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 »

Ford:

Obj. True, we have the Gospel preached to us, and plenty of precious means (so you call them), to know Christ: But to what purpose, so long as we are one way or other shut out, so as not one, nor all, nor any of these means shall ever have any effect on us for our salvation? For this purpose they allege,

1. An absolute and irrecoverable decree of God, that shuts out more than shall be received in.

2. The narrowing of Christ’s death by some, as to the extent of it, that a great many may well think themselves incapable of any benefit by it.

3. The lamentable estate of all men since Adam’s fall, under an invincible inability, to recover themselves from that estate, more than a dead man has to raise and lift himself out of the dust.

These are the stumbling blocks which too may lay in heaven’s way, to hinder their own salvation; and I cannot pass them by, without using my endeavors to remove them. For these have been, and still are, unhappy occasions to many, or putting off all the blame from themselves, yea, obliquely, by consequence at least, to charge God himself.

In answering these objections, I am no way bound to engage the controversies that still are among the learned, nor shall I resolve one way or other to the prejudice of any party, but leave them to end their quarrels as they can.

All the business I have to do, is to apply myself to the capacities (and if the Lord so please, to resolve doubts), of those that understand nothing, or very little of these matters, more than to make them so many stumbling-blocks, to hinder, and sad occasions of blessing themselves in their own hearts, which “they walk on in their own imaginations, to add drunkenness to thirst,” [Deut. 29:19]. And now I come to particulars after I have premised this one thing in general, viz.: That the decrees of God be as absolute, as any of the learned have made them; or the death of Christ as much narrowed in the extent of it, as ever it has been by any, yet my conclusion will stand firm, that men only are wanting to themselves, and no charge in the least can justly be laid upon God. . . .

Read the rest of this entry »

Jenison:

4. Christ is made Redemption, but is that of all? no.–Thou was slain and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and Nation. Revel. 5.9. Not all nations, but some out of all, according to that of Paul, explaining whom he means by Vessels of mercy, which God had afore prepared unto Glory, even us (says he) whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but of the Gentiles: he says not all us Jews, or all us Gentiles, but us of the Jews and Gentiles.

Objection. This is against the doctrine of our Church, which tells us that the offering of Christ made upon the cross, is a full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. I answer, no: The Church indeed uses the phrase of Scripture, but not against the sense of Scripture, whose meaning therefore is the same with that of the Scripture; for our Church does tell us, that (as it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word, so, neither) may it so expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another. Therefore our Church uses not the Scripture phrase so as to bee repugnant to those other places named, or yet to itself which (besides much more that might be said) in the 17. Article, tells us, That God hath decreed by his Council secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation, those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind. So that, seeing to deliver from curse and damnation is the effect of Christ’s death according to the everlasting purpose of God. Therefore Christ hath not redeemed all mankind, so as to deliver them from curse and damnation, seeing his everlasting purpose and constant decree was to deliver from curse and damnation, not all Mankind, but those whom hee hath chosen in Christ out of mankind. Redemption, in Gods purpose and intention, reaches not beyond the decree.

Our Church then doth not deny universal redemption: for we truly say with it and with Scripture, Christ died for all. Yet it denies that equal and universal Application of this redemption, whose event is suspended, and hangs either on the liberty of mans will, or on any condition in man (which God will not work.) We deny not, but say that Christ paid a price for all, but such as is to be applied to each by the man’s of faith, which is not of all, and not by the very act or fact of his oblation, so that, faith being presupposed, and coming between, all and each are capable of salvation, and they are such as, believing, shall be saved.

Read the rest of this entry »

[comments below]

Clifford:

Propos. V.

Of the Application of Christ’s Merits to Sinners.

The saving fruits and benefits intended to sinners by the obedience and sufferings of Jesus Christ, they do no actually and of necessity become theirs, immediately upon the satisfaction thereby given, and the purchase made in their behalf: But before they can be admitted to any actual interest in, or reap any comfortable advantage from either, there is yet somewhat further on their part to be done and performed by them. The merits of Christ, in dying for sinners, do not necessarily save any, but only as God the Father, Son and Spirit shall think meet to communicate, and dispense with the issues of them to the vessels of mercy. For all that properly results from the satisfaction of Christ is only this, that the grand obstacle which stood in the way of mercy, and obstructed its communication to the guilty offender, that this being removed, God might now be at liberty to pardon and reaccept him into favor in what way, and upon what terms he pleased, such as he in wisdom should judge most for the honor of his own Being and perfections. Yea, but not that therefore God must of necessity pardon the sinner whatever come on’t,¹ as one well expresses it. That is, whether he repented or believed or not, or still continued in his rebellion and impenitency.

Christ’s suffering they were not in a strict sense the idem, i.e. they very thing which the first covenant required at the hands of man, but the tantundem, or an equivalent compensation: Not properly solutio debiti, the payment of a debt, but an equitable satisfaction for a criminal offense. And accordingly God in this whole transaction is to be considered, not so much a Creditor, as an offended Magistrate or Governor of the world, that admits (as Seleucus did the putting out of one of his own eyes, for the redemption of his Sons), the suffering of one for another (though of somewhat a different kind and manner), for the maintaining of the honor of his laws and government. And therefore God could not be obliged thereby immediately to acquit and discharge the offender (since the satisfaction given in his behalf was refusable), but may in justice, and for the vindicating of his own holiness, and retaining the creature in his due subjection, bring him to terms and conditions, before he remit the offense, and become actually reconciled to him: Much less was God obliged to this by his own essential goodness: for though the issues and outgoings of his love be most natural and agreeable to his Being; upon which account he is styled in Scripture a Sun and Fountain; yet are they not like the ebullitions of water from their fountain, or emanations of light from the Sun, absolutely necessary and involuntary. No, they are still free, though most natural. Else how comes it to pass, that the apostate angels were not redeemed from their chains and darkness? and Spirits now in prison set at liberty, and freed from torments? And the inhabitants of the earth that still sit in darkness and under the shadows of death, have not the Sun of Righteousness arising upon them with healing in his wings, as well as we in these northern lands? Whatever acts by constraint and necessary impulse of nature, it is² incapable of setting any bonds or limits to its own actions, but imparts itself and influences universally, at all times and alike to all. The same sun shines not to some parts only of the earth, but equally to both the hemispheres. And the same sea and fountains scatter their streams, not only to some few passengers, but indifferently to all that pass by without exception. And if such were the egress and communications of Divine love and goodness, then tell me where it is, that there is any difference between fallen angels and degenerate man? Betwixt Jew and Gentile? the Christian and Pagan world? Why is not the whole earth, India and America, as well as Europe, turned into a Goshen, a land of light, and made as Eden the garden of the Lord? Why is so great a part of it yet left to be das a darkened Egypt or barren wilderness? Does not all this sufficiency argue, that the bequeathments, and application of Christ’s satisfaction and purchase, with all the rich fruits that spring from both, are made not of necessity, but ad placitum, according to the mere good will and pleasure of God to sinners? as the Apostle speaks, Ephes. 1:5 and 9.

Abraham Clifford, Methodus Evangelica; Or the Gospel Method of Gods Saving Sinners by Jesus Christ: Practically explained by XII Propositions (London: Printed by J.M. for Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pigeons in Cornhill, 1676), 17-20. [Some spelling modernized; italics original; footnotes and values mine; and underlining mine.]

[Notes: 1) This small work contains a preface by Thomas Manton and Richard Baxter, suggesting that though some aspects of Clifford’s theology may be problematic, Thomas Manton saw it respectable enough to allow his name to be attached to it. 2) The first important point of this quotation is that it directly opposes John Owen’s theological characterization of God as Creditor. The creditor motif undergirding his doctrine of limited expiation and sin-bearing is the back-bone of his theology. Were one to purge his arguments of his reliance upon the construction of God as creditor, and the satisfaction as a pecuniary transaction, his theological edifice would begin to unravel. Unfortunately, while Owen’s reliance upon God as creditor has largely been forgotten by his modern followers, the arguments which rely on such assumptions have been retained. 3) The next important element here is that Clifford, contra Owen, affirms that Christ suffered only a just equivalent, the tantundem, and not the very idem of the law’s curse and punishment. Happily, since the days of Owen, his insistence that Christ suffered the very idem of the law has generally been rejected by all wings of the Reformed community. Owen was committed to the idea that Christ suffered the very idem, as it was the essential component of his concept of Christ enacting a pecuniary satisfaction whereby Christ made a payment to the Father which concretely purchased faith and all other graces from God, per the terms of the Covenant (contractual transaction) of Redemption. This also had the benefit, for Owen, of locating a limitation in the very nature of the expiation itself.]

_______________________

¹Original to the text.

²Original: ‘tis.