Infancy or in the Womb, before they did ever believe or love God, or do him any service. And is Christ an imperfect Savior to all these? Nay, and he hath revealed to us, that according to this diversity here in degrees of Grace, Holiness and Obedience; so will be the diversity in the degrees of glory: One shall be Ruler of ten Cities, and another but of two: For he will reward every Man according to his works. How vast a difference then is there like to be between the Glory of an Infant, that being born of a weak believer, Died from the Womb, and the Glory of Peter, John, Paul, or those to whom it shall be given to sit on Christ’s Right Hand and Left Hand in his Kingdom. And yet all there are Elect. Where is it then that the force of the Argument lies that would prove that all must needs have Faith for whom Christ Died? If he be an imperfect Savior except he save all alike, or give to all that he Died for, all the fruits of his Death, then such a charge might as truly be grounded on his dealings with the Elect themselves as with others. Richard Baxter, Richard Baxter, Universal Redemption of Mankind by the Lord Jesus Christ, (London: Printed for John Salusbury at the Rising Sun in Cornhill, 1694), 412-428. [Some spelling modernized; italics original; bracketed inserts original; and underlining mine.]

3)

The Fifth Crimination

C. They make Christ to merit only pardon and salvation to believes, but not to have purchased faith itself for any man. And by that way, no one that he died for would be saved; for faith is the necessary gift of God: And if Christ purchased not that, all the rest would be in vain.

B. 1. Let us not here confound the controversy de nomine & de re:: That Christ died to purchase the act of faith for us, is no Scripture-phrase, so far as I know. If therefore it be only the phrase which they refuse, you may well bear with them. But as to the matter, they do not deny any of these things. 1 That Christ is the Author and Perfector of our faith, as faith signified the Christian religion, or the objects and doctrines of faith. 2. That our own religion, or the objects and gift f God; (Though the controversies about the manner of giving it are to be afterward decided). 3. That all that Christ gives, his sacrifice procured; and therefore it procured faith All this is commonly granted y most School-men, Papists, Lutherans, and moderate Arminians.

But 2. It must be considered that Christ did not die to purchase faith as immediately, and on the same account, as to satisfy for sin, and purchase us impunity or redemption. The proper direct reason of his sufferings, was to demonstrate the justice of God against sin, instead of man’s own suffering for it; and thereby to procure pardon. We may well conceive Christ promising to the Father, as it were, [I will suffer for sinners, that they may not suffer!]. But you will hardly describe his undertaking thus, [I will die, if thou wilt give men faith], or [I will give thee so much of my blood for so much faith]. But because he knew that without grace no man would believe and accept his gift, therefore he whose sufferings were primarily satisfaction for sin, were secondarily meritorious of the means to bring men to the intended end; that is, of the Word and Spirit, by which Christ causes sinners to believe: so that faith is the fruit of the death of Christ in a remoter secondary sense. And in all this name me any Christian churches that are disagreed. Richard Baxter, Catholic Theology (London: Printed by Robert White, for Nevill Simmons a the Princes Arms in St. Pauls Church-yard, 1675), book , page 69. [Some spelling modernized and some reformatting.]

[Notes: 1) The two critical thoughts here from Baxter are i) his setting out the proper nature of penal satisfaction and ii) that the purchase of faith is not, therefore, a direct and immediate “fruit” of Christ’s penal satisfaction. 2) With reference to the second, Baxter enlists a number of arguments such as, if faith is a direct purchase of the penal satisfaction, how is it that some of the believing elect have more faith than others, or conversely less faith than others? This would seem to be an inexplicable quandary if, as Owen alleges, the gift of faith is the unconditioned condition, purchase for all whom Christ died. Another compelling argument is, if faith is direct purchase of the penal satisfaction, then does that mean that the gifts of tongues, miracles and prophecy, among other gifts, are also direct purchases of the same penal satisfaction. 3) Given that all parties acknowledge that the gifts of tongues, miracles, prophesy and other fruits and gifts of the Spirit are remote gifts, flowing directly from the Father by way of the plan of salvation, and, thus, indirectly, from the satisfaction of Christ, it is more plausible to view the gift of faith in the same manner.]

_________________________

1To say that this extract from Baxter is not light reading would be an understatement.

This entry was posted on Thursday, August 26th, 2010 at 8:25 am and is filed under The Death of Christ and the Purchase of Faith. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

One comment

CalvinandCalvinism
 1 

I have updated the Baxter file on the death of Christ and the purchase of faith. See section #3.

August 11th, 2014 at 9:04 am

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)
URI
Comment