Prosper of Aquitaine (c.390–c.455) on General Grace

Even in our own day when streams of ineffable gifts flood the whole world, grace is not bestowed on all men in the same measure and intensity. Though the ministers of the word and of God’s grace preach the same truth to all and address to all the same exhortations, yet this is God’s husbandry and God’s building, and it is He whose power invisibly acts and gives growth to what they build or cultivate.

St. Prosper of Aquitaine, St. Prosper of Aquitaine: The Call of All Nations, trans. P. De Letter, vol. 14 of Ancient Christian Writers (New York; Ramsey, NJ: Newman Press, 1952), 98; b. 2, c. 6.

It may be true that, just as we know that in former times some peoples were not admitted to the fellowship of the sons of God, so also to-day there are in the remotest parts of the world some nations who have not yet seen the light of the grace of the Saviour. But we have no doubt that in God’s hidden judgment, for them also a time of calling has been appointed, when they will hear and accept the Gospel which now remains unknown to them. Even now they receive that measure of general help which heaven has always bestowed on all men. Human nature, it is true, has been wounded by such a severe wound that natural speculation cannot lead a person to the full knowledge of God if the true light does not dispel all darkness from his heart.

St. Prosper of Aquitaine, St. Prosper of Aquitaine: The Call of All Nations, trans. P. De Letter, vol. 14 of Ancient Christian Writers (New York; Ramsey, NJ: Newman Press, 1952), 121; b. 2, c. 17.

CHAPTER 23

Children who die receive the general grace bestowed upon their parents
The reason that regulates the distribution of the gifts of grace is more inscrutable for us than the cause of the miseries which our nature deserved. But this very difficulty in understanding the mystery makes us look up to our Maker. If we ask, how it can be said that God wills all men to be saved, when He does not grant to all the time when they are able to receive grace in a free acceptance of the faith, I think we may believe without irreverence towards God and conceive without impropriety, that those human beings who live only a few days share in the kind of grace which has always been given to all nations.

St. Prosper of Aquitaine, St. Prosper of Aquitaine: The Call of All Nations, trans. P. De Letter, vol. 14 of Ancient Christian Writers (New York; Ramsey, NJ: Newman Press, 1952), 130–131; b. 2, c. 23.

CHAPTER 25

With His general grace given to all, God always wills and has willed all men to be saved; but His special grace is not granted to all
Whether, then, we look on these last centuries or on the first or on the ages between, we see that reason and religious sense alike make us believe that God wills and has always willed all men to be saved. We prove this from no other source than from the very gifts which God’s Providence generally bestows on all men without any distinction. These gifts are found to be so general in the past and in the present, that men find in their testimony sufficient help to seek the true God. Over and above these gifts which proclaim their Maker throughout the ages, God has scattered a special bounty of grace. And though this grace is bestowed more abundantly nowadays than before, yet the Lord has reserved to Himself the knowledge of the reasons of His dispensations and kept them hidden in the secrecy of His all-powerful will. Were these to come to all men uniformly, then there would be nothing hidden about them. And just as there can be no doubt about His general kindness to all men, so also there would be nothing astounding concerning His special mercy. Consequently, the former would appear to be a grace, while the latter would not. But God was pleased to grant this latter grace to many and to withhold the former from no one. He wished to make it clear from both that He did not refuse to all mankind what He gave to some men, but that in some men grace prevailed and in others nature recoiled.

St. Prosper of Aquitaine, St. Prosper of Aquitaine: The Call of All Nations, trans. P. De Letter, vol. 14 of Ancient Christian Writers (New York; Ramsey, NJ: Newman Press, 1952), 133–134; b. 2, c. 25.

CHAPTER 31

In all ages God’s general goodness gave grace to all men, but to the elect He gave His special grace
We have endeavoured to prove as best we could with the Lord’s help, that not only in our own day but in all past ages as well God gave His grace to all men, providing equally for all and showing to all His general goodness, yet in such a manner that the effects of His grace are manifold and the measure of His gifts varying. For in hidden or open ways He is, as the Apostle says, the Saviour of all men, especially of the faithful. This statement is subtle in its brevity and strong in its conclusiveness. If we consider it with a calm mind, we shall notice that it decides the whole of the present controversy. For by saying, who is the Saviour of all men, the Apostle affirmed that God’s goodness is general and takes care of all men. But by adding, especially of the faithful, he showed that there is a section of humankind whom God, thanks to their faith which He himself inspired, leads on with special helps to the supreme and eternal salvation. In doing this, God, who is supremely just and merciful, is above all injustice, and we have not to discuss His judgment about these rulings—that would be arrogance—but rather to praise it in awe and trembling.

St. Prosper of Aquitaine, St. Prosper of Aquitaine: The Call of All Nations, trans. P. De Letter, vol. 14 of Ancient Christian Writers (New York; Ramsey, NJ: Newman Press, 1952), 143–144; b. 2, c. 31.

[Editorial Note: cf. Calvin’s references to “general grace;” and, by way of remark, Calvin was familiar with this work and cited it.]

Bio:
Wiki

Original post here (click).

Henry Ainsworth (1571–1622) on God’s General and Special Love

3 Bounty.

God’s virtues in respect of his will are bounty, and justice: Bounty is that, by which out of love, God procures to every creature the good thereof, and it is common, and particular. Common bounty is towards all creatures, even such as offend him, directing them to their natural good, and sustaining them therein, so long as justice suffers, Luke 6:36. God cannot hate his creatures, as his works, for so they carry a similitude of God, the first cause [Eze. 33:11]: and none can hate himself, or his similitude, for a similitude is something of himself. God’s bounty to his creatures presupposes not any debt or duty, which implies imperfection; and if God were bound to his creatures, he should depend on them, and be imperfect.

God’s bounty which is infinite, gives creatures good things, of nature, of sour, and body, and of outward things.

Such is God’s bounty, as the creatures suffer no evil, unless God’s justice require it, or a greater good confirm it; of this virtue God is called patient, and long-suffering.

Particular, or special bounty, is that whereby God loved some men (in Christ) fallen into sin, and furnishes them to eternal salvation [Eph. 2:4–5]. God’s special bounty, is the first beginning, both of salvation, and of the means thereto. This bounty is no inherent quality in us, but we are the object of it, it is a grace making us grateful, not finding us so.

Henry Ainsworth, The Old Orthodox Foundation of Religion: Left for a Patterne To a New Reformation (London: Printed by E. Cotes, and are to be sold by Michael Spark at the Blue Bible in Green Arbour, 1653), 16–17. [Some spelling modernized; some reformatting; italics original; and underlining mine.]

Bio:
Wiki
DNB

Original post here (click).

Gryffith Williams (c.1589–1672) on John 17:9

1. In that they say, for whom Christ died, for them he intercedes and prays, and for whom he prays not, for them he died not; for none would offer the sacrifice of his body for them, for whom he would not offer the sacrifice of his lips: but for the wicked and reprobates he prays not, “I pray not for the world,” Joh. 17:9, therefore, for the wicked reprobates he died not.

I answer: that for whom he died with a special intent to work the effectual application of his death, thereby to save them, for them he prayed, that so, his death might be effectual for them, &., contra for whom he prayed not, I confess he died not with an intent to work the effectual application of his death, thereby to save them, but only to procure them a sufficient remedy to be saved, if they would, thereby to show his love, in giving this remedy, and to make them without excuse for neglecting the same.

Gryffith Williams, The Delights of the Saints (London: Printed for Nathaniel Butter, and are to be sold at the signe of the pide Bull neere Saint Austins gate, 1622), 37. [Italics original and underlining mine.]

Bio:
Wiki

Original post here (click).

Synopsis Purioris Theologiae (1625) on God’s Providence With Regard to Sin and Divine Permission

Synopsis Purioris Theologiae:

20 At this point we should see whether sins, too, fall under divine providence. We assert that it is wrong to say God provides sins in the sense that to provide means to attend and to care for. But we do not doubt that it may, and indeed should be said that God exercises providence concerning sins. For He foresees sins in advance, and wills to permit them; and as they are seen beforehand, He destines them to some universal or particular good, whether for a display of his mercy or justice, or for some other good. And so it is rightly said that He exercises providence regarding them, since He disposes to do well regarding them. But if one considers only that which is real in sin and ‘positive,’ as they say, what others call ‘the matter’ of sin, namely, as an entity or as an action, in this sense sins can be said even to be provided by God, but only in a relative sense and not in itself. That is because the formal structure of sin exists in the absence of being and of good, in a certain deformity and disorderliness, which does not come from God and so cannot have been provided for by Him.

21 Here is a place for a distinction in the ways God handles providence when He implements it—it is either effective, or permitting. The first is the one whereby God works effectually, and in all things generally and individually perfects his work (namely all things both general and specific in nature), not only the essential good—the substances, motions, actions and completions of things—but also the moral good, such as all civic and spiritual virtues. Because, as the highest good, He is also the author and source of all good.

22 The second is attributed to God also in Scripture, in which it is often said that He permits something; not only when He allows us to obtain what we wish in actions and affairs that are good, or middling actions that make no difference, for which the permission is linked to God’s approval and effective operation (Hebrews 6:3 and 1Corinthians 16:7). But even when He does not prevent the evils and the sins which He forbids (though He is able to), as He does not have a law about hindering things. For this permission is granted; nevertheless, the things that are permitted by it are not approved continuously. In this way the following texts are interpreted: Isaiah 2:6; Jeremiah 16:13; Acts 14:16; Romans 1:24 and 28; Psalm 81:13.

23 We acknowledge that this permission for all sins belongs to God’s providence. For although sins are evil, and accordingly cannot be provided by God, nevertheless the permission of them is good. So then, God both wills and directly decrees the permission, and ordains it for some good purpose that is greater than that of which the absence is the evil that is permitted. For since God is good to the highest degree, He would in no way permit there to be anything evil in his workings, unless He were not so almighty that even concerning evil He would still do good, as Augustine justly states (Enchiridion, chapter 11).

24 And so we think that God’s permission is not idle, or that something happens without the will of God, or without his care, or that He is neglecting anything that happens. And accordingly his permission should not be understood as opposed to his will and counsel. For it is in accordance with his will and after taking counsel that God grants permission. And He powerfully controls direction over sins, and it is not unusual for Him to apply his permission to carry out his judgements, occasionally even as a recompense for previously committed sins. In this sense the Schoolmen acknowledge that God “possesses a practical knowledge of sins, insofar as He permits, or prevents, them, or—once committed—appoints a goal for them” (Thomas Aquinas 1.14. art. 16).

25 In addition to this we state that before they occur, and while they are occurring, God in his great and most holy wisdom directs the arguments and opportunities that are like incentives to an act that does not happen without sin on the creatures’ part, yet these opportunities are not evil in and of themselves, so that He does not refuse his concurrence to the act as such (though not as sin). We state “that He presides (as Bellarmine himself admits) over wrongful wills, and rules and governs them, is invisibly at work in them, so that from his divine providence, though evil by their own vice, they are led more to the one than to the other.” Likewise he adds that God “bends and twists the wills” of the ungodly (On the Loss of Grace and the State of Sin, chapter 13), not shunning those types of expressions, instead using even harsher ones than those he adopts from others and distorts into a false accusation.

26 The goal of this teaching is the same as that of teaching that God has created everything: the glory of God, to which is joined the salvation of the elect, who derive manifold benefits from it. By his government of everything the elect come to acknowledge God as most wise, good, and powerful, the Lord of all things, upon whom all creatures depend. They learn to place their trust in Him like a Father who in all things provides for their best interests, as they rest securely in the protection of the one to whose judgement they subject themselves. They are patient in times of adversity, as they raise their eyes up to the prime cause, acknowledging and correcting their own sinful ways. They are grateful in prosperous times, bringing praise to his name; they fear and honour God in whose hand are all creatures, and with the utmost love they follow after Him whom they know exercises his particular care for those who are his own, and who has prepared for them an inheritance in heaven.

27 If anyone desires more and expects answers to all the minor questions arising from human reason, let him listen to the same person whom we praised at the outset of this disputation, Salvian: “I can say with sufficient reason and confidence: I do not know what is hidden, and I am ignorant of the counsel of the divine. In support of this position the revelation of the heavenly statement is sufficient for me: God says that by Him all things are observed, by Him all things are governed, and by Him all things are judged. If you wish to know what it is you must hold on to, you have the sacred writings. There is a perfect reason to hold on to what you have read. However, I do not wish that you ask me for what reason God so performs the things about which we are speaking. I am only a man; I do not understand the secret things of God. I do not make bold to search into them and therefore I am afraid even to attempt it, because if you desire to know more than is permitted to you, that too is a kind of irreverent impudence. Let it be sufficient for you that God bears witness that all things are performed and managed by Him” (On God’s Government, book 3).

28 Since these things are so, “we recoil in terror from the madness and folly [the words are those of Isidore of Pelusium, book 3 Epistle 154] of those who posit either that there is no God, or that there is one, yet who by no means whatsoever founded the world. Or that if He had founded it, does not govern it at all; or that if He governs it, He takes delight in those who embrace vice. Or that if He does not enjoy it, that He forfeits rule over it to others; or that if He has not forfeited the rule, that it was snatched away from Him against his will. Or that if the rule was not snatched away, that He is unwilling to avenge evil-doers; or that if He did wish to avenge, that He is not able to. Or that if He is able to, He has been idle for a very long time. Or that if He has nothing more valuable to do, that He is being over-ruled by the motion of the stars; or if He is not being over-ruled, that He wishes to be idle and lazy.” And if the mouths of the wicked spew forth any other blasphemies like this, they will in the end realize that:

Great in Heaven Is God who beholds and rules over every thing, To whom belongs the glory for ever and ever.

Johannes Polyander, Antonius Walaeus, Antonius Thysius, & Andreas Rivetus, Synopsis Purioris Theologiae, ed. Dolf te Velde, trans. Riemer A. Faber, 3 vols. (Brill: Leiden, 2015), 1:277–283. [Some minor reformatting; editorial and translator footnotes not included, Latin text not included; textual notation not included; italics original; and underlining mine.]

Original post here (click).

Revisiting John 17 and Jesus’s Prayer for the World

Revisiting John 17 and Jesus’s Prayer for the World
Regarding Jesus’s prayer in John 17, the following claims are always alleged, assumed, and asserted, even though they are never supported by any confirming evidence:

1. That this is a specific and effectual high priestly prayer on the part of Jesus.
2. That the “world” of 17:9 respects the world of the reprobate.
3. That those “given” in verse 9 represent the totality of the elect.
4. That the extent of the high priestly intercession delimits the scope of the satisfaction.
5. That the two parallel clauses in verses 21 and 23 are systemically overlooked or misread.

This short essay will not attempt to answer 1–4, specifically, but will rather focus on point 5: That the two parallel clauses in verses 21 and 23 are systemically overlooked or misread.

The verses read:

17:21: that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe [πιστευω] that You sent Me

17:23 I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know [γινωσκω] that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.

Or in short:

21 so that the world may believe [πιστευω] that You sent Me.

23 so that the world may know [γινωσκω] that You sent Me.

Some writers, like John Calvin and John Gill, attempt to divert the import of believe and know, in verses 21 and 23. It is interesting that Calvin notes that “world” in v. 21 and v. 23 must be the world of the reprobate, given its usage throughout the chapter. But yet, when it comes to πιστευω and γινωσκω, he drops this rule and makes them refer to something other than true saving faith. He said:

The verb, to believe, has been inaccurately [imprecisely; Parker translation] used by the Evangelist for the verb, to know; that is, when unbelievers, convinced by their own experience, perceive the heavenly and Divine glory of Christ. The consequence is, that, believing, they do not believe, because this conviction does not penetrate into the inward feeling of the heart. And it is just vengeance of God, that the splendor of Divine glory dazzles the eyes of the reprobate, because they do not deserve to have a clear and pure view of it. He afterward uses the verb, to know, in the same sense. [John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel according to John, 2:184.]

Gill does something similar (See John Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament, vol. 2, The Baptist Commentary Series [London: Mathews and Leigh, 1809], 89; John 17:21). After saying that “world” in v. 21 may mean the rest of the elect, he prefers that it means the remaining Jews and Deists who will be forced to acknowledge Jesus as Messiah at the last day. That has to be a very eccentric and strained reading of the text.

I do not believe that they are warranted to change the normal meanings of believe and know, as used by John in his gospel, such that they mean something other than saving or salvific belief and knowledge.¹ That is, anything other than that they should really believe and know, and this for themselves.

It is interesting that there is actually a parallel usage right in the text itself.

17:8 for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood [γινωσκω] that I came forth from You, and they believed [πιστευω] that You sent Me.

Or simply:

8b truly understood [γινωσκω] that I came forth from You …

8c and they believed [πιστευω] that You sent Me

Jesus uses the two verbs believe and know as respecting the same reference. The 11 apostles (at least) had come to know and believe that Jesus had been sent from the Father.

In verses 21 and 23, we see the exact same sentiment repeated but now applied to the world. The order may be reversed but the sentiment is the same, and repeated for emphasis, as with the first instance.

We also see the same exact sentiment in the summary statement of v. 25:

O righteous Father, although the world has not known You, yet I have known You; and these have known [γινωσκω] that You sent Me.

In short:

25 and these have known [γινωσκω] that You sent Me

What is more, if we look outside of John chapter 17, we find other examples of the same sentiment, with the same verbs, as we find in John 17:8, 21, 23, and 25.

John 6:69 And we have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”

John 16:27 for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me, and have believed that I came forth from the Father.

John 16:30 Now we know that You know all things, and have no need for anyone to question You; by this we believe that You came from God.²

Given these verses, it is likely that this expression had a thematic or formulaic meaning for John. To believe and to know that Jesus has been sent from the Father is the same as to believe in him for salvation. Indeed, what we see here is the language of personal confession. As the John 17 comments are part of a wider or general thematic intent in John, it is more likely that the comments in John 17 fit into that theme, rather than just asserting, rather atextually, that with regard to John 17:21 and 23, either that John incorrectly used the word “believe” (Calvin), or that his intent was to jump to the final eschaton, where it is alleged, that the “world” (namely Jews and Deists) will finally come to know and believe, against the desire of their hearts, that Jesus was the Messiah after all (Gill).

Both Calvin and Gill have trapped themselves at this point because they have bought into the idea that kosmos in verse 9 denotes the non-elect, rather than the world of mankind, alive, living in rebellion and opposition to God and his church. The sort of equivocation Calvin and Gill call for is not derived from the text but from something outside of the text of Scripture altogether. Certain false lexical and theological constraints have, as it were, hijacked what should have been their correct exegesis and biblical theology.

However, once the meaning of kosmos throughout the chapter is allowed to assume its normal Johannine meaning, and once the meanings of the verbs believe and know are allowed to be read consistently (as defined by context and usage rather than atextual interpolations), then according the standard rules of hermeneutics, the strict particularist reading of this passage really has no footing in this chapter. For without doubt, if Christ prays for the world, that they should know and believe, then he has most assuredly died for the world. For how could Christ pray for a man for whom he has not died?

Given that meaning is determined by context and usage, it’s clear that there is here a prayer that the world truly believe and know that Jesus has been sent from the Father, just as the Apostles now believe and know that Jesus is sent from the Father. This cannot mean bare knowledge of facts or “historical belief” or “historical knowledge,” or a belief in terror or dread at the last judgment, but true and proper saving belief. Furthermore, we know that this is a prayer for the world’s salvation because of the clear presence of the subjunctives (v. 21, ἵνα ὁ κόσμος πιστεύη; and v. 23, ἵνα γινώσκη ὁ κόσμος). Christ prays that future believers be one for the purpose that the world may believe and know that Jesus has been sent from the Father. And having recognized this, we can discern in what sense he does and does not pray for the world. While it is true that Jesus in this prayer does not pray in behalf of the world as he prays in behalf of present and future believers, nonetheless, his prayer does have regard for the world in that it is a prayer for the benefit of the world, namely their salvation.

Lastly, given the two clauses in John 17, it becomes more doubtful that the prayer of John 17 should considered specifically an effectual “high priestly” prayer. Rather it is a personal prayer of the Son as general mediator between God and mankind.
________________________
1. Needless to be said, by this I do not mean that all will be saved (Universalism) but that the aim of Christian unity, in this prayer, is that the world similarly come to a true and living faith in Christ.

2. Another verse of interest is John 13:35: “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.” I do not think that either Calvin or Gill’s lines of interpretation would do justice to this verse. More likely the meaning is that “all men” know that Christians are the followers of Jesus in marvel and wonder (not in fear and dread), and that the aim of “loving one another” is the conversion of all men.

Original post here (click).

Leon Morris (1914–2006) on John 1:29

The verb “takes away” conveys the notion of bearing off.⁶² It is perhaps not specific enough to point to anyone particular means of atonement, but it does signify atonement, and that by substitution. “Jesus bears the consequence of human sin in order that its guilt may be removed” (Hoskyns). It is removed completely, carried right off. John speaks of sin,⁶³ not sins (cf. I John 1:9). He is referring to the totality of the world’s sin, rather than to a number of individual acts. The expression “the sin of the world” does not appear to be used prior to this passage. The reference to “the world” is another glance at the comprehensiveness of Christ’s atonement. It is completely adequate for the needs of all men. Right at the beginning of his Gospel John points us forward to the cross and to the significance of the cross.
_______________
62 The verb is αἴρω, which John uses more than any other New Testament writer (26 times). It is found with the object ἁμαρτημα in I Sam. 15:25, and ἀνοημα in I Sam. 25:28, both times in the sense “forgive.” The idea of bearing sin in Heb. 9:28; I Pet. 2:24 is conveyed by αναϕερω, but there is not likely to be a great difference in meaning. MacGregor, agreeing that the verb αἴρω means not “take upon oneself,” but “take out of the way,” yet says, “But the latter thought, while enriching the former, also includes it, for a lamb can only ‘remove’ sin by vicariously ‘bearing’ it, and this Christ did.” J. Jeremias sees two possible meanings of the verb in this passage: “to take up and carry” and “to carry off.” He says, “In both cases it is a matter of setting aside the guilt of others. In the former, however, the means of doing this is by a substitutionary bearing of penalty; in the latter sin is removed by a means of expiation” (TDNT, I, pp. 185f.). In the Johannine manner probably both meanings are in . mind. For the concept of sinbearing see my The Cross in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, 1965), pp. 322ff.

63 John’s interest in the sins of men should not be missed. He uses the noun ἁμαρτια 17 times, the same total as in 1 John. The only New Testament books which use the term more are Romans (48 times) and Hebrews (25 times).

Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971), 148. [Some minor reformatting; some spelling modernized; footnote values and content original; and underlining mine.]

Original post here (click).

Edward Polhill (1622–1694) on Christ Suffering the Idem and the Tantundem: A Mediating Position

1. This price is redemptive from the guilt of sin and wrath of God; and this in a more immediate way by itself. Now, albeit the entire price concur herein, yet because as to this there is a special relucency in some parts thereof, I shall only insist on five things, viz.

1. Our sins were laid upon Christ.

2. He suffered the same punishment, for the main, that was due for these sins. …

There are two essentials of punishment in hell, pœna sensûs, et pœna damni, and he suffered both: when the fire of God’s wrath melted him into a bloody sweat, there was pœna sensûs; and when the great eclipse of God’s favour made him cry out of forsaking, there was pœna damni. Christ suffered the same punishment, for the main, which we should have suffered; the chief change was in the person, the just suffering for the unjust, the surety for the sinner. But you would say, Christ did not suffer the same punishment, for he neither suffered eternal death, not yet the worm of conscience.

As to that of eternal death, I answer by two distinctions.

1. In eternal death we must distinguish between the immensity of the sufferings and the duration; the immensity is essential to it, but the duration is but mora in esse and accidental. Christ suffered eternal death as to the immensity of his sufferings, though not as to the duration of them; he paid down the idem as to essentials of punishment, and the tantundem as to the accidentals: what was wanting in the duration of his sufferings, was more than compensated by the dignity of his person, for it was far more for God to suffer for a moment, than for all creatures to suffer to eternity.

2. We must distinguish between punishment as it stands in the law absolutely, and punishment as it stands there in relation to a finite creature, which cannot at once admit a punishment commensurate to its offence; and so must ever suffer, because it cannot satisfy to eternity. Punishment as it stands in the law absolutely, is death; punishment as it stands there in relation to a finite creature, is eternal death: the first was really suffered by Christ, and the second could not be justly exacted of him; for he paid down the whole sum of sufferings all at once, and so swallowed up death in victory.

Edward Polhill, “The Divine Will Considered in Its Eternal Decrees,” in The Works of Edward Polhill (London: Thomas Ward and Co., 1844; repr., Morgan PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1988), 153 and 154.

Bio:
DNB

Note: (1) To suggest, as Polhill does, no doubt following Owen, that the duration of death is not an essential aspect of the Law’s demands against a sinner is theologically problematic. If the eternal or even temporary duration of death, of both soul and body, in hell is not essential as a satisfaction to God’s holiness, then the fact that God should keep sinners in eternal suffering is monstrous. If their mere physical death, even along with much pain and suffering, effected an essential satisfaction to the Law’s demands against that sinner, on what just grounds could God effect the further suffering of that sinner? (2) Owen’s essential vs accidental distinction is an evasion so that he may pretend to claim that Christ suffered, in his own person, the same as in the original obligation, the idem as demanded from the original sinner. Thereby, Owen can imagine that Christ’s death ipso facto remits and discharges the sinner from obligation to the law. And exactly because the “payment” was the same, as to essentials, as in the original obligation, the satisfaction effected by Christ cannot be “refusable.” God as Judge (or better in terms of Owen’s theology, God as Creditor) must accept it, as if it was made by the person of the sinner. By this chain of premises, Owen sought to secure the infallible necessity needed in his wider claim that all for whom Christ died, all these cannot fail to be saved. That wider claim hinges on his essential vs accidental claim. If that unravels then so too must the other links in is argument. (3) It is better, therefore, to hold that the suffering and death of Christ, as a whole, was deemed as a just equivalent (tantundem), and his finite suffering deemed satisfactory on the basis of the infinity of his person (as per classic Anselmian categories).

Original post here (click).

Edward Polhill (1622–1694) on Christ’s General and Special Intercession (With Reference to John 17)

1)

Object. 3. If Christ died for all men, then he intercedes for all; but he intercedes only for the elect, therefore he died for them only.

I answer that Christ doth in some sort intercede for all men; and this I shall clear several ways.

1. From the nature of Christ’s intercession; that is not a formal prayer, but an appearing in the holy of holies before the face of God as an advocate, and there presenting his blood and righteousness in their freshness and endless life of merit, with a will that all the grace purchased thereby may be dispensed to the sons of men; therefore Christ even in glory stands ὡς ἐσφαγμένος, as one slain, (Rev. 5:6), shewing his bleeding wounds to make intercession with God. Hence it follows, that his intercession (being a kind of celestial oblation) perfectly answers to his oblation on the cross; he is an advocate above, so far as he was a surety here below; his blood speaks the very same things in heaven as it did on earth, and his will stands in the same posture towards sinners there as here. Now how far was Christ a surety for all? Surely thus far, that all may be saved if they believe; else either they cannot be saved at all, which is contrary to the truth of the promise, or they may be saved without a surety, which is contrary to the current of the scriptures. But if he were so far a surety for all, then he is so far an advocate for all; for he appears an advocate in heaven for all those for whom he appeared as a surety on the cross. Hence the apostle saith in general, If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, (1 John 2:1); he saith not strictly, if the elect sin, but at large, if any man sin we have an advocate; and as the true groundwork of this general advocation, he adds, he is the propitiation for the whole world, (v. 2). So far forth as he was a propitiation for the world, so far forth he is an advocate for it. And another apostle affirms, that Christ is a mediator between God and men, (1 Tim. 2:5); he saith not, betwixt God and his church, but betwixt God and men; and the following words give the true reason of it, “Christ gave himself a ransom for all,” v. 6), he is no less a mediator for all, than he was a ransom for all. Christ’s blood shed on the cross spake thus far for all men, that they might have their pardon on gospel terms; and afterwards being carried to heaven, it speaks the very same language for them; for the voice or speech of that blood is its merit, and that merit is of an indeficient virtue. Hence that blood cannot be speechless, because it cannot be meritless; and so far on earth as it merited for all, so far in heaven it speaks and intercedes for all. Moreover, as Christ’s blood speaks the same things for them in heaven as it did on earth, so Christ’s will in heaven stands in the same posture towards them as it did on earth; wherefore, in a sort, he intercedes for all.

2. From the patience of God, which waits on men, even such as at last perish. If Christ did not stand with the incense of his sweet-smelling merits between the living and the dead; between the reprieved sinners on earth, and the damned spirits in hell, the patience of God would not wait one moment upon them.

3. From the working of God’s Spirit; for as Christ is our paraclete or advocate in heaven, (1 John, 2:1), so the Holy Spirit is God’s paraclete or advocate on earth, (John, 1:6, 7). Surely, if the advocate in heaven spake nothing for the non-elect, the advocate on earth would not woo them to salvation; if the blood of Christ did not at all plead for them, the Spirit of Christ would give no touches at all upon them, much less such touches as to make them taste the powers of the world to come.

4. From the liberty of prayer. Simon Maggus, even whilst in the gall of bitterness, was commanded to pray, (Acts, 8:22), but what, without a mediator? No, surely; that sinful man who hath no mediator in heaven, must not presume to pray on earth. I see no reason why a man merely mediatorless should have more leave to pray than a devil, who is therefore without hope because without a mediator. The apostle commands men to pray everywhere, (1 Tim. 2:8), but a little before he lays down this as the ground-work;—“There is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all,” (v. 5, 6). The mediation of Christ opens the door to prayer.

Wherefore, as to this objection, I answer thus:—Christ intercedes for all men in such sort as he died for them; I say in such sort, for there is a vast difference between his general intercession for all, and his special intercession for the elect. For as Christ by his blood shed on the cross, merited for all in general, that they might be saved on gospel terms, and merited for the elect in special, that they should believe and be saved, so by the same blood presented in heaven, he intercedes for all, that they may be saved on gospel terms, and intercedes for the elect that that they may believe and be saved. And thus he is the complete mediator of the covenant; as the general promises extend to all, so answerably he intercedes for all; and as the special promises point only at the elect, so proportionably he intercedes for the elect.

Edward Polhill, “The Divine Will Considered in Its Eternal Decrees,” in The Works of Edward Polhill (London: Thomas Ward and Co., 1844; repr., Morgan, PA.: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1988), 167–68. See also Edward Polhill, The Divine Will Considered in Its Eternal Decrees and Holy Execution of Them (London: Printed for Henry Euerson, at the Sign of the Crown in Corn-hill, near the Great Class-shop, 1673), 303–307.

2)

6. I argue from the intercession of Christ. Christ intercedes for men more or less proportionably as he more or less respected them in his death, for his death is the foundation of his intercession; the very same blood of Christ, which as shed on earth made satisfaction, as presented in heaven makes intercession. Now how far doth Christ intercede in heaven? What doth his blood speak there? For all men it speaks thus, Father, let them all be saved on gospel terms; but for the elect it speaks thus, Father, let them have repentance: this the apostle hints out, “Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance to Israel.” (Acts. 5:31). Israel’s repentance on earth comes from Christ exalted in heaven; for there he intercedes for it by his merits, and from thence he works it by his Spirit. Again it speaks for them thus, Father, let them be made a willing people; this I gather from the 110th Psalm, where we find Christ sitting at the right hand of God, (ver. 1), and sitting there he intercedes for us; and from this session and intercession comes forth a willing people, (ver. 3). Here is the true original of spiritual willingness; the right hand of God (which is a right hand of power) works it in our hearts, and works it at the instance of Christ, who sits and intercedes there for it. Again, it speaks for them thus, Father, sanctify them with thy grace, preserve them with thy power, and crown them with thy glory in heaven. Thus Christ, in his sweet prayer a little before his bitter passion, interceded for them for their sanctification, Sanctify them through thy truth, (John 17:17); for their perseverance, Keep them through thine own name, (ver. 11); and for their glory, I will that they be with me where I am, to behold my glory, (ver. 24). And what he spake for them by his oral intercession on earth, that he speaks for him by his real intercession in heaven. Thus Christ doth in a special manner intercede for the elect, which proves that he died for them in a special manner; because his intercession is but the presenting of the merits of his death to his Father in heaven.

Polhill, “The Divine Will Considered in Its Eternal Decrees,” Works (1988), 174. See also Edward Polhill, The Divine Will Considered in its Eternal Decrees and Holy Execution of Them (London: Printed for Henry Euerson, at the Sign of the Crown in Corn-hill, near the Great Class-shop, 1673), 340–42.

Bio:

DNB

Credit to R. Muller, by way of Michael Lynch, for find #2.

Original post here (click).

Herman Witsius (1636–1708) on Christ Suffering the Just Equivalent Not the Idem of the Law’s Punishment

It is not necessary
that Christ should
undergo precisely
the same punishment
which the damned
shall suffer.

XV. I know not whether that stubbornness of style wherein they delight in explaining the sufferings of Christ, arises from this, that they think he was so substituted for sinners that he behooved to undergo precisely the same punishment, which was otherwise due to our sins, and which the damned shall suffer in their own persons. Which opinion Owen defends at large in his Prolegomena to the Hebrews, vol. 2. page 80, &c. I profess truly that I agree with those Divines, who believe that the Father demanded from the Son a sufficient ransom indeed, and worthy of his injured majesty; yet so, that all clemency was not excluded, nor was every thing found in Christ’s sufferings, which shall be found in the most righteous punishment of the reprobates. For from his untainted holiness, from the covenant between him and the Father, finally, from the dignity of his Divine person, some things are to be observed in his sufferings, which have no place in the eternal misery of the damned.

There is a great
difference between
the one and the
other.

XVI. While impious men, roaring and gnashing their teeth, and raging with diabolical fury against Divine Justice, are forced to undergo the punishment inflicted on them; so much the more grievous for this reason, that they wretchedly weary themselves in vain resistance, and because they are gnawed with the never dying worm of conscience, continually upbraiding them with their crimes; Christ from the purest love to the Divine glory, voluntarily underwent his afflictions, though most grievous, and with a calm submission to his Father’s will, drank the overflowing cup which was mixed to him; and well knowing that nothing befell him on account of his own sins, he enjoyed the serenity of a pure conscience. The rigor of a stubborn law, and the peremptory sentence of an inexorable judge, whereby they are condemned to unavoidable and eternal anguish, being continually before the eyes of the wicked, inconceivably increase the terror of their torments, through horrible despair. But the sharp-sighted and the steadfast faith of Christ, representing to him ever and anon the Father’s most certain promises concerning an inconceivable weight of glory, immediately to follow the most terrible torments indeed, but of short duration, encouraged him to bear them with alacrity, certain of victory, while he was in the most vehement ardor of the combat.

Which however
derogates nothing
from the
satisfaction of
Christ.

XVII. Neither by asserting these things, which are most evidently true, do we any how detract from the value of Christ’s sufferings, which is to be estimated not from their degree only, nor from their duration, but also from the dignity of the person suffering: since in such pains of our Divine Savior there is a sufficient ransom, and equivalent to the debts of the elect.

Herman Witsius, Conciliatory, or Irenical Animadversions, on the Controversies Agitated in Britain, Under the Unhappy Names of Antinomians and Neonomians , trans. Thomas Bell (Glasgow: Printed by W. Lang, 1807), 50–52. [Some spelling modernized and Americanized, and italics mine.]

Bio:
Wiki

Credit to Michael Lynch for the find.

Original post here (click).

Thomas Brooks (1608–1680) on Christ Suffering the Idem and the Tantundem: A Mediating Position

Here it may be queried, whether the Lord Jesus Christ underwent the idem, the very self-same punishment that we should have undergone? or only the tantundem, that which did amount, and was equivalent thereunto? That in different respects, both may be affirmed. The punishment which Christ endured, if it be considered in its substance, kind, or nature, so ’twas the same with that the sinner himself should have undergone, but if it be considered with respect to certain circumstances, adjuncts, or accidents, which attend that punishment, (as inflicted upon the sinner) so ’twas but equivalent and not the same. The punishment due to the sinner was death, the curse of the law (upon the breach of the first covenant), now this Christ underwent, “For he was made a curse for us,” Gal. iii. 13. The adjuncts attending this death were the eternity of it, desperation going along with it, &c., these Christ was freed from (the dignity of his person supplying the former, the sanctity of his person, securing him against the latter), therefore in reference unto these (and to some other things already mentioned) it was but the tantundem, not the idem. But suppose there had been nothing of sameness, nothing beyond equivalency in what Christ suffered, yet that was enough, for it was not required that Christ should suffer every kind of curse, which is the effect of sin, but in the general accursed death. Look as in his fulfilling of the law for us, it was not necessary that he should perform every holy duty that the laws requires, for he could not perform that obedience which magistrates, or married persons are bound to: it’s enough that there was a fulfilling of it in the general for us. So here it is not necessary that Jesus Christ should undergo in every respect the same punishment which the offender himself was liable unto, but if he shall undergo so much as may satisfy the law’s threatenings, and vindicate the law-giver in his truth, justice, and righteous government, that was enough. Now that was unquestionably done by Christ.

Thomas Brooks, A Golden Key to Open Hidden Treasures (Printed for Robert Smith, at the Sign of the Gilt-Bible, near the head of the Salt-mercat, 1763), 148–49. Also in Thomas Brooks, “The Golden Key to Open Hidden Treasures,” in The Complete Works of Thomas Brooks, ed. Alexander Balloch Grosart, 6 vols. (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: James Nichol; James Nisbet and Co.; G. Herbert, 1867), 5:105–106.

Bio:
Wiki

Works:
Volume 1
Volume 2
Volume 3
Volume 4
Volume 5
Volume 6

Original post here (click).