Bastingius, on the Heidelberg Catechism:

20. Is salvation then restored by Christ to all men that perished in Adam?

Answer.

Not to all, but only to those who are en-grafted into him by true faith, and do lay hold upon all his benefits.

Here he prevents an abjection : for seeing it confessed that Christ is the redeemer of mankind, as the Gospel does teach, some man may ask the question also to salvation in Christ; and if not so, who then are restored unto salvation? To which question the answer is plain; namely, that not all, nor every man is restored to salvation by Christ, but only those who believe in him.

And that all are not saved by Christ the Mediator, is so true and so well known out of the Scriptures, as nothing more, Christ himself bearing witness: “Not everyone that says, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven”: and “Narrow is the gate, and straight is the way that leads unto life, and few there be that find it” [Mat. 7:13, 14; Mat. 25:34; Mat. 22:14.]; to this may be added the description of the last judgment, and that which he says elsewhere, “Many are called, but few are chosen,” [Mat. 22:14.].

Although nevertheless that abides true, which John affirms, that “Christ is the Propitiation for our sins, and not for ours alone, but for the sins of the whole world,” [1. Joh. 2:2.]: because Christ’s death is indeed sufficient for all mankind, but effectual only for the elect, who shall believe in his Name, to whom also he reveals the will of his Father, and whom he regenerates by his Holy Spirit, whom he preserves; and in the end shall crown with everlasting glory [Joh. 17:20; Mat. 11:27; Joh. 15:15; Joh. 6:45; Rom. 8:30.]. For John had no other purpose, but to make the sacrifice of Christ common to the whole church” [Joh. 11:52.], so that under the name (all) he comprehends not the reprobate, but notes out of those, who (as I said) should also believe, and were scattered throughout divers coasts of the world.

Jeremias Bastingius, An Exposition or Commentary Vpon the Catechisme of Christian Religion, which is taught in the Schooles and Churches both of the Low Countries, and of the Dominions of the Countie Palatine (Printed at London by Iohn Legatt, Printer to the University of Cambridge, 1614), 68-69. [Some spelling modernized, italics original, marginal references cited inline, and underlining mine.]

Read the rest of this entry »

Burkitt:

1) Hebrews 2:9:

9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man

Observe here, 1 The wonderful humiliation and abasement, the exinanition and deep depression, of the glorious Jesus: he was made for a little time lower than the angels: that is, he was made man, and mortal, and did suffer death. Observe, 2 The manner of our Lord’s death: he tasted it, he did really taste of it, and but taste of it; he tasted death, that is, he died really, and not in appearance only, he lasted it. Implying that he underwent the bitterness of it: he found out experimentally what death was by dying, as a man finds out the bitterness of a thing by tasting. Again, he did but taste of it, he was not finally overcome and vanquished by it; he continued but a short time under it, it was not possible that he should be long holden of it; the dignity of his person rendered a short continuance of him under the power of death sufficient for our redemption. Observe, 3. The persons for whom he tasted death, or died: for others, not for himself; that is, for their room and stead; he underwent that death in our stead, which we should have undergone in our own persons. Observe, 4. The extent of Christ’s death; he tasted death for every man; that is, Christ by his death has made God propitious to every man, made sin remissible, and every man saveable; the death of Christ renders God willing to be reconciled unto all sinners; faith renders him actually reconciled. The reason why every man doth not obtain salvation, is not for want of a sufficient propitiation. Observe, 5. The moving cause which inclined God to deliver up Christ to death, and to transfer our punishment upon him, and that was his own grace and free good-will, that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. Observe, 6. The glorious reward of our Lord’s sufferings with reference to himself. We see Jesus, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor. As Christ’s meritorious sufferings for us, so shall our patient suffering for him, be rewarded with the highest glory in heaven, 1 Pet. V. 10. “The God of all grace, who hath called us into his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after ye have suffered awhile, make you perfect,” &c.   William Burkitt, Expository Notes With Practical Observations on the New Testament (Philadelphia: Published by Thomas Wardle, 1835), 2:586-587.589. [Some spelling modernized, italics original, and underlining mine.]

Read the rest of this entry »

Baxter:

1) 11. Christ is a sufficient Savior, able and willing to save only those that he died for. Supposing that he satisfied not for any Man, he is not sufficient or willing to save that Man though he should believe. How can it be said that by the sufficiency of his Ransom he is able to save them, for whom it was no Ransom? Indeed the sufficiency of Christ’s satisfaction is on principal object of that part of Faith which consists in Assent. But I shall show anon, that if any Man be bound to believe Christ’s satisfaction sufficient to justify him for whom it was never paid, he is bound to believe an untruth.  Richard Baxter, Universal Redemption of Mankind by the Lord Jesus Christ, (London: Printed for John Salusbury at the Rising Sun in Cornhill, 1694), 115-116.

2) Arg. 9^th A Sufficientia pretii pro omnibus.

If Christ died for all men quad sufficientiam pretii, then he has satisfied for all. But he died for all men, quoad sufficientiam pretii Ergo, &c. The Minor is maintained by the generality of our Ancienter Protestant Divines, who use ordinarily this distinction to solve the doubt, whether Christ died for all? viz., he died for al sufficiently, and for the Elect only effectually. And indeed this one distinction rightly understand, and this answer thence fitted, is most full and apt for the resolution of the question. The Schoolmen go the same way. The consequence of the Major proposition is acknowledged by our late most rigid Anti-Arminians, who on that reason deny the Minor. For our new Divines have utterly forsaken the old common opinion, and in stead of saying [Christ died for all men sufficienter] they will not so much as say that [His Death was sufficiens pretium pro omnibus.] For all our former Divines (and the most of these times; so far as I can discern) who acknowledge that Christ died for all men quoad sufficientiani pretii, and for the Elect quoad efficaciam; they say the same, and as much as I, and therefore I need not say much more to them.  Richard Baxter, Universal Redemption of Mankind by the Lord Jesus Christ, (London: Printed for John Salusbury at the Rising Sun in Cornhill, 1694), 133-134. [Contents within square brackets original.]

Read the rest of this entry »

[comments below]

Owen:

1) Now from all this, thus much (to clear up the nature of the satisfaction made by Christ) appears,–namely, It was a full, valuable compensation, made to the justice of God, for all the sins of all those for whom he made satisfaction, by undergoing that same punishment which, by reason of the obligation that was upon them, they themselves were bound to undergo. When I say the same, I mean essentially the same in weight and pressure, though not in all accidents of duration and the like; for it was impossible that he should be detained by death. Now, whether this will stand in the justice of God, that any of these should perish eternally for whom Jesus Christ made so full, perfect, and complete satisfaction, we shall presently inquire; and this is the first thing that we are to consider in this business. John Owen, “Death of Death,” in Works 10:269-270.

2) MR BAXTER having composed his Aphorisms of Justification, with their explications, before the publishing of them in print, he communicated them (as should appear) to some of his near acquaintance. Unto some things in them contained one of his said friends gives in some exceptions. Amongst other things he opposed unto those aphorisms, he also points at my contrary judgment in one or two particulars, with my reasons produced for the confirmation thereof. This provokes their learned author (though unwilling) to turn aside to the consideration of those reasons. Now, the first of those particulars being about the payment made for sin in the blood of Christ, of what sort and kind it is, I shall willingly carry on the inquiry to this farther issue, whereunto I am drawn out.

1. He looks upon the stating of the question as I professedly laid it down at my entrance into that disputation, and declares that it is nothing at all to the question he hath in hand, nor looking that way. “He distinguisheth,” saith Mr Baxter,” betwixt paying the very thing that is in the obligation and paying so much in another kind; now, this is not our question, nor any thing to it,” Append. p. 137. If it be so, I know no reason why I was plucked into the following dispute, nor why Mr Baxter should cast away so many pages of his book upon that which is nothing at all to the business he had in hand. But though there be nothing to this purpose, p. 137 [265] of my book, the place he was sent to, yet, p. 140 [267], there is, as also something contrary to what is expressed in the former place, which he intimates in these words:–“In p. 140 [267] he states the question far otherwise, and yet supposes it the same, namely,–Whether Christ paid the idem or the tantundem? which he interprets thus, ‘That which is not the same, nor equivalent unto it, but only in the gracious acceptation of the creditor.’ Now, what he means by ‘not equivalent’ I cannot tell.

Read the rest of this entry »