Order of Contents
Statement of the Question
The Early & Medieval Church
The Distinction: ‘the Same’ & ‘the as Much
Limited Atonement is Consistent with Further Designs in the Atonement
Statement of the Question
Institutes, vol. 2, 14th Topic, ‘The Mediatorial Office of Christ’, Question 14, sections 9-11, pp. 458-9
“IX. Hence the state of the question is easily elicited. (1) It is not asked with respect to the value and sufficiency of the death of Christ–whether it was in itself sufficient for the salvation of all men. For it is confessed by all that since its value is infinite, it would have been entirely sufficient for the redemption of each and every one, if God had seen fit to extend it to the whole world. And here belongs the distinction used by the fathers and retained by many divines–that Christ ‘died sufficiently for all, but efficiently for the elect only.’ For this being understood of the dignity of Christ’s death is perfectly true (although the phrase would be less accurate if referred to the will and purpose of Christ).
But the question properly concerns the purpose of the Father in delivering up his own Son and the intention of Christ in dying. Did the Father appoint his Son for each and every one and, did the Son deliver himself up to death with the design and intention of substituting himself in the place of each and every one to make satisfaction and acquire salvation for the same? Or did he resolve to deliver himself up for the elect only, who were given him by the Father to be redeemed and whose head he was to be?…
Hence it is sufficiently evident that it is not here treated of the revealed will (eurestias) of God only, but of his secret will (eudokias) under which the death and mission of Christ fall (as all must agree).
X. (2) The question does not concern the fruits and efficacy of Christ’s death–whether each and all will be actually made partakes of these [and hence be saved]… Our opponents acknowledge that these are to be extended to believers only.
Rather the question refers to the design of God in sending his Son into the world and the purpose of Christ in his death. Were these such that Christ by substituting himself in the place of each and every one, made satisfaction and obtained the remission of sin and salvation for them all or for the elect only? They affirm the former; we affirm the latter.
XI. (3) We do not inquire whether the death of Christ gives occasion to the imparting of many blessings even to reprobates. For it is due to the death of Christ that the gospel is preached to every creature, that the gross idolatry of the heathen has been abolished from many parts of the world , that the daring impiety of men is greatly restrained by God’s word and that some often obtain many and excellent (though not saving) gifts of the Holy Spirit. All these unquestionable flow from the death of Christ, since no place would have been given for them in the church unless Christ had died. Rather the question is whether the suretyship and satisfaction of Christ were (by the counsel of God and the will of Christ himself) intended for each and every one (as they hold); or for the elect only (as we assert).”
Bucanus, William –
Rutherford, Samuel – The Doctrine of Universal Atonement Proven False and Unscriptural, from his Christ Dying and Drawing Sinners to Himself, no date, 88 paragraphs
This work is commended by John Owen in his preface to The Death of Death.
Turretin, Francis – ‘Chapter V – The Extent of the Atonement’ †1687 80 pp. in On the Atonement, pp. 115-195
Brown of Wamphray, John – ‘Arguments Against Universal Redemption’ †1679 36 pp.
Ness, Christopher – Ch. 2, ‘Of Universal Redemption’ in An Antidote Against Arminianism: or a Treatise to Enervate & Confute all the Five Points Thereof… (1700; London, 1838) This has a recommendation by John Owen.
Cunningham, William – ‘Arminian View of the Atonement’, ‘Extent of the Atonement’, ‘Evidence as to the Extent of the Atonement’, ‘Extent of the Atonement and the Gospel Offer’, ‘Extent of the Atonement and its Object’ & ‘Extent of Atonement, and Calvinistic Principles’ 1870 69 pp. from Historical Theology, vol. 2, pp. 301-370
Cunningham was a professor of the Free Church of Scotland.
Walker, James – ‘The Extent of Redemption’ 1888 15 pp. being section 3 of ch. 3, ‘The Atonement’ in The Theology and Theologians of Scotland: chiefly of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, pp. 79-94
A survey of the 1600’s Scottish covenanters on the extent of the atonement, from a minister in the Free Church of Scotland.
Spurgeon, Charles – Particular Redemption a sermon on Matt 20:28, 1858, 31 paragraphs
Janeway, Jacob – ‘The Scriptural Doctrine of the Atonement Illustrated and Defended’ †1858 21 pp. in A Series of Tracts on the Doctrines, Order and Polity of the Presbyterian Church, vol. 1
This tract defending Limited Atonement from scripture is one of the best there is.
Janeway was an Old School Presbyterian, ministerial colleague of Dr. Ashbel Green, and the president of the board of Princeton Seminary from 1849-58.
Murray, John – ‘On Romans 8’ 15 pragraphs from Redemption Accomplished and Applied
Boettner, Loraine – ‘Limited Atonement’ 28 paragraphs
Berkhof, Louis – The Purpose and Extent of the Atonement 1950, 16 paragraphs, from his Systematic Theology
Kuiper, R. B. – For Whom Did Christ Die? A Study of the Divine Design of the Atonement Buy 1959
Schwertley Brian – ‘Limited Atonement’ n.d. 64 paragraphs
Kimedoncius, Jacobus – Of the Redemption of Mankind, Three Books, wherein the Controversy of the Universality of Redemption and Grace by Christ, and of his Death for all Men, is Largely Handled. Hereunto is Annexed a Treatise of God’s Predestination in One Book ToC (London, 1598) In Latin (1592)
Kimedoncius (c.1550-1596) was a reformed, professor of theology at Heidelberg.
Kimedoncius’s opponent in this work was Samuel Huber (1547-1624), who was a convert from being reformed to Lutheranism. As such, he advocated a general atonement with a particular election.
“But Harsnett’s association of a rigorous particularism with ‘Geneva’ should not be taken so as to exclude the Heidelberg school. In this connection two outstanding but now less well-known divines should be mentioned, namely Jeremias Bastingius and Jacobus Kimedoncius.
These divines, in works that were repeatedly published in England in the 1580’s and 1590’s, offered ‘Perkinsian’ interpretations of such texts as John 3:16, 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, and 1 John 2:2… He also taught that Christ’s priestly satisfaction and intercession were only for the elect; that under the preaching of the gospel, sinners are not required to believe that Christ died for them personally; that a universal gospel call does not necessitate a desire in God to save the reprobate; and that the gospel promise is strictly particular.
Kimedoncius’ work was personally licensed by Bishops Richard Bancroft of London and Richard Vaughan of Chester. Kimedoncius’ work therefore serves as an example of how strict Elizabethan particularism, with the blessing of the establishment, was also nourished by continental sources.” – Jonathan D. Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism… (Eerdmans, 2007), pp. 67-68
“In his larger Concerning the Redemption of Mankind, Kimedoncius… appealed again to the sufficient-efficient distinction. ‘The blood of Christ was shed for those only that are predestinated, as touching efficacy: but for all men as touching sufficiency.’
Kimedoncius was sensitive to Huber’s charge that limited redemption was a novelty introduced by Beza at Montbeliard, and cited fathers and schoolmen to ‘prove’ the antiquity of the position. Calvin, Beza Grynaeus and other Reformed leaders were also cited as favoring the sufficient-efficient distinction. According to Kimedoncius, when the Reformed have said that Christ did not die for all, and Beza is specially singled out for this ‘defence’, they are not to be taken ‘absolutely and without restraint’ but as following ‘the old distinction’. The Reformed, Kimedoncius maintained, agree that if all would believe, all would be saved…
As well as acknowledging universal sufficiency, Kimedoncius indicated other legitimate understandings of universal redemption. It is universal in the sense that the whole church is redeemed, and that all who are saved are saved only through Christ, and that Christ is a ransom for all classes.” – G. Michael Thomas, The Extent of the Atonement… (Paternoster/Wipf & Stock, 1997), pp. 117-8
Stalham, John – Vindiciæ Redemptionis: In the Fanning and Sifting of Samuel Oates’ Exposition upon Mt. 13:44. With a Faithful Search After Our Lords Meaning in His Two Parables the Treasure and the Pearl. Endeavored in Several Sermons Upon Mt. 13.:44-45. Where in the Former Part, Universal Redemption is Discovered to be a Particular Error. (Something Here is Inserted in Answer to Paulus Testardus, Touching that Tenet.) And in the Later Part, Christ the Peculiar Treasure and Pearl of God’s Elect is Laid as the Sole Foundation; and the Christians Faith and Joy in Him and Self-denial for Him, is Raised as a Sweet and Sure Superstructure 1647 182 pp.
This work is commended by John Owen in his preface to The Death of Death.
Owen, John – The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, being a Treatise of the Redemption and Reconciliation that is in the Blood of Christ; wherein the whole Controversy about Universal Redemption is Fully Discussed †1683 320 pp.
Answer to Mr. Henry Drummond’s Defence of the Heretical Doctrine Promulgated by Mr. Irving respecting the Person and Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ and to his Denial of Original Sin, and of the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness 1830 275 pp.
eds. David Gibson & Jonathan Gibson – From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective Buy
Tossanus, Sr., Daniel
A Theological Disputation on that Place of Paul, the divine, 1 Cor. 15:22, ‘For as in Adam All Die, so in Christ shall all be made Alive’: and of this Question: Whether Christ has Died for All? (Heidelberg, 1589) 51 theses
On Pelagianism & its Remnants: Historical, Didactic & Admonitory Theses in Order to Decide the Controversies which are somewhat around the doctrine especially of Predestination, & of the Efficacy of the Death of Christ which are now Unseasonably Stirred… (Heidelberg, 1595) 57 pp.
Tossanus (1541-1602) was a French reformed theologian and professor of New Testament at Heidelberg, Germany.
“Tossanus… engaged in a literary battle with [the Lutherans, Samuel] Huber and [Aegidius] Hunnius… All three [other German] works [of Tossanus] maintain that Christ came into the world for his people, and pour scorn on the idea that Christ could have died for those now damned. The ‘all’s of the Bible are to be understood as referring to all believers. The sufficiency of the death of Christ for all is freely granted, but the fruit or effect limited to believers, so that it is said that Christ both did and did not die for all, depending on the sense in which the assertion is made.
The discussion ranges around faith rather than predestination, which is hardly touched upon , and the position espoused is, in summary, that Christ died for believers.” G. Michael Thomas, The Extent of the Atonement… (Paternoster/Wipf & Stock, 1997), p. 117
Theses on the Universality of Redemption & Grace through Christ (Heidelberg, 1591) 14 pp., 55 theses
This was written against Samuel Huber, who was reformed, but then turned Lutheran. Lutherans held to a universal atonement with a particular election.
In this work, Kimedoncius “used the sufficient-efficient distinction to forward his aim of showing that effective redemption is limited to those who by faith receive it. He also pointed out the uselessness of a universal atonement to those already damned before Christ died.” – G. Michael Thomas, The Extent of the Atonement… (Paternoster/Wipf & Stock, 1997), p. 117
A Synopsis of Redemption & Predestination: with the Assertion of Theses on the Universality of Redemption & Grace through Christ, Against Samuel Huber, & Theses on Predestination by Johann Brentius out of his Commentary on Romans 9 are Added (Heidelberg, 1593) 160 pp. This work is different from both the above and his work on The Redemption of Mankind in Three Parts, though all of these were published between 1591-3.
Piscator, Johannes – A Tract on the Grace of God, in which is Disputed the Controversial Question, Whether the Saving Grace of God may be Universal? or, Whether God wills every man to be saved? to Jacob Junius, Secretary of Nassau; to which is added, by the same Johannes Piscator, a Refutation of the Atrocious Calumny which a certain one has made of him on Divine Predestination through an odious interpretation; also, an Explication of the Question of the Object of Predestination (Herborne, 1614) 178 pp. Index
This work was written against the Lutheran, Niels Hemmingsen (1513-1600).
Alsted, Johann Heinrich – Pt. 6, Section 1, ‘Of the Dogmas of Jacob Arminius & his Disciples’, 2. ‘The Universality of the Merit of the Death of Christ’ p. 679-680 in Polemical Theology, Exhibiting the Principal Eternal Things of Religion in Navigating Controversies (Hanau, 1620; 1627)
Walaeus, Antonius – A Theological Disputation on the Universality of the Death of Christ (Leiden, 1636)
This work is especially against the Remonstrant Arminians.
2nd Article, On the Universality of the Death of Christ, 7 chs. in The Anti-Synod Writings, or Animadversions on those Dogmatics which the Remonstrants Exhibited in the Synod of Dort & Later Divulged (Amsterdam, 1646)
Elenctics about Particularity against the Remonstrants: the Scholastic Dispute with Nicholas Grevinchovio on a General Redemption & Election out of Foreseen Faith, with a Scholastic Reply to the Prolix, Opposing Response of N. Grevinchovio in the Dispute in Works, vol. 5 (Amsterdam, 1658) Table of contents
Braun, Johannes – Ch. 7, ‘Of Universal Grace’, pp. 299-303 in The Doctrine of the Covenants, or A System of Didactic and Elenctic Theology (Amsterdam, 1691)
Heidegger, Johann Heinrich – 19. ‘Of the Office of Jesus Christ’, 56-58, ‘Of the Extent of the Death of Christ’ in The Marrow of Christian Theology: an Introductory Epitome of the Body of Theology (Zurich, 1713)
The Early Church on Limited Atonement
Collections of Quotes
Owen, John –‘Some Few Testimonies of the Ancients’ 3 pp. at the end of The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, in Works, 10.422-424
Most of Owen’s excerpts are from the the early church up through A.D. 440. He cites: Eusebius, Ignatius, Clement, Cyprian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Ambrose, Augustine, Prosper & the Council of Valence in A.D. 855.
Gill, John – ‘Part 4, ch. 2, Of Redemption’ 44 pp. in The Cause of God and Truth, pp. 442-486
Gill gives extended excerpts of 33 early Church fathers up through A.D. 390. here is the table of contents.
On Augustine & the Pelagians
Institutes, vol. 2, 14th Topic, ‘The Mediatorial Office of Christ’, Question 14, p. 455
“II. Among the ancients, it appears that the universality of redemption was contended for by the Pelagians and Semipelagians. Hence Prosper [of Aquitaine, c. 390 – c. 455 AD] (concerning the remains of the Pelagian heresy) says, ‘This is their definition and profession that Christ died for the whole human race and that no one is excluded from the redemption effected by his blood’ (Letter to Augustine 6 [ACW 32:43; PL 33.1005]).
And among the damnable errors which they boasted of having found in Augustine was this also: ‘The Savior was not crucified for the redemption of the whole world.’ Faustus (Rhegiensis) [a semi-pelagian prelate, d. c. 485 A.D.] says, ‘They wander far from the path of piety who say that the Savior did not die for all’ (De Gratia Dei et Libero Arbitrio 1.4 [PL 58.789])”
The Medieval Church on Limited Atonement
On Gottshalk of Orbais
“But, unlike Augustine, Gottshalk [of Orbais, c.803-868] taught a specific death by Christ for the elect:
“Our God and master Jesus Christ [was] crucified only for the elect.”
It has been said that Gottschalk provided the first clear articulation and defense of a particular redemption in church history. Although men previous to him had made strong statements about the basic aspects of this doctrine, Gottschalk first demonstrated the strong relationship between predestination and the extent of the atonement.
Gottschalk wrote, “Christ died only for the elect,” asserting that Christ died exclusively and triumphantly for the sins of His people.””
Robert A. Peterson
Calvin and the Atonement (Mentor, 1999), 115-120
“[Jonathan] Rainbow convinces me that Gottshalk [of Orbais, c.803-868] and [Martin] Bucer [1491-1551] (in debates with Anabaptists) taught limited atonement before Calvin. I must modify my judgment, therefore, and argue that limited/unlimited atonement was not a debated issue within reformed circles until the time of Calvin’s successor, [Theodore] Beza. I thus agree with Robert Letham that the extent of the atonement ‘only became a major issue in the next generation’…”
R. Scott Clark
‘Limited Atonement’, footnote 21
“Anselm of Canterbury (c.1033–1109), whom all the Reformers followed in their substitutionary doctrine of atonement, seems to imply a definite atonement throughout his work, Why the God-Man? (Cur Deus Homo). See Cur Deus Homo, 2.19 [see especially pp. 105-106].”
eds. David Gibson & Jonathan Gibson, From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective, p. 86, footnote 33.
“…In book 1, chapters 16-18 [of Why God Became Man], Anselm is pressed by his interlocutor, Boso, to explain whether or not the number of the redeemed will make up the number of fallen angels or if the number of the redeemed will bring to completion a number greater than the number of angels created.
The outcome of the matter, in Anselm’s opinion, is that the number of the redeemed will not merely equal the number of the fallen angels but will exceed the total number of angels to a predetermined perfect amount. In this respect, [Peter] Lombard is continuing in the same vein of thought by arguing that the number of the redeemed is fixed in accord with the predetermined plan of God.”
Institutes, vol. 2, Question 14, p. 456
“III. The same controversy was afterwards renewed among the Romanists, some of whom defended the universality of redemption (with the Semipelagians), others its particularity (with Augustine and his genuine disciples).
This controversy lay principally between the Jesuits and Jansenists, of whom the former (an offshoot of the Pelagians) warmly contend for the universality of Christ’s death, while the latter with great firmness defend its particularity, following their founder, Jansen, who has argued this subject very largely and with great solidity in his Augustinus (‘De Gratia Christi Salvatoris,’ 3.20 [1640/1964]. pp. 369-80), his Apologia Jansenii published in 1644, Art. 17,19,20+ and in Catechismo de Gratia, c. 7, de Predesti. q. 65+.”
Smeaton, George – pp. 481-525 of ‘Historical Sketch of the Doctrine of Atonement’ 1870 45 pp.
Smeaton surveys the Early and Medieval Church on the atonement in general, and references the extent thereof at times when it comes up.
Haykin, Michael A.G. – ”We Trust in the Saving Blood’: Definite Atonement in the Ancient Church’ 2013 23 pp. being ch. 1 of ed. David Gibson & Jonathan Gibson, From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective, pp. 33-56 Buy
Hogg, David – ”Sufficient for All, Efficient for Some’: Definite Atonement in the Medieval Church’ 2013 21 pp. being ch. 2 of ed. David Gibson & Jonathan Gibson, From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective, pp. 75-96 Buy
Post Reformation History on Limited Atonement
Trueman, Carl – ‘John Owen and Andrew Fuller’ in Eusebeia (Spring, 2008), pp. 53-69
John Calvin on the Extent of the Atonement
Rainbow, Jonathan – The Will of God and the Cross: a Historical and Theological Study of Calvin’s Doctrine of Limited Redemption Buy
“This was probably the definitive work against RT Kendal’s thesis that Calvin was not a Calvinist in his view of the atonement. Kendal and others believed that Calvin and Arminius shared the common view that Christ died for all. The thesis was quickly adopted by many evangelical theologians. Jon Rainbow’s book, in my humble opinion, was the definitive reply to the Calvin against the Calvinists thesis…” – Rev. Chris Gordon
Order of Quotes
De Substantia Foederis Gratuiti inter Deum et Electos (Geneva, 1585), pp. 67-72 as translated in G. Michael Thomas, The Extent of the Atonement… (Paternoster/Wipf & Stock, 1997), p. 114
“In the eternal counsel of God… this ransom was not destined for any other than those who believe… that is, those whom the Son of God makes believers.”
“If He had made intercession and sacrifice for reprobates too, then clearly, their sins having been paid for by the sacrifice of the Son of God, the justice of God would not allow Him to require a debt already paid by the Son, nor would the justice of God be able to punish them with eternal death for their sins inasmuch as satisfaction has been made by Him.”
Nicholas Ridley †1555
John Foxe, Acts and Monuments, 19th century edition, volume 7, Written in prison before his execution by fire.
“…Not only the Lord’s commandment is broken, his cup is denied to his servants, to whom He commanded it should be distributed, but also with the Mass is set up a new blasphemous kind of sacrifice to satisfy and pay the price of sins both of the dead and the quick, to the great and intolerable insult of Christ our Savior, his death and passion, which was and is the one only sufficient and everlasting available sacrifice satisfactory for all the elect of God, from Adam the first, to the last that shall be born in the end of the world…”
On David Pareus
As given in G. Michael Thomas, The Extent of the Atonement… (Paternoster/Wipf & Stock, 1997), p. 116, citing ‘A Piece of a Speech, Concerning that Question, to whom Properly doe the benefits of Christ’s Sufferings and Death Belong? And, how Christ is said to die for all?’, pp. 808-811 in Theological Miscellanies of Dr. David Pareus (London, 1645) (pp. 667-844 of The Summe) A fuller Latin version is in ‘Miscellanea‘, cols. 39-44, in Ursinus’s Opera 3.
“On the understanding that the death of Christ belongs to ‘the universalitie of the faithfull’, people discover whether Christ died for them by employing the syllogism:
‘Christ prayed and died for all believers; I believe; Ergo, Christ died for me.’
Pareus rejected the alternative:
‘Christ died for all men; I am a man: Ergo, Christ died for me.'”
John ‘Rabbi’ Duncan, late-1800’s
“It is a monstrous doctrine: ‘Christ died for me, and I may die the second death’; only God does not hold them by their logic.”
“To die for the sake of sinners whose sin is not actually taken away would be a clear waste of moral action.”
William Cunningham on the Distinction between ‘the same’ and ‘the as much’
Sermons: from 1828-1860, 1872, reprinted by Still Waters Revival, 1991
Sermon 28 – The Atonement: Scripture Doctrine and Current Theories, on Gal. 4:4-5, pp. 408-9
We believe it can be proved to be the clear and certain teaching of Scripture, that Christ, having become our surety and substitute, took our place and assumed our responsibilities as transgressors of God’s law, and in consequence, endured the penalty we had incurred, and thereby rendered satisfaction to the Divine Justice and Law for our sins,—a satisfaction which was the true and adequate ground of all subsequent procedure on God’s part towards us, in bestowing forgiveness and spiritual blessings. Christ’s death, according to this view, was not merely penal in its general character, but it was on His part the endurance of the penalty we had merited,—the same penalty we had incurred;—the same, not, of course, in its circumstances or its external aspects, but in its legal value,—its moral worth, its real significance, as a compliance with the requirements of law, which denounced punishment and demanded satisfaction. It is true, indeed, that all orthodox divines have not attached quite so much importance as Dr. Owen does, to the distinction between the idem and the tantundem,—‘the same,’ and ‘the as much,’—a distinction which he presses so strongly in the exposition of this subject. Some divines of the highest eminence and orthodoxy have admitted that the substance of what Scripture teaches on this subject might be held to be declared by asserting that Christ suffered as much as sinners had deserved,—the tantundem and not the idem,—provided due care was taken to guard against the loose and vague generality of representing Christ’s death merely as a substitute for the penalty,—a phrase which may mean almost anything or almost nothing,—and to keep up distinctly and prominently the idea of substantial identity, or sameness as really attaching to it, when viewed as a judicial infliction in accordance with the provisions of law.
But though some difference of phraseology has been sanctioned by high authority on this subject, there has been a very general concurrence of opinion among orthodox divines, that it is no real declaration of the scriptural doctrine of the Atonement to say that Christ’s death was a substitute for the penalty which men had incurred, or even to say that it was an equivalent for the penalty, unless the idea of substantial identity, or sameness,—sameness in worth and value, in import and significance,—be kept up, by its being represented as a full equivalent and an adequate compensation. This, at least, seems necessary in order to embody the sum and substance of what Scripture teaches upon the subject; and nothing short of this can be fairly held to be implied in the position that Christ suffered as a substitute for us, and thereby rendered satisfaction for our sins to God’s Justice and Law. Our [Westminster] Confession of Faith says (ch. 11, section 5) that both ‘the exact justice and the rich grace of God are glorified in the justification of sinners.’ And we are persuaded that it may be regarded as a general test of the soundness of men’s views upon this whole subject, that they not only assent honestly and intelligently to this statement of our Confession…
Limited Atonement is Consistent with Broader Designs in the Atonement that do not Involve a General Atonement
Limited atonement advocates such as Du Moulin, Kimedoncius, Byfield et al., who were against a general atonement, did not shy away from affirming that Christ died to make a sufficient atonement for all, and died for all people in this sense.
The national French synod of Alancon did not have an issue with a multi-intentionality, but only that Amyraut & Testard used the language of Christ dying ‘equally’ for all.
John Cotton to James Ussher, 31 May 1626 in Sargent Bush, Jr. (ed.), The Correspondence of John Cotton (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001), pp. 111-12
“Yet this one thing more let me also add. Tho I yield some degree of Eﬃcacy in Christ’s Death unto all; yet I conceive it far short, both of Impetration [legal undertaking and payment of sins] and Application of that gracious Atonement, which is there by wrought to the Elect of God; whence also it is that I dare not preach the Gospel indifferently unto all, before the Law; nor the worth of Christ, before the need of Christ. Children’s Bread is not meet for Whelps; and full Souls will despise Honey-Combs.”