Chapter I

IT is truly a matter of grief and exceedingly to be deplored, that either from the misfortune or the disorder of our age, it almost always happens, that those mysteries of our religion, which were promulgated for the peace and comfort of mankind, should be turned into materials for nothing but contention and dispute. Who could ever have thought that the death of Christ, which was destined to secure peace and destroy enmity, as the Apostle speaks, Ephes. ii. 14, 17, and Coloss. i. 20, 21, could have been so fruitful in the production of strife? But this seems to arise from the innate curiosity of men, who are more anxious to scrutinize the secret councils of God, than to embrace the benefits openly offered to them. Hence it comes to pass that from too much altercation on the points, For whom did Christ die, and for whom did He not die? little is thought by mankind individually of applying to ourselves the death of Christ, by a true and lively faith, for the salvation of our own souls. It is my intention in treating of this subject to endeavour rather to appease strife than to excite it anew. Since, therefore, it is conceded by those who extend the death of Christ to all mankind generally, that as to its beneficial reception it is applied only to certain persons in particular ; and since on the other hand, those who restrain it to the elect alone, confess notwithstanding that its benefits extend to all that are called, yea, to all men if they would believe; both sides seem to acknowledge a twofold consideration of the death of Christ. For by both of them it is regarded as an universal cause of salvation applicable to all mankind individually if they should believe, and as a special cause of salvation applied effectually to certain persons in particular who have believed. If I should treat of the death of Christ under this twofold view, it will perhaps appear that in some things which are contested with eagerness, there are rather various modes of speaking than different opinions. I shall commence therefore with certain short and perspicuous propositions, first, those which are brought forward concerning the death of Christ as an universal cause of salvation applicable to all mankind ; and then I shall add other propositions on the death of Christ as a special cause of salvation applied efficaciously to certain persons, or at least infallibly to be applied in God’s own time. Nor do I intend to enter into any contest, but to give a plain and calm exposition of the whole subject; not intending to engage with any disputant; unless he should oppose us in such a manner that we could not otherwise open the way to the discovery of the truth, than by contending with him, But before I bring forward the above-mentioned propositions, I shall premise some things concerning the origin of this controversy, and the sentiments of the Fathers respecting it, and other similar matters, which may seem necessary to the thorough understanding of the history of this controversy. For as in order to the cure of diseases it is of primary importance to be well acquainted with their origin and causes; so likewise in order to settle controversies, it is an essential advantage thoroughly to understand on what occasion they arose, by whom they were contested, in what manner and how far they were agitated by the antients. Let us therefore apply ourselves to a concise elucidation of this business.

I think then it may be truly affirmed, that before the dispute between Augustine and Pelagius, there was no question concerning the death of Christ, whether it was to be extended to all mankind, or to be confined only to .the elect. For the Fathers, when speaking of the death of Christ, describe it to us as undertaken and endured for the redemption of the human race; and not a word (that I know of) occurs among them of the exclusion of any persons by the decree of God; they agree that it is actually beneficial to those only who believe, yet they every where confess that Christ died in behalf of all mankind. Thus Clemens Alexandrinus (Pedag. cap. 11) says, That Christ freely brings and bestows salvation to the whole human race. And of the same opinion is Origen, lib. 5, contra Celsum, Jesus is declared to have come into the world for the sake of all who ever were sinners, that they might leave their sins, and give themselves up to God. With. whom agrees Primasius¹ on I Tim.ii. on the words Who gave himself a ransom for all: he says, For all men indeed, the biovud of Christ has been shed, but it is beneficial only to those that believe. From which disciple of Augustine, we may conjecture what was the doctrine of Augustine himself. Their adversaries were nevertheless accustomed to object to Augustine, and others who embraced his doctrine of predestination, that they taught that Christ was crucified for the predestinate alone, and from this objection of the Pelagians some in succeeding ages seized a handle for kindling the afore-mentioned controversy. This is manifest from the objections of the Vincentians,² in which this takes the lead, That our Lord Jesus Christ did not suffer for the salvation and redemption of all men. It is manifest from the Answers of Prosper to the Capitula of the Gallican Divines ;³ where their ninth objection is given after this manner: That the Saviour was not crucified for the redemption of the whole world. The Semipelagians objected to this as new, invidious, and erroneous. But Prosper meets these objections, not by maintaining that Christ suffered only for the elect, but by shewing whence it arises that the passion of Christ is profitable and saving to the elect alone ; namely, because these only through the benefit of special grace obtain persevering faith, whereby they are enabled to apply to themselves the death of Christ. All others without the assistance of this special grace, through their own fault, either remain altogether in unbelief, or draw back from faith received, and therefore fail of the benefits of redemption. This is the tendency of the points in the Answer to the afore-mentioned objection of Vincentius, That as far us relates to the magnitude and virtue of the price, and to the one cause of the human race, the blood of Christ is the redemption of the whole world: but those who pass through this life without the faith of Christ, and the sacrament of regeneration, do not partake of the redemption. A little afterwards, The cup of immortality, which is composed of our infirmity, and Divine goodness, has indeed in itself what as profitable for all, but if it be not drunk, it does not heal. Not dissimilar are the remarks brought forward in answer to the ninth objection of the Gallican Divines. For there it is confessed, although Christ may be said to have been crucified for those only whom his death profited, that is, for the regenerate, and those that believe to the end, ? may also be said, that the Redeemer of the world gave his own blood for the world, and the world would not be redeemed. Lastly, it clearly proves that Augustine did not teach that Christ died for the predestinate alone, because Prosper from his opinion extends the peculiar benefit of His passion, namely, the remission of original sin, to infants even not predestinated. (Resp. ad obj. 2 Gall. & Sentent. 2.) He who says, that the grace of baptism being received does not take away original sin from those who are not pyedestinated to life, is not a Catholic. Which opinion was embraced by the Synod of Valence⁴ even some ages after Augustine, as it appears by the fifth canon. From these things it is evident, that although the seeds of this controversy were sown, yet that Augustine and his disciples would never be the patrons of the doctrine, That Christ suffered for the predestinated alone. But dismissing Augustine let us come to Pelagius and his followers. And here it is worth while to observe, that in the late discussions of this controversy, two errors contrary to each other have been attributed to Pelagius, but falsely. For those who contend that Christ died for the elect alone, say that the opposite opinion, namely, That Christ died for all, is one of the Pelagian errors. On the contrary, those who are on the opposite side, exclaim, that it is mere Pelagianism to say, That Christ did not die for all men. But they do injustice to both sides, to Pelagius and to themselves. With respect to the first, a certain learned man says, that this opinion concerning universal redemption and limited deliverance, was attributed to the Pelagians and Semipelagians; and supported by a certain passage of Augustine against Julian (lib. 5. cap. 3.) where he attacks the Pelagians in this manner, Go on still, go on; and as you say, In the sacrament of the Saviour infants are baptised, but are not saved ; are redeemed, but are not liberated; are washed, but are not absolved ; so also say, Blood is shed for them for the remission of sins, but they are not cleansed by the remission of sin. These are marvellous things which you say, they are new things which you say, they are false things which you say, and so on. But in this place Augustine disputes about infants only ; nor does he do this in order to shew that it is to be set down as Pelagianism, That Christ died for those who on account of their own unbelief are not saved, but that He died for those, or redeemed those who were not subject to sin, and therefore had no guilt from which they should be freed. For as it respects infants, Pelagius acknowledged in words that they were redeemed, but taught in reality that they had no need of redemption; as it is evident, since he contended, That there was nothing depraved in them, nothing held under the power of the devil; in one word, nothing which could be redeemed by so great a price. (August. Epist. 90.) This, therefore, is what Augustine finds fault with in him, not that he taught, That Christ suffered for all: Which opinion of Pelagianism it can be shown was not condemned in any Council that was formed against the Pelagians, nor in any work of Augustine written against the Semipelagians. He professedly writes against the errors ef the Semipelagians in his books, On the Predestination of the Saints, and On the benefit of Perseverance : yet he never attempts to infringe the proposition—That Christ died for all men. Whatsoever, therefore, may be concluded respecting the truth of this proposition (which will be seen hereafter) it is certain, that it was never accounted a Pelagian dogma, as some persons, leaning on weak foundations, have confidently affirmed.⁵

But I come to the contrary proposition. For there is one who affirms that this also savours of Pelagianism, and writes that Pelagius taught, That Christ did not die for all men. Thus Grevinchovius,⁶ in a Dissertation ou the death of Christ, with our countryman Ames,t says (p. 51), Pelagius taught (as Faustus of Ries testifies, lib. i. cap. 16) That Christ did not die for all men. Know therefore and consider, that this error which I have objected to you is common to you and Pelagius. Butt know not whether through design or ignorance he produces the egregious prevarica- Chap.1. ON THE ORIGIN OF THE CONTROVERSY. 325 tor Faustus of Ries⁷ as a witness against Pelagius, who, under the pretence of opposing Pelagius, strenuously maintained his cause, and every where attacked the Catholic Doctors, concealing their names. But however serviceable a witness Faustus of Ries might be in this business, Grevinchovius committed a gross error when he thought that the above-mentioned opinion was to be attributed to Pelagius. If he had ever looked into the books of Faustus, he might easily have perceived that in that place he was not writing against the Pelagians, but against those who attribute all to Divine grace and mercy, that is, against Augusiine, Prosper, and the rest of the orthodox, whom he babbles against, as unlike the race of sectaries, but like to the Pelagians in impiety. (Faustus, lib. i. cap. 3 and 6.) If, therefore, Grevinchovius desires to prove from this passage that this opinion was heretical, he ought to exhibit it as a mark of Augustinian, not of Pelagian heresy. But in reality Faustus did the same as was before shewn, from the objections of the Vincentiaus, and the Capitula of the Gallican divines, other Semipelagians had done: That is, he calumniously imputed this opinion to Augustine and the orthodox, as necessarily connected with the doctrine of predestination; which nevertheless they never would acknowledge. But to return to Pelagius and the Semipelagians, who it is certain erred in some things about the death of Christ, although neither of the afore-mentioned opinions was reckoned among the antients the error of Pelagius. Pelagius himself erred, in the first place, not directly by extending the death of Christ beyond its proper limits, but indirectly and by consequence, by maintuning that all infants, whether elect or not elect, were free from original sin, whom nevertheless he affirmed were redeemed by the death of Christ. He extended, therefore, redemption by the death of Christ even to those whom he thought to be free from sin, as we said before: that is, he declared that those were redeemed by the death of Christ, who had no sins from which they could be redeemed. This is the senseless doctrine which Augustine continually explodes, namely, That through baptism the death of Christ is applied to those who had no sin that could be expiated by the death of Christ. The words of Pelagius himself are, Who is so impious as to forbid to a little infant of whatever age that redemption which is common to the human race ? (De pec. orig. cap 19.) And the Council of Carthage, in their Epistle to Innocent (which is the ninetieth among those of Augustine) relates that Celestius had already confessed in the Carthaginian Church, That the redemption even of little children was effected by the baptism of Christ. (August. Epist. 59.) Now they who in words admitted the redemption of children, held notwithstanding, (Contra duas Epist. Pelag. 4.2) That the same infants do not need the grace of the Saviour to deliver them from perdition, because they have not contracted any contagion from Adam which deserves damnation. They held, That baptism ts necessary for persons of all ages, in order that the baptised person might be adopted as a son of God, riot because he derived from his parents any thing which could be expiated in the laver of regeneration; In one word, That the grace of the Redeemer has in them what he may adopt, not what he may purify. (2 Hypognost. 5.) This, then, is the first error attributed to the Pelagians about the death of Christ, not that they affirmed that He suffered for all, as some have thought; nor that they denied that He suffered for all, as others falsely pretend ; but because they dared at the same time to hold these two opposite doctrines, That redemption through the death of Christ pertains to all men of all ages: and, That infants are altogether free from sin and damnable guilt, from which they could be redeemed. So much for the first error of Pelagius.⁸

Secondly, the Pelagians or Semipelagians erred in explaining the universality of the death of Christ, bv joining with it an absurd, false, and very obscure condition. For thus Prosper describes their opinion in an epistle to Augustine: That our Lord Jesus Christ died for the whole human race, and that no one is altogether excepted from redemption by His blood, even if he should pass alt his life in a disposition most alienated from it. Of the same kind ts that assumption of which mention is made by the Church of Leyden in their book on the three Epistles (Biblioth. Patrum. vol. 9. part i. p. 1063), If any persons can be found who should say that the Lord was crucified for the wicked who shall remain in their wickeduess, it is wonderful and incredible if they are able to prove this from direct testimonies of the Divine Scriptures. The orthodox thought that a conditional addition of this kind should deservedly be rejected. For in the first place, it is uncertain. what the Pelagians meant by that addition. [f they meant that any benefit or advantage could be derived from the death of Christ by those who spent all their life in impiety and unbelief, they openly contradict the Scriptures, which do not promise any benefit from the death of Christ to such, but threaten them with eternal damnation on account of their contempt of the death of Christ. Moreover, if they would intimate that even those who die in their impiety and unbelief, if they had believed, that is, if they had not died in their unbelief, might have been saved by the merit of Christ crucified, through faith, they express their meaning confusedly and obscurely, and what they seem to assert in one part of the declaration, they foolishly deny in another. Lastly, if they mean by the aforesaid assumption, that Christ in offering up himself had considered any persons as finally unbelieving and impenitent, and yet under this consideration had offered up himself to the Father to obtain pardon and life for them, it is evidently false and erroneous. For as a physician does not think of restoring health to a sick man under this formal consideration, Even if he should obstinately contemn and reject the medicine which he had prepared: so neither does the Physician of souls will that the precious medicine of His blood should profit any under this consideration, However he may finally trample upon and despise it. It is therefore to be observed, that in shewing the opinion of the Semipelagians, many things are joined together by Prosper and Hilary, some of which agree with the truth, and others savour of error. What therefore they relate, that the Semipelagians declared that all men sinned in Adam, and that our Lord Jesus Christ died for the whole human race, and some other things, they do not mention as their errors, but to shew how far they agree with the orthodox, and that they may explain the whole series and connexion of the Semipelagian doctrine. Those then greatly err, who think that all the things which are attributed to the Semipelagians by Prosper and Hilary are erroneous and Pelagian. We assert therefore, that Augustine never attempted to impugn that proposition of the Semipelagians, That Christ died for the whole human race, but with all his might refuted the addition they had made to it; where he shews, that the property or benefit of redemption, that is, eternal life, belongs to the predestinate alone, because they alone do not pass through life in unbelief, they never die in their impiety.

The third and most grievous error of the Pelagians and Semipelagians about the death of Christ, respects the primary cause of a different event, namely, that this death of Christ infallibly brings eternal life to certain persons, and does not bring it to others. They referred it to the human will as the primary cause of this difference, presuming that God equally willed the salvation of all men in Christ, nor by a special decree of predestination endued some persons with that faith and perseverance through which they should apply to themselves the death of Christ for salvation. On the contrary, Augustine, with the orthodox, contended, that that persevering faith, by means of which the death of Christ brings salvation to individuals, is extended to the elect by a singular gift of mercy, and does not arise from the good use of free-will in the one rather than in the other. Here the controversy directly regards the grace of predestination and free-will, and obliquely touches upon the death of Christ, inasmuch as the orthodox, assigning a reason why it eventually brings salvation to some persons, always ascend to the Divine predestination, the Pelagians descend to the human will. Prosper, in his epis tie to Augustine, thus expresses their opinion in this matter, As it respects God, they say, that eternal life is procured for all; but as to the freedom of the will, that eternal life is apprehended by those who of their own accord should believe in God, and receive the help of grace through the merit of, their believing. A little afterwards, They fear to ascribe the merits of the saints to the Divine operation, nor do they think that that which is predestinated can admit of increase or diminution. The Semipelagians are not blamed by Prosper or Augustine because they assert that Christ died for the whole human race, but because having stated this, they infer that there is no special will of God in predestinating, by which he effectually produces that faith in the elect which regards a saving application to themselves individually of that death of Christ which was endured for all, but suspend it on the uncertain hazard of the human will. This is either the sole or the principal error against which Augustine contended in his books On the predestination of the saints, and the benefit of perseverance. This error also Prosper attacked in his poem On the Ungrateful; in which he teaches from the opinion of the Pelagians, that God equally willed the redemption of all mankind by the death of Christ,

Cap. 10, &c.

Yet the same Prosper says, that God by his predestinating and operating will, would that those only should be redeemed to whom he should give those things, by means of which they should be infallibly led to salvation. And, lastly, he shews that this efficacious will of saving some by the death of Christ and not saving others, did not flow from the discriminating acts of the human will. To this those words (ch. 13) relate.

Cap. 13.

Prosper, then, does not oppose (what he elsewhere acknowledges) that Christ suffered for all, but, that God had willed that all men were equally redeemed in fact by the merit of the passion of Christ, and had committed the efficacy of redemption to the will of men. For this is that ulcer of Pelagian doctrine which Faustus of Ries, lib. 1. cap. 17, endeavours to conceal under the covering of these words : God as the Remunerator of their good will, redeemed the willing. And rightly indeed; but if we speak of efficacious redemption, He first made them willing, being the Inspirer of their good will. If the Pelagians had held this, that the death of Christ was beneficial to mankind according to the special decree and operation of the Divine will, the orthodox would never have objected to them as an error that they maintained, That Christ died for all. Hitherto (as we have seen) that controversy on the death of Christ was not formed or agitated between the orthodox and the Pelagians which is discussed in the present day. For neither did Augustine ever oppose as erroneous the proposition, That Christ died for the redemption of the whole human race: Nor did he ever acknowledge or defend as his own, Lhat Christ died not for all men, but for the predestinate alone. Let us now proceed, and from the records of antiquity search into the controversies about the death of Christ which sprung up after the age of Augustine.

After the death of Augustine and Prosper, Lucidus, a Presbyter, seems to have stirred up this question, which had been some time laid asleep. He taught in plain words, That Christ died not for all mankind, Against him arose Faustus, Bishop of Ries, the ringleader of the Semipelagians. He writes to him a terrible Epistle filled with anathemas. Among other things he pronounces an anathema upon those who teach that Christ had not died for all. At the close of this epistle he commands Lucidus to send it back to him subscribed with his own hand ; and threateus, if he should refuse, that he would accuse him before the Synod of Arles, which was then sitting, and had subscribed these letters and anathemas of Faustus. Lucidus being frightened at this thundering epistle, subscribed it, and thus condemned with his own hand the opinion which he had promulgated. A short time afterwards, the Synod of Leyden was assembled, which added some things to the decrees of the former Council, to which also Lucidus yielded his assent. There is extant an epistle of Lucidus to this Synod of Leyden, in which he condemns those who say, [That Christ our Saviour did not endure death for the salvation of all men; and, according to the new mode of preaching established in this Council, he asserts, That Christ our Saviour, according 10 the riches of his goodness, suffered death for all men. Both of these letters are extant in the Bibliotheca Patrum (p. 3. tom. 5), the names also of the Bishops being subscribed who are thought to have been at these councils. But the things which are boasted of in the name of these councils are not of much moment, since for the most part they rest merely on the veracity of the heretic Faustus. For if you set aside these letters of Faustus, you may in vain seek elsewhere the afore-mentioned decrees of the Council of Arles, as they are no where else to be found. Nor can those new decrees about preaching, of which Lucidus speaks in his epistle, be found among the canons of any Council of Leyden. The veracity of Faustus in these things is further diminished, because he seems to intimate in his Epistle to Leontius,⁹ that those books on grace and free-will, which are so full of poisonous sentiments, were not only written by the direction of this Council of Leyden, but were also approved of by it. And moreover, he pretends that he inserted nothing in this writing besides the opinion of this Synod. But indeed it is neither true nor credible that so many learned men could be so deceived by Faustus, as to approve of Pelagian doctrine by his vote. I say these things, not because I wish to condemn as errors those things which are thought to be defined in this chapter by Faustus on the death of Christ, under the approbation of those Synods, but lest any one, in a controverted point, should attribute too much to the authority, or rather, to the bare name of Synods, of which we have nothing certain from remains worthy of credit. This also is an argument with me, that those Fathers of Arles and Leyden, could not have sanctioned, under so grievous an anathema, that no one should preach that Christ died only for the elect, because in the commentaries of the Fathers who lived in the subsequent ages, that mode of speaking is often found, or at least is left in doubt. Remigius of Rheims, on the 8th of Romans, at the words, He who spared not His own Son, but freely delivered him up for us all, says, for us all, that is, for those who are predestinated to eternal life. And on 1 Tim. ii, 6, Who gave himself a ransom for all, adds in explanation, Understand, for the elect. Yet, that there was some difference at least in the mode of speaking among the Doctors of that age, appears from this same Remigius. For on those words which are in Hebrews 11.9, That He should taste death for every man, he writes thus, Some Doctors understand this absolutely, that it means for all for whom He tasted it, that is, for the elect, who are predestinated to eternal life. But others understand it generally, that He tasted death for all, believing and unbelieving, saying, He died indeed for all, though all will not be saved. Gregory the Great, in one and the same Homily (Ez.1. 1. Hom. 2.) calls Christ The Redeemer of mankind, and the Redeemer of all, and yet afterwards subjoins, That this Redeemer of all delivered himself to death for the life of the elect. To these two I will add Haimon, Bishop of Halberstadt, who flourished about the year of Christ 850, and who in his Commentaries so touches upon this controversy, that he determines nothing certain on either side. On the 5th chapter of the latter Epistle to the Corinthians, he says, Christ came into the world, being born without sin, living without sin ; though innocent He died for all those who are predestinated to life. And as Prosper says, and John Chrysostom, and other Doctors, although all do not believe, He did his part, dying for all. A little after, on those words, God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, he says, Through Christ He reconciled to himself the world, that is, all those who were predestinated. In the 2d Chapter to the Hebrews also, he mentions both opinions, in the same words as we shewed Remigius had used before. We see, therefore, that these holy Fathers did not much care for that anathema fortified by the authority of Councils, which Faustus brings forward; but notwithstanding retained to themselves the liberty of writing and speaking. Yet I think that it ought to be added, that those Fathers, when they restrict the death of Christ to the predestinate, do not do it absolutely ; but in consideration of the saving effect which, by means of faith, it brings to them alone: and on the other hand, when they extend this death of Christ to all, they do not extend to all that special will of God in calling them according to his own purpose, in giving them faith, and effectually working in certain individuals according to his own counsel and operation, that they may reap the benefit of the death of Christ. Therefore they so understand the universality of redemption that they did not subvert the secret counsel of predestination, in which thing they differed widely from the Pelagians and Senipelagians. ‘They also understood redemption in such a restricted sense, that at the same time they acknowledged that it pertained to all men individually under the condition of faith. While Haimon himself (whom we just mentioned) was living, new tragedies were brought forward about this question of the death of Christ. For one Godeschalcus, a Monk, as Flodoardus¹⁰ has recorded: (Hist. Remens. 3. 14), that he might make himself known to the people by the novelty of his doctrines, selected for himself certain subjects to be publicly discussed ; among which (not to speak of those which are not applicable to our present purposc) this was one of the chief: That our Lord Jesus Christ was not crucified and put to death for the redemption of the whole world, that is, not for the salvation and redemption of all mankind, but only for those who are saved. Which is the same as if he had said, only for the predestinated. This sentiment of Godeschalcus was discussed and condemned first by the Synod of Mentz,¹¹ and afterwards by Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, who assembled another Synod, and committed Godeschalcus himself to confinement in a monastery, that he might not disseminate his errors. They published also some opinions opposite to the sentiments of Godeschalcus, in which what regards our present case is as follows, (Bibl. Pat. vol. 9. p. 1093. Eccl. Lugd.) Our Lord Jesus Christ, as no man is, was, or will be, whose nature was not assumed by Him, so no man is, was, or will be, for whom He did not suffer, although all are not redeemed by the mystery of his passion. But this definition of Hincmar of Rheims, and the other Bishops who adhered to it, was disapproved of at Leyden, where Remigius presided. Therefore they undertook an examination of the four opinions of Hinemar which were opposite to those of Godeschalcus ; and particularly of that opinion of Godeschalcus, which referred to the death of Christ, of which they speak thus, We would wish that nothing should be spoken or defined confusedly and inconsiderately on this subject; since it has us own depth and difficulty, which should be di:igently searched out from the truth of the Holy Scriptares and the authority of the orthodox Fathers, and not determined by our presumption. And they so far disapproved of the definition of Hincmar which was opposed to the doctrine of Godeschalcus, that they wrote about it in this manner: (Bibl. Pat. vol. 9. p. 1058. Eccl. Lugd.) What else can we answer respecting this your definition, but that we would earnestly request and admonish those who gave it, that they would endeavour vigilantly and faithfully to examine, lest by consideri: g too little what has been said, they should speak such things contrary to the faith and their own consciences, and destroy their own definition by the things before spoken of. Nor did the Church of Leyden think it sufficient to refute in writing some things which were contained in those definitions of Hincmar, but, together with the Bishops of Arles and Vienne in the Synod of Valence, confirmed canons in which some things are restored which they thought blameable in the opinions of Godeschalcus, and some things also which they judged worthy of reproof in those of the adversaries of Godeschalcus. Omitting the rest, we mention only those things which were discussed and confirmed respecting the present controversy , against Hincmar, and those who favoured his views. They, as you have heard, determined, That no man ever had been, was, or would be, for whom Christ did not suffer. But the Church of Leyden distributed the whole hnman race, as it were, into certain classes. The first order is of those who are elected to eternal life; of whom none can perish, and who are all saved. The second is of those that believe, who by a right faith receive the grace of baptism, and by at are cleansed from their sins, but afterwards turn away from the faith, and die in their unbelief. The third is of those who being as yet in unbelief, are nevertheless by the mercy of God to be called to the faith, and to be cleansed by baptism. They profess that Jesus Christ came into the world and was crucified for these three classes of mankind, that he might save them. Two other classes of mankind are excluded from the benefit of the death of Christ. One is of those who from the beginning of the world until the coming of Christ, died in their impiety. The other is of those who since the advent and passion of Christ even to the end of the world, shall continue in unbelief. (Eccl. Lugd. p. 1094 and 1058.) To which plainly agree the decrees of the Council of Valence, in the fourth and fifth canons. But in these different opinions of Hincmar and Remigius two things are to be observed: One is that Remigins and the council of Valence, although they did not approve the sentiment of those who extended the death of Christ to all men individually, yet they have not confined it to the predestinate alone. The other is, That in this difference of opinions, those ancient Fathers cultivated the peace of the church, and did not interrupt it in order to accuse each other of heresy. Which may evidently be collected from the words of the church of Leyden, which after the refutation of the opinions of their adversaries, adds these words (Eccl. Lugd. p. 1063), We much wish that their opinion, although it proceeds from their piety, yet for peace sake, and the venerated piety of the most blessed Fathers, may not be renewed. Therefore vo dispute should be engaged in by one against the other, nor shoud one sentiment be condemned rather than the other. And because it may truly happen that there is something concealed in this matter, through our ignorance, nothing should be rashly defined, so that in whichever mode of speaking any one may acquiesce, he should not be esteemed a heretic, unless he become such through his contentiousness. Y wish that in this litigious age we had before our eyes this specimen of Christian charity and modesty, by which, as it appears to me, that tempest which was excited by the preaching of Godeschalcus was so happily settled and appeased. For in the following ages I find no contests about the aforesaid controversy. At length theological questions came into the hands of the Schoolmen, who, although they were fruitful artificers of disputes, yet were unwilling to renew this subject. To them it seemed sufficient to teach that Christ died for all sufficiently, for the predestinated effectually ; which, since no one could deny, no handle was given for using the saw of contention. The Doctors of the Reformed Church also from the beginning spoke in such a manner on the death of Christ, that they afforded no occasion of reviving the contest. For they taught, That it was proposed and offered to all, but apprehended and applied to the obtaining of eternal life only by those that believe. At the same time, they judged it improper to mingle the hidden mystery of Election and Preterition with this doctrine of the Redemption of the human race through Christ, in such a manner as to exclude any one, before he should exclude himself by his own unbelief. Let us hear their own words. Philip Melancthon constantly admonishes that we should not unseasonably mix the speculation of predestination with the promises of the Gospel. In his Common-places, On the promises of the Gospel, page 195, he writes thus: As it is necessary to know that the Gospel is a gratuitous promise, so it. is necessary to know that the Gospel is an universal promise, that is, that reconciliation is offered and promised to all mankind. It is necessary to hold that this promise is universal, in opposition to any dangerous imaginations on predestination, lest we should reason that this promise pertains to a few others and to ourselves. But we declare, that the promise of the Gospel ts universal. And to this are brought those universal expressions, which are used constantly in the Scriptures, such as, GoD so LOVED THE WORLD, THAT HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, THAT WHO- SOBVER BELIEVETH IN HIM SHOULD NOT PERISH, BUT HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE. And the reason why all do not obtain the promises of the Gospel, is because all do not believe 4, Calvin in many places gives his opinion in the same manner. On the same words, John iii. 16, God so loved the world, &c. he says, He hath put an universal mark, both that he might invite all men promiscuously to the participation of life, and that he might leave the unbelieving without excuse. For this is the meaning of the word worn. For although . there is nothing found in the world worthy of the Divine favour, yet he shews himself to be propitious to the whole world ; since he calls all without exception to believe in Christ. A little afterwards : It appears that Christ is set before all, but God opens the eyes of the elect alone to seek him in faith. And on Rom. v. 18, He makes grace common to all, because it is set before all, not because it is actually extended to all. For although Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and through the goodness of God is offered to all indifferently, yet all do not apprehend him. So likewise Bullinger,¹² on Rev. v. Serm. 28, The Lord died for all: bui all are not partakers of this redemption, through their own fault. Otherwise the Lord excludes no one but him who excludes himself by his own unbelief and faithlessness. Benedict Aretius¹³ has similar expressions on 1 Tim. ii. Christ, says he, died for all, yet notwithstanding all do not embrace the benefit of his death, because by their own wickedness, and the corruption of their nature, they despise the offered grace. To these I add Musculus; who in his Common-places speaks thus (On the redemption of the human race, page 151); The title of this section professes what is for our purpose, viz. The redemption of the human race. After a few words, he adds, We know that all are not partakers of this redemption ; but the perdition of those who are not saved by no means hinders this redemption from being called universal, since it is not destined Jor one nation, but for the whole world. A little afterwards : That reprobate and deplorably wicked men do not receive it, is not through any defect iu the grace of God, nor is it just that on account of the children cf perdition, it should lose the glory and title of universal redemption, since it is prepared for all, and all are called to it. To all these may be added Zanchius,¹⁴ who so defends predestination, that at the same time he contends that Christ died for all. For when he had taught that Christ had not died for all, as it regards the omnipotent will of God, that is, his absolute good pleasure of conferring eternal life on all mankind, through the death of Christ, yet he subjoins, That it is not false that Christ died for all men as it regards his conditional will, that is, if they are willing to become partakers of his death through faith. For the death of Christ is set before all in the Gospel, and no one is excluded from it, but he who excludes himself. (Miscel. de Pred. Sanctor. Explic. Thes. 13.) That I may not be tiresome, I omit the rest. This is one thing I should wish to be observed, That our orthodox Doctors so explained the doctrines of election and reprobation, that the decree concerning the chusing of certain individual persons to the infallible obtaining of eternal life, and passing by others, might not infringe the universality of the redemption accomplished by the death of Christ.

Hitherto we have briefly surveyed those things which relate to the historical knowledge of this controversy. From which it is manifest, not only that the antient Fathers, but also our modern Divines, confessed that the death of Christ pertained in some manner to the whole human race. Yet in our age it has pleased some Divines to pass over these limits, and openly to defend in exclusive terms this proposition, That Christ died for the elect alone. To whom on the opposite side others reply, That Christ offered himself to God the Father to redeem all individuals equally. That we may throw some light upon this question, we will now enter upon that twofold consideration of the death of Christ of which we have before made mention, and will reduce it to certain propositions.¹⁵