Carleton:

The author of the Appeal does often charge some men with a doctrine, which no man did ever maintain. For I say, he is not able to prove, that any have maintained the doctrine of predestination, in those terms which he proposes. Indeed, Pelagius and his followers, and amongst them this author, have made these objections against the doctrine of predestination: We use not these terms, we reject them, we need them not, we find them not in Scripture, we have enough in God’s Word to maintain this doctrine. Touching that which he says of Judas, that some should teach that by the decree of God, Judas should be condemned, without any respect to his sin. I suppose it will be hard for him to find any that teaches so in those terms. CALVIN I suppose is the man he means: but Calvin in many places says the contrary, and confesses that the wicked men are damned justly for their sins: that God’s mercy appears in them that are saved, and his justice, in other. He says, indeed, of the reprobate: Principium ruina & damnation esse in eo, quod sunt à Deo derelicti: which this author will also confess because he can say nothing against it.

But to open this point a little further. It must be confessed, that while some have strayed too far on the left hand, touching the respective decree, that God, for respects in men, has predestined them: Others in some zeal to correct this error, have gone some what too far on the right hand; teaching that predestination is a separation between men and men, as they were found even in the mass of mankind uncorrupt, before the creation and fall. But here we seek upon what ground first presupposed, this counsel of God preceded. Saint Augustine was clear in this, that God’s purpose of predestination on presupposed the fall of mankind, and the corrupt mass of mankind in sin. And verily this opinion has such firm grounds of Scripture, that (so far as I can judge) as unanswerable: For the Apostle teaches that predestination and election are in Christ, Ephesians, chapter 1, verse, 4. “As he has chosen us in Christ, before the foundation of the world:” and verse 5, “Who has predestined us to be adopted through Jesus Christ in himself.” And verse 11, “In whom we were chosen when we were predestinate.” Now if predestination be in Christ, it must be acknowledge that this counsel of God had respect to the corrupt mass of mankind. For the benefit that we have in Christ appears not in the state of innocency. Some have answered that the angels had that benefit of their standing in Christ. To this I say, granting that the angels had that blessing from Christ, yet this is a thing without doubting, and beyond all contradiction, that the doctrine of predestination, as the Apostle teaches it, is not for angels, but only for men, not for men in the state of innocency, but for sinful men. In declaring the purpose of predestination the Lord says, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.” Then the counsel of predestination, is the counsel whereby God shows mercy where he will: but mercy does presuppose misery, and the sinful estate in man. Again, the purpose of God is conducted to his, end by such means as God has set, and the Apostle has opened: that is, by predestination, vocation and justification, to glorification, that is, to the intended end. But vocation and justification cannot be understood to angels, but of men, and not of men without sin in the estate of innocency, but of sinful men. For sinners are called to repentance, and sinners must be that are justified from their sins. None are called, but sinners. And it is also certain that none are thus called and justified, but only they that are predestinated. Therefore predestination does not look upon the mass of mankind uncorrupt and innocent, but upon the mass corrupted. These things are set in such evidences of Scripture, that for my part I know not what can be said to impeach them. Upon these grounds we must confess, that both predestination and reprobation do respect that sinful and corrupt mass of mankind.

But between predestination and reprobation, amongst many other, this is one difference, that all men for sin have deserved reprobation, but now man could deserve mercy to be delivered by predestination, Rom. 3:23, “For there is no difference, for all have sinned, and are deprived of the glory of God.” Then in the sinful estate of corruption all have found once alike, and “all deprived of the glory of God,” but to deserve reprobation? So he says, Rom. 11:30, “God has shut up all in unbelief:” so that all that are received to mercy by predestination, vocation, justification, are taken out of the corrupted state of mankind, the rest are left in their sins. These we call men reprobate, that are left in their sins, and in the end justly condemned for sin. But why some are left in their sins, other delivered form their sins by predestination, vocation, justification, of this no cause can be given. But the will of God.

George Carleton, An Examination Of those things wherein the Author of the late Appeale holdeth the Doctrines of the Pelagians, and Arminians, to be the Doctrines of the Church of England 2n. ed. (London: Printed for William Tvner, 1626), 13-18. [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; and underlining mine.]

Shepard:

The Lord knows full well that men’s hearts are so full of enmity, that they will never seek for reconciliation first, though they have good cause, because they have offered the wrong, and therefore he stands not upon terms, but offers love first,, without which he knows they are forever undone! O therefore receive it, accept of it when it is offered to you, and lose thy life rather than his love.

For the farther opening of this point, I shall show three things.

1. That Christ does offer his love in the gospel.
2. Upon what terms.
3. Motives.

3. Motives to accept it, and answer objections accepting of it.

First, that the Lord does offer, and how he does offer his love in the gospel: and this I shall clear, because nothing can draw a soul to accept of love but this. For the better understanding of which, you must conceive that the love of Christ in the gospel, is diversely manifested unto men; either to men after they be in Christ, and are brought home by it, and this is a love of delight in them. Psal. 45:10-11. Or it is the love of good-will to men not brought home, as it is husbands before their affections be set upon any, they make love; as it is, 2 Thess. 2:10, “The received not the love of the truth,” because the truth made love to them. Luke 2:14, “Good-will towards men,” and this love, I say, is offered, this love makes unto you, stand amazed at it, that after all your sins, wrongs done him, nothing but love is offered, even his dearest love, for though there is patience, power to help, wisdom to guide, though there is terror in him, yet, “Take my love,” says he, John 3:17. And hence, Heb. 2:3, it is called “Great salvation,” or love. It is offered, else how could men be said to reject it or neglect, which he warns them of? A man may as well question whether there be a gospel, as whether love be offered there, for as the law is nothing but the manifestation of sin, the hand-writing of death unto all men, writ with the finger of God; the gospel is the manifestation of grace, the hand-writing of grace and peace to all men, written with the blood of God, and hence the gospel is that which brings “live and immortality to light,” 2 Tim. 1:10. Not that there is life absolutely for al, but there it is for all that shall by faith accept it. More particularly.

First, it is offered universally to all wherever it comes, and therefore personally to every man, the words are plain, Mark 16:15, “Preach the gospel to every creature;” and not only to them that do belong Christ, and shall believe; for though it is offered with power of it effectually to these, yet offered it is also unto those that never shall have God, and hence, Luke 14, the Lord of the feast invited those that never came in; and Christ himself, 1 John 11, “He came to his own, and they received him not;” “he would have gathered them under his wings and they would not;” not only to them that be humbled (though none will care for the gospel but such) but to them that be unhumbled, Rev. 3:18,20, does the gospel come. There be many object, “Yes the Lord offers love to them that are his, but not to me?,” yes to thee; there is not a man here, that can exempt himself. And I would make no doubt to go to every man particularly, and say, “The Lord entreats thee to be reconciled, nay if there be one man worse than another, though his hands have been imbrued in the blood of the prophets, and is soul stained with the most crying guilt of the most hideous sins that ever the earth bore, or sun saw, yet the Lord makes love to him; the price is paid for him, if he will accept it, and the Lord would have him so do; neither does this universal offer infer universal redemption; for the gospel, in the offer of it, does not speak absolutely that Christ has died for all, and therefore for thee, as the Arminians maintain; but it speaks conditionally, it is for thee, if ever the Lord gives thee a heart to receive that grace there, therefore consider of it, there is not one here present, but the Lord would have you receive his love, and consider this one reason, thou shalt be condemned for refusing it; hence it is God’s command, and Christ’s desire you should receive it, John 3:19. If not thy duty to receive it, it is not thy sin to refuse it; but it is such a sin, that all men that perish under the sound of the Gospel, are principally damned for.

Read the rest of this entry »

Shepard:

Sect. II.

Use. SEE hence what cause of thankfulness to all the people of God, that the Lord should make their souls the vessels (which he might easily and justly have dashed in pieces) to receive and preserve this eternal anointing; I do not believe there is no man that knows the bitterness of sin, the plague of his own heart, but when he sees Christ is his, yet it makes him mourn that there should be so little suitableness between the Lord and him, so little likeness between his life and Christ’s; what though the Lord love me, and yet my heart weary of him? What, though the Lord bless me, and make my heart abuse him? And hence this makes it thankful, Rom. 7:24,25. This so far from dishonoring grace, as that the apostle makes this the matter of admiration of God’s grace, Eph. 2: 3,4, “God who is rich in mercy, when dead in sins has quickened us:” Not only quickened our head (for hence is cause of eternal praise), but us; and hence he has us set up, “in heavenly places in him.” This is the state of all men, they cannot do one spiritual act; now that the Lord should help when all creatures left us, is wonderful; but that it should be with such a life, even the life of Christ Jesus himself; for the same Spirit that raised him from the dead dwells in us, 1 Pet. 5:1. This mercy indeed that he should not only die for us, and live in heaven for us, but that he should love so dearly, as to come and live in us; that when our sins had slain him, he should not only come and dwell in our houses, not only pay his head in our bosom, but live in our hearts, where he finds such poor welcome, and ill entertainment at our hands. I tell you this is wonderful, to make his habitation in us, that before we go to live with him, he should live in us: let them that never knew what this meant refuse to be thankful, but if you will find it so, forget not this love, John 14:17, “I will send the Spirit whom the world cannot receive, because it knows him not.” The Lord sends the Spirit in common graces, and the world does not receive that also in prophetical and miraculous gifts, and it does not receive that; but this Spirit which God pours on the thirsty, this Spirit with which God fills the empty, they cannot receive this. O that you should receive it, when as they know it not.

Thomas Shepard, The Parable of the Ten Virgins Opened and Applied: Being the Substance of Divers Sermons on Matthew xxv. 1-14. The Difference between the Sincere Christian and the most refined Hypocrite, the Nature and Character of Saving and Common Grace (Falkirk: Printed by T. Johnson, For R. Johnson, the Publisher, 1797), 1:369-370. [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; and underlining mine.]

[comments below]

Hodgson:

CHAPTER XXXV.

CALVINISM CONTINUED.

Besides these subtleties on ability, certain distinctions on the atonement have been resorted to, for the same purpose. There is so obvious an inconsistency in offering salvation to all, on the supposition that Christ did not die for all, that the man who ventures to connect these in the pulpit is more likely to excite contempt than to commend himself to the conscience. This is felt by Calvinists. Hence they distinguish between the atonement and the application of it–between atonement and redemption–between the sufficiency of the atonement and its efficiency.

Two or three examples may suffice. The first we shall select from Mr. Payne’s Lectures on Divine Sovereignty, referred to at the commencement of our discussions. He affirms that,

while, on the one hand, the Savior cannot have intended to secure the salvation of all men by the act of offering himself up a sacrifice for sin; yet that the sacrifice must, on the one hand, have been in itself adequate to the salvation of all men, so as to become a suitable foundation for the general and unlimited calls of the gospel. There is a broad line of distinction between the sufficiency of the atonement of Christ and its efficiency, or rather, as I would say, the sovereign purpose of the sacred three, in reference to its efficiency; that is, in reference to the exertion of that holy influence upon the minds of men, which secures to them the enjoyment of the blessings which flow through the channel of the atonement. It may be true (whether it is or not we shall inquire presently, my present object is merely to illustrate the difference between the two things) that Jehovah did not intend to put forth that influence which would render the atonement the means of securing the salvation of all men; though, as it was to become the basis of moral government, it was essential that it should be of infinite worth, and so in itself adequate to the salvation of all men. This I have long regarded as the true state of the case.–p. 209.

Again,

If the question be ‘Did Christ die with the design of laying a foundation of salvation for all men, or for some men?’ I answer, that, in this sense, he died for all men. If the question be ‘Did he die with the design of rendering the means effectual to the salvation of all men, or of some men?’ I answer, that, in this sense, he died for some men only.

I believe in the unlimited, universal, infinite sufficiency of the atonement of Christ–I believe it was the intention of God, as the moral Governor, in giving his Son as a sacrifice for sin, to provide a general remedy commensurate with the disease. I believe, on the other hand, in the limited application of the atonement. I believe it was the intention of God, as a sovereign, to render the remedy effectual, by special and sovereign influence, in the case of certain individuals only who are affected with the general disease, so that the intention of God as a sovereign, and as a ruler, in reference to the atonement, is different, the one being general, the other particular.–Ibid.

We have the sentiments of Dr. Cox, on this subject, in the appendix to his work on Quakerism. He remarks,

In modern technology (which I approve) they only are said to be redeemed who are actually accepted in Christ: for all, atonement is made; to all, it is offered; the Spirit striving through the truth as extensively as the sufficiency and applicability of the atonement are extensive. Still, to accept the offer and correspond with the offerer, is, in. the very nature of things, the only way to be saved. Are all men saved? Yes–if all repent and believe the gospel! Do they all this? He that believes men are saved in sin, or that all men renounce it, must have very strong faith! We, however, do not believe that the atonement was indefinite, in the sense of the Remonstrants of Holland, or any other Arminians. God had a design in making it, which no event could frustrate. Christ eternally designed the salvation of the elect; and for these, in this sense exclusively, he gave his precious life. But this makes not the atonement less full, or alters its nature at all.–p. 667.

The reader will readily perceive, that, notwithstanding all that is said in these passages of a ” full,” “unlimited,” “universal” atonement, the writers hold most tenaciously to the great Calvinistic principle, which limits the provision for salvation to a definite and favored number. The atonement was adequate to the salvation of all men. It justifies the general and unlimited calls of the gospel. But it is not indefinite, in the sense in which Arminians understand it, which, we apprehend, is the sense in which it is generally understood. Christ eternally designed the salvation of the elect; and for them, in this sense exclusively, (in the sense of designing their salvation,) he gave his precious life. ” The Savior cannot have intended to secure the salvation of all men,” &c. “It was the intention of God to render the remedy effectual in the ease of certain individuals only.” “The atonement was for all, but the elect only are said to be redeemed.”

Read the rest of this entry »