Humfrey:

The Scriptures say, Christ died for all, and for every man. God so loved the World, (says Christ) that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. By the World, this Gentlemen must understand the Elect: but when by the words [that whosoever believeth in him] Christ plainly intimates, that there are some of those God loves, do believe, and some not; the World must be more than the Elect. Of the world of those God loves so as to give his Son, to die for them; some believe in him, and have everlasting life, and some believe not and perish. But of the Elect all believe, and none perish.

John Humfrey, Peace at Pinners-Hall Wish’d and Attempted in A Pacifick Paper Touching The Universality of Redemption, the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace, and our Freedom from the Law of Works (London: Printed and be Sold by Randal Taylor near Amen-Corner, 1692), 2-3. [Some spelling modernized; italics original; and underlining mine.]

Credit to Tony.

Humfrey:

When the Arminian then argues here, Christ hath died for All and Every man and that is not to be put off with the genera singulorum, or, the Gentiles as well as the Jews: therefore the grace of God is universal for all and every one to repent and believe that they may be saved. I answer, this is manifestly inconsequent, because it is true that what Christ hath done by way of Redemption is universal, and belongs to all the World, and every man alike, which is terminated in procuring these terms to be offered to the World for salvation. But as for mans belief, repentance, sincere obedience, which are the terms, they come directly and immediately otherwise, not from the grace of Redemption, nor from the fountain of mans free will with them, but from the grace of Election. God gives us his Son, and he gives us his Spirit. His sending his Son is one thing, and his sending his Spirit another. The work of drawing persons to Christ, I do observe, is attributed to the Father and the Spirit, because this is Peculiar: when the work which is attributed to Christ in distinction to them, is General to all mankind. He sent his Son to purchase salvation, if we Believe: he sends his Spirit to work that faith and repentance in us that we may be saved. In the one does lie the mystery of our Redemption, in the other, I say, the mystery of Election. Let it be true on one hand that Christ by his Redemption hath indeed procured no more for Paul and Peter, than for Judas and the reprobate, and so the honor of his Redemption be kept up with the Arminian to the height they contend for it: Yet may it be true, I hope likewise, on the other hand, that the grace of God towards Peter and Paul was more in giving them saving faith and repentance, than to Judas or the reprobate, and so the doctrine of Special Grace and Election need not neither be discarded.

John Humfrey, The Middle-Way in One Paper of Election & Redemption (London: Printed for T. Parkhust, at the Three Bibles in Cheap-side, 1673), 29-30. [Some spelling modernized and underlining mine.]

Zanchi:

Chap. 4.

Of the mercy of God.

The first Question.

Whether mercy be truly and properly attributed unto God.

Concerning this first question, the Stoics were of opinion that the name of mercy could by no mean be attributed to God, drawing a reason from the definition of mercy. For what is it else, say they, but weakness of mind, sadness and grief conceived upon an other’s misery and grief? and so does Cicero also define it as envy contrarily, is grief conceived of another’s prosperity. And so says Seneca also in his  book of clemency. Augustine also following in a manner the same definitions, says thus: “What is mercy but a certain compassion of another’s misery in our heart, by which we are compelled to help if we can?” and again, “Who knows not that hereof it is called mercy, for that it makes the heart miserable, grieving for another’s evil?” The like affirms Aristotle and Phavorinus. But no grief nor weakness can happen to God. For, if according to the Stoics’ opinion, it is not incident to a wise man, much less to God. But they are deceived. For God plainly calls himself merciful, and of great mercy. To the reason they bring, we make this answer: first, That it is manifest that God is not subject to grief nor weakness. But it therefore follows not, that therefore is is no mercy in God. For though man’s mercy defined by Cicero and others be a weakness of the mind; yet that Mercy which God attributes to himself, is not so. They only define that of men, but not that of God, and which the Scriptures speak of. Then the Latin word misericordia, we may thus interpret, as if we should take to heart another’s misery. If it was lawful for Augustine to derive it of miseria and corde, as that it is the misery of the heart conceived of another misery: why may not we say, that it is so called, for that we take another’s misery to heart? Truly this etymology can not be refuted by any good reason. And this definition does better agree with Mercy then that of Cicero’s, whether divine or human. For even God himself takes to heart the misery of his elect, as he teaches by his prophets. We commonly also call him merciful, not which has a miserable heart passively (for such a one is rather miserable then merciful), but actively, that is, him which desires and studies in his heart to help one in misery, and helps him as much as he is able. And so the Scripture calls men merciful: as where Christ says, “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy,” Math. 5:7. But I pray you whom calls he merciful here? not those which have a merciful heart: but those which study and endeavor from the heart to help those that are in misery. But although the Latin word did signify that they would have it, yet neither the Hebrew word racham, used by the Prophets, nor the Greek word eleeo, used by the Apostles, does include any weakness or grief of mind, as they that have skill in these languages do well know: but only either love, and an inclining of the heart towards the evil affected, or else alms, the very effects of love: and hence is that of the Apostle, Rom. 12, “He which shows mercy,” that is, which gives alms to the needy, “let him do it with a cheerfulness.” Wherefore it signifies not sadness of heart, but a work of love done to the needy, with cheerfulness of heart. But let us grant that which they gather out of Cicero, Aristotle, Seneca, Augustine, that misericordia signifies grief and weakness of heart conceived from another’s misery: follows it therefore, that that name can by no means be attributed to God? are not also the names of love, hatred, anger, and such like, which signifies affects and passions attributed to God amongst profane authors? yes: but not after the same manner, that they are to us. For they are in him without passion, but not so in us. And why then may we not say the same of mercy? Therefore the Stoics’ opinion is utterly to be rejected who do not it any place in a wise man. There are others which think that the manner of mercy may be attributed to God, and that God is in the Scriptures worthily called merciful, and to be of great mercy, but improperly: as he is also said to repent, be angry, and such like. And they are led with the same reason that the former, to wit that it is a grief and passion of the mind, which God cannot be subject unto, and therefore that it is improperly attributed unto him. And this is the common opinion, which yet  I do not simply approve. For the reason why they think thus is, because they consider mercy in us, and then transfer it from us unto God: thinking that it is so properly and of itself called mercy, as it is in us: and  so for that it cannot be so in God, to wit, with passion, as it were in us, therefore they think it is improperly attributed unto God in the Scriptures. But it is my judgment far otherwise. For the name of mercy is first in God, before it is un us: for it was in him first: and it is eternal in God. And this gift and virtue of mercy, as all other good gifts, is given us of God: and therefore God is called, “Father of mercies: and we are commanded by Christ to imitate the Father’s mercy, as the rule of all true mercy. But God’s mercy, which is the true mercy, is not any infirmity. For God is merciful, of his own eternal and simple essence, as also good, gentle, and mighty: therefore that particle, weakness of mind, is not necessary in the definition of true mercy: but it is by accident that it is such in us: for that we are of such a nature as is subject to griefs and passions, so as we cannot bear, see, or think of another’s misery, especially if he be of our affinity, or nation, or else joined unto us by the bond of nature, or friendship, without sympathy and grief. Wherefore it is so far off, that because of the weakness of mind, which is not incident to God, but is incident to us, it should be attributed to God improperly, and properly to us: that contrarily rather, as wisdom, life, justice, goodness, and other good gifts, so also mercy should first of itself and properly be said of God, and secondly and less properly of us: for that it is perfection in God, and imperfect in us…

Read the rest of this entry »

Zanchi:

CHAP. 2.

Of the grace of God.

The first question.

Whether there be grace in God: and what this word Grace does signify.

Amongst many other titles by which God is excellently described, Exod. 34, he is called Gracious, Chanon, when is chen which the Grecians translate charis, the Romans Gratia, showing that he is not only courteous, gracious, and lovely in himself, and such an one as he showed himself in his Son Christ; but also even such a one, who willingly does gratify all sorts, and being gracious unto them, desires after a sort to be in grace with all men: so in Christ has he abundantly laid out himself. This word Grace, has three significations especially. It sometimes is taken for that gracious favor by which a man through his sweet carriage of himself, in words and conversation, becomes acceptable, amiable, and gracious in the eyes of all that are good. “He gives grace to the humble,” says Solomon [Prov. 3:34.], that is, makes them gracious with men. So became Christ gracious, Luke 2:52, by his sweet behavior, and decent demeaning of himself. It very often signifies, that undeserved favor which one afforded to another; forgiving him if he have done him any injury, and favoring him in what he possibly can. So Noah found favor or grace in the sight of God [Gen. 6:8.]. So the Virgin Mary, Luke 1:30, and by this grace “I am that I am,” says Paul. So by grace, that is, by the free favor of God, through his own mercy and goodness, we are said in the Scriptures to be justified and saved. Last of all, it is taken for such gifts of God, as come of his grace: be the for the life to come, as faith, hope and love, &c. Or otherwise, as the gift of tongues, &c. Hence it was that Jacob said to Esau concerning his children, these are they whom the Lord Chauan[?] has graciously given unto me thy servant. Of Barnabas it is recording that when “he saw the grace of God” (that is, the gift that was poured upon them that believed), he rejoiced [Acts 11:23.]. And Paul says, receive not the grace of God, meaning the gifts of God, in vain [Eph. 4:7.].  Unto every one is given grace, according to the measure of God. Let every man as he has received the grace, that is, gift, minister the same unto another [ 1 Pet. 4:10.]. And then this infused grace, the schoolmen acknowledge almost none other grace; which makes them ever to misconstrue those Scriptures, in which we are said to be justified by grace; ascribing justification to qualities infused, namely to faith and charity principally; and consequently to the fruits of these twain, which are good works. Yet Aquinas, forced by plain Scripture, does by grace often understand, that free mercy which is in God, not in man [in epist. ad Tit. 3:4-6.]. Now this word grace taken in the second and third signification is (according to Augustine, and not contrary to the Word of God), so called, because it is given gratis, freely, without any desert of ours [Gratia quasi gratis data.]. For in that God favors and loves us, that he bestows temporal or eternal graces upon us, it is his mercy, not our merit. If of grace then not of works, else should grace be no grace, says the Apostle Rom. 11:6. That is (as Augustine does well interpret those words), it is not grace any way, if it be not of free grace every way. And why does the Apostle call life eternal grace, but to teach us that it is the alone gift of God? [ Rom. 6:23.]. Now to speak of grace in the first acceptation only we propound…

The fourth Question.

Upon whom is this grace bestowed.

The proposition.

This grace of God by which men are justified is bestowed only upon the elect: and he vouchsafes it to none other.

Although that Grace of God, by which his benevolence is simply understood, reaches every creature, in as much as he loves and preserves the same; being as the Apostle says, “the Savior of all:” so that none can complain for want of this grace: yet that Grace by which the Scriptures, that a man is justified, belongs only to the elect…

[Girolamo Zanchi] Live Everlasting: Or The True Knowledge of One Iehova, Three Elohim and Jesus Immanuel: Collected Out of the Best Modern Divines, and compiled into one volume by Robert Hill, ([Cambridge:] Printed by Iohn Legat, printer to the Vniuersitie of Cambridge. And are to be sold [in London] at the signe of the Crowne in Pauls Church-yard by Simon Waterson, 1601), 337-338 and 348-349. [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; inserted bracketed material mine; side-headers included; repeated Scripture side-header references not included; and underlining mine.]

[Notes: Worldcat and Wing identify this as as: “Largely a translation and abridgement of Zanchi, Girolamo. De natura Dei. Zanchi is identified in the side-note on page 655—STC…” I have inserted Zanchi’s name in the title as a reflection that because: 1) as noted, this is largely a translation of Zanchi’s work; 2) because it quite probably does reflect Zanchi’s theology; 3) because Wing attributes the authorship to Zanchi, and Hill as the translator; and 4) from the opening “Epistle Dedicatory” (3^rd page) Hill identifies a work by Zanchi as the principal text upon which this work is based. Lastly, I actually suspect this is a much more reliable translation than Toplady’s briefer translation from the same work.]