IN our first proposition we endeavoured to shew that the death or merit of Christ was appointed by God, proposed in the holy Scriptures, and to be. considered by us, as an universal remedy applicable to all men for salvation from the ordination of God. And on this account we hesitate ‘ not to assert that Christ died for all men, inasmuch as he endured death, by the merit and virtue of which all men individually who obey the Gospel may be delivered from death and cbtain eternal salvation. But because some persons in such a way concede that Christ died for all men, that with the same breath they assert that he died for the elect alone, and so expound that received distinction of Divines, That he died for all sufficiently, but for the elect effectually, that they entirely extinguish the first part of the sentence; we will lay down a second proposition, which will afford an occasion of discussing that subject expressly, which we have hitherto only glanced at slightly by the way. This second proposition, therefore, shall be reduced into this form; if it is rather prolix, pardon it. The death of Christ is the universal cause of the salvation of mankind, and Christ himself is acknowledged to have died for all men sufficiently, not by reason of the mere sufficiency or of the intrinsic value, according to which the death of God is a price more than sufficient for redeeming a thousand worlds ; but by reason of the Evangelical covenant confirmed with the whole human race through the merit of this death, and of the Divine ordination depending upon it, according to which, under the possible condition of faith, remission of sins and eternal life is decreed to be set before every mortal man who will believe it, on account of the merits of Christ. In handling this proposition we shall do two things. First, we shall explain some of the terms. Secondly, we shall divide our proposition into certain parts, and establish them separately by some arguments.
In the first place, therefore, is to be explained, what we mean by mere sufficiency, and what by that which is commonly admitted by Divines, That Christ died for all sufficiently. If we speak of the price of redemption, that ransom is to be acknowledged sufficient which exactly answers to the debt of the captive; or which satisfies the demand of him who has the power of liberating the captive. The equality of one thing to another, or to the demands of him who has power over the captive, constitutes what we call this mere sufficiency. This shall be illustrated by examples. Suppose my brother was detained in prison for a debt of a thousand pounds. If I have in my possession so many pounds, I can truly affirm that this money is sufficient to pay the debt of my brother, and to free him from it. But while it is not offered for him, the mere sufficiency of the thing is understood, and estimated only from the value of it, the act of offering that ransom being wanting, without which the aforesaid sufficiency effects nothing. For the same reason, if many persons should be capitally condemned for the crime of high treason, and the king himself against whom this crime was committed should agree that he would be reconciled to all for whom his son should think fit to suffer death : Now the death of the Son, according to the agreement, is appointed to be a sufficient ransom for redeeming all those for whom it should be offered. But if there should be any for whom that ransom should not be offered, as to those it has only a mere sufficiency, which is supposed from the value of the thing considered in itself, and not that which is understood from the act of offering. To these things I add, If we admit the aforesaid ransom not only to be sufficient from the equality of one thing to the other, and from his demand, who requires nothing more for the redemption of the captives; but also to be greater and better in an infinite degree, and to exceed all their debts, yet if there should not be added to this the intention and act of offering for certain captives, although such a ransom should be ever so copious and superabundant, considered in itself and from its intrinsic value, yet what was said of the sufficiency may be said of the superabundance, that there was a mere superabundance of the thing, but that it effected nothing as yet for the liberation of the persons aforesaid. Now to this mere sufficiency, which regards nothing else than the equal or superabundant worth of the appointed price of redemption, I oppose another, which, for the sake of perspicuity, I shall call ordained sufficiency. This is understood when the thing which has respect to the ransom, or redemption price, is not only equivalent to, or superior in value to the thing redeemed, but also is ordained for its. redemption by some wish to offer or actual offering. Thus a thousand talents laid up in the treasury of a prince are said to be a sufficient ransom to redeem ten citizens taken captive by an enemy; but if there is not an intention to offer, and an actual offering and giving these talents for those captives, or for some of them, then a mere and not an ordained sufficiency of the thing is supposed as to those persons for whom it is not given. But if you add the act and intention offering them for the liberation of certain persons, then the ordained sufficiency is asserted as to them alone. Further, this ordained sufficiency of the ransom for the redemption of a captive may be twofold: Absolute ; when there is such an agreement between him who gives and him who receives this price of redemption for the liberation of the captives, that as soon as the price is paid, on the act of payment the captives are immediately delivered. Conditional; when the price is accepted, not that it may be paid immediately, and the captive be restored to liberty ; but that he should be delivered under a condition if he should first do something or other. When we say that Christ died sufficiently for all, we do not understand the mere sufficiency of the thing with a defect of the oblation as to the greater part of mankind, but that ordained sufficiency, which has the intent and act of offering joined to it, and that for all ; but with the conditional, and not the absolute ordination which we have expressed. In one word, when we affirm that Christ died for all sufficiently, we mean, That there was in the sacrifice itself a sufficiency or equivalency, yea, a superabundance of price or dignity, if it should be compared to the whole human race ; that both in the offering and the accepting there was a kind of ordination, according to which the aforesaid sacrifice was offered and accepted for the redemption of all mankind. This may suffice for the explanation of the first term.
Secondly ; That is also to be explained, which is stated in the proposition; namely, That through the merit of the death of Christ, a new covenant was entered into between God and the human race. By this covenant we understand that which is urged by the Apostle, Gal. iii. Believe, and thou shalt live, and is opposed to the legal command, Do this and thou shalt live. This agreement, which promises salvation to every sinner under the condition of faith, has no foundation or confirmation any where else than in the blood of the Mediator; without the effusion of which no mortal man could aspire to eternal life, not even though believing. But through the death of Christ having been accepted by God as a ransom, now it is lawful for any man indiscriminately to ascend into heaven by believing, as the Apostle shews in Romans iii. 21 to 26; and Christ himself, Mark xvi. 15, Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. Therefore in this evangelical covenant, confirmed by the death of Christ, which the Apostles published to the whole world, and the ministers of the. Gospel preach at the present time, there is no difference of persons made. As well Esau shall be saved, if he should believe in the Messiah, as Jacob shall be condemned if he should not believe. But it is to be confessed, that there is also another ordination of God, secret and absolute, regarding certain definite persons, and founded likewise on the death of Christ, which obtains the name of the new covenant. But this is understood rather as agreed upon between God the Father and Christ, than between God and us, For it is that. which is related by the Prophet Isaiah (liii. 10), When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed; and is explained by the Apostle, Heb. viii. 10, This is the covenant that 1 will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts, and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people, &c. As if he should say, That Christ by his death not only established that conditional covenant which may be published to all men individually in this form, If thou shalt believe, whosoever thou art, thou shalt be saved through the death of Christ, but also that secret and absolute covenant concerning the giving of faith to certain persons and infallibly saving them through Christ and for his sake. But it is to be observed, That this latter covenant is known to Christ alone, nor can it be opened to any: one by the ministers of Christ, as to the individual persons whom it embraces. For the Apostles themselves could, and we can preach to every man that conditional and revealed covenant, If thou shalt believe, thou shalt be saved. But neither could they, nor can we promise infallibly to any one, Thou art one of those whom God gave to Christ the Mediator, and to whom, through Christ and for his sake, he will give persevering faith, and will infallibly lead to eternal life. For this would be the same as if we should declare that we were in the councils of God before the foundations of the world were laid, and could point out with our finger the elect and the non-elect. Without this latter covenant, which is more properly understood to be established between God and men, that first conditional covenant would be in vain to all men through human depravity, and the precious and infinitely meritorious blood of Christ would flow in vain. But since, as it was said, God alone knows them to whom this covenant has regard, it is our business to urge and press that first conditional covenant, which is revealed to us; and this is that which we contend was confirmed by the death of Christ with the whole human race. Lastly, it is to be observed, although that conditional covenant is not actually made known to all men, yet it is of such a kind, that it may be divulged and announced to every mortal; although every one will not claim for themselves their right in this covenant, yet there is no one to whom it is not lawful, through the merit of the death of Christ, to promise this to himself and to claim it according to the covenant, If I believe, I shall be saved. It is established, as to all men individually, but through some special kind of providence of God overruling it, it is revealed and made known to some and not to others.
It remains, in the third place, that we should explain what was laid down in the proposition, respecting the Divine ordination depending on the aforesaid covenant, according to which, remission of sins and eternal life is decreed to be exhibited to every man, under the possible condition of faith. And here that only needs explanation which we affirm, that the condition of faith is possible to every one. We would not then that this should be so understood as if every one had in himself an internal and proportionate natural principle for eliciting the act of true and living faith. For this was the error of Faustus, of Rhegium, and the Semipelagians, who ascribe faith to free-will, and dream that the gift of faith is as it were naturally inborn and inherent in them. To this those words of Faustus have respect (lib. 2. De lib. arbitr. cap. 6), You see that the benefit of believing is not a new privilege, but an old one; and that, at the very beginning of the world, as the mind of man was endowed by its excellent Author with understanding and reason, so also was it with faith. And lest any should think that this gift of faith was lost in fallen man, he adds a little afterwards — (cap. 7), That every follower of virtue should cultivate in himself this general gift of faith with special diligence. See more on this opinion in the work itself. Although, therefore, he calls faith a gift, yet he intimates that it is a natural and general gift, as though it were possible to elicit this act of believing by the power of free-will. But from this we are altogether averse, nor have we regard to this in saying that the condition of faith is possible. Moreover, neither do we found this possibility of believing in any supernatural gift received by all. For we dare not maintain, that gratuitous assistance sufficient to produce the act of believing is given to all, since the Scripture itself teaches, in a manner sufficiently clear, that faith is the special gift of God. This, therefore, is disallowed, since, with the most learned Bannesius (in Quest. 23, Ars. 3 Concl. 8) we found the possibility of performing this condition neither on any natural and innate gift, nor on a supernatural gift received by all; but in a supernatural gift to be received possibly by any living person, according to ordinary law, as the Schoolmen observe. These things being thus expounded and determined, I will now divide the aforesaid proposition into three parts, which I will confirm separately by the reasons to be alleged.
First. The mere sufficiency of the death of Christ, which is estimated only by the intrinsic value of this ransom, without: that ordained sufficiency which arises from the intention and act of offering, is not so far available that Christ may be truly said to have died for all men sufficiently. have thought that this proposition should be laid down for the sake of those who strenuously maintain that Christ died for the elect alone, and yet (which I confess I am too dull to understand) admit that Christ died for all sufficiently, and sometimes greatly exaggerate this sufficiency as extending itself to all mankind. They profess, indeed, that Christ died for all men, for all orders, states, and kinds of men, yea also for individual persons as to the sufficiency of his merits. (Contra rem. Collat. p. 104, & Status Controv. p. 144.) The Veteranici, in their judgment exhibited to the Synod of Dort, write thus (Acta Synod. Dordr. p. 99) When Christ is said to have died for all, this may be understood of the sufficiency of his merit, or the greatness of the price. Since the death of the Son of God is the only perfect and sufficient ransom for expiating and blotting out all the sins of the whole world: the immense merit of righteousness, the universal medicine of death, the eternal fountain of life, &c. A little after, This sufficiency of the ransom as to the reprobate, has a double end, one in itself, the other accidentally. — The end in itself is, that God testifies that he delights not in the perdition of the wicked, since he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. The accidental end is, that by this sufficiency of the ransom they might be rendered inexcusable. For these perish, not through the fault of Christ, but of themselves, when, through their own unbelief, they refuse the benefits of Christ offered in the Gospel. So far their opinion. I deny that this sufficiency of the death of Christ for reconciling all men can be rightly conceived from the mere sufficiency of the thing offered, unless there be added the ordained sufficiency from the act of offering. Which may be proved thus:
ARGUMENT lst. When we say that Christ died sufficiently for all men, we say nothing else than that he was offered up sufficiently for all men, or that he gave himself as a ransom or price of redemption sufficiently for all men. But £o die for all, or to be offered up for all, or to give himself for all, designates the act of dying, or of offering up himself to deliver all, completed by some ordination. Therefore, the sufficiency of the ransom alone, without the intention and act of offering accomplished as to the persons, cannot make this assertion true. Christ died sufficiently for all, But common sense refuses that it should be granted that he died sufficiently for all, who is denied to have died or to have been offered up for some. But granting the intrinsic sufficiency of the ransom to redeem a thousand worlds, at the same time it must be granted that this same ransom is not yet offered in any way for many men, nor yet offered up sufficiently. For as ten thousand pounds are enough, and more than sufficient to liberate five debtors, who each owe two hundred pounds; yet if this entire sum should be offered and paid to the creditor for two only by name, the other three being excluded, the sufficiency and superabundance of this ransom in itself will not effect, that it may be said to be given and paid sufficiently for those three: thus, in this common cause of the human race, although the precious blood of Christ be a ransom more than sufficient for blotting out the debts of every individual, yet it cannot be from thence inferred that he was sufficiently offered for them, who, in the very act of offering, are openly excluded. Therefore, they do not seem to interpret so much as to ridicule this generally received and most true decision of Divines, That Christ died for all men sufficiently, who transfer the term sufficiently from the intention and act of dying to the mere sufficiency or intrinsic value of the death considered in itself; as if the sense were, The death of Christ hath in itself. sufficient merit and value to blot out the sins of all men, but Christ was not offered nor died for all; since the evident sense of this saying is, That Christ died for all sufficiently, although what he offered for all sufficiently, he will not apply to all effectually, on account of the intervening obstacle of unbelief.
ARGUMENT 2. In this distinction of the Schoolmen, which our people commonly admit, viz. That Christ died for all sufficiently, but for the predestinated effectually, the words sufficiently and effectually denote that which was common to all men, whether elect or non-elect, in the mode of the oblation, and that which was peculiar to the elect alone. It was common to both, that Christ died or was offered as a sacrifice to God the Father sufficiently for them. But how can this first term sufficiently be referred promiscuously to the elect and the non-elect, if it marks out a mere sufficiency of the thing, excluding the ordination of the same thing to individuals, which arises from the intention and act of offering? Or, what need is there of that other term effectually, to make a distinction in the mode of the oblation, or in the intention of offering, as to the elect and non-elect, if Christ had no intention at all of offering himself up except for the predestinated alone? This twofold distinction is evidently frivolous and vain, where in things distinguished from each other, both parts are not presupposed. It is therefore to be observed, that the holy Fathers, when urging the universal sufficiency of the death of Christ, do not stop at the mere sufficiency of the thing, but at the act, intention, and mode of offering. In this manner Athanasius1 always speaks in his treatise On the incarnation of the Word. I will mention one or two passages ; Christ the Son of God, having assumed a body like to ours, because we were all exposed to death, gave himself up to death for us all as a sacrifice to his Father (p. 42.) Again, (p. 48) After he had given proofs of his Divinity, it now remained that he should offer up a sacrifice for all, delivering the temple of his body to death for all, that he might set all free from original sin, &c. Observe, that the mark of universality is united, not with the intrinsic sufficiency of the thing offered, but with the intention and act of offering, which referred to all men. Thus Augustine (vol. 9. p. 467. Tract. 92 on John), The blood of Christ was shed for the remission of all sins ix such a manner, that it can blot out the sin itself for which it was shed. He does not say, that there was a sufficient intrinsical value in the blood which was shed to expiate the sins of all mankind, which is allowed by all who know how to value aright the blood of God, but he urges the manner and act of offering, and in that respect points out its universality. Thus it was shed for the remission of al! sins. It is one thing to say that the blood of Christ has of itself and in itself a sufficient value to blot out the sins of all men, and another to affirm that it was actually shed for the remission of all sins, as Augustine says. But why do I mention the holy Fathers ? The sacred Scriptures speak of the death of Christ so as to refer its universal efficacy not to the mere dignity of the sacrifice offered, but to the act and intention of the offering. 1Tim. ii. 6, Who gave himself a ransom for all. The Apostle does not say, This ransom in itself, and in its own intrinsic value, is sufficient for the redemption of all, but in reality was given for a few, not for all; but, he gave himself for all. Therefore, the intention and act of Christ in giving himself includes all mankind, in like manner as that of the Father in sending his Son; God so loved the world, &c. (John ili. 16.) Therefore, the mere sufficiency of the thing cannot so far avail, that Christ should be atfirmed to have died sufficiently for all, without an ordained sufficiency to all from the intention and act of his offering.
ARGUMENT 3. Christ is acknowledged to have died sufficiently for all men, in that sense in which it is denied : that he died for the fallen angels. This is plain, and admitted by all the orthodox, who often mention this difference between the evil angels and some bad men, at least while they are living in this world. The words of Ambrose on Ps. cxviii. refer to this, The earth is full of the mercy of the Lord (Serm. 8. p. 658), That mystical Sun of righteousness rose for all, came to all, Christ suffered for all, rose again for all. But if any one does not believe in Christ, he deprives himself of that general benefit. A little afterwards, Perhaps you will say, Why is it not said, that heaven is full of the mercy of the Lord? Because there are spiritual wickednesses in heavenly places, but the common benefit of. Divine pardon and the remission of sins does not pertain to them. From which things it appears, That Christ so suffered for the whole human race, that all men have from thence a common right of obtaining pardon through faith, which the demons have not, because he did not in any way die for them. One of our own countrymen, who contends strenuously for limiting the death of Christ, yet willingly grants this, (Ames, apud Grevinch. p. 55) The sufficiency of the death does not refer in the same way to mankind as to devils. He paid a sufficient ransom for all men, if they would only embrace it, but not for devils. This difference in the payment of this ransom is worthy of observation. It was so paid to God that it could not redeem devils, even if they might be supposed to believe; because it was not paid for them ; but it was so exhibited and given by God, that it might redeem any of the human race, if they would believe ; whence could this be, unless it was offered and paid for them? For it could not avail for the deliverance of any persons whatsoever, even if they should believe, unless it were supposed to be given and offered by God for them in a general view of the human race, even when they did not believe. Having, therefore, established this distinction between the sufficiency of the death of Christ as to men and as to devils, namely, that the death of Christ is understood to be sufficient for all men in the same sense as it is rightly denied to be sufficient for the fallen angels, let us pass from this major proposition to the minor. I say, then, if we do not acknowledge any other sufficiency in the death of Christ as to the redemption of all mankind, except that which we have called mere sufficiency, and which has respect to the intrinsic value of the ransom, the ordination of the offering as to individuals being disregarded— there is no distinction made between such persons and the devils themselves as to the right of obtaining pardon and remission by means of this ransom, which was mentioned above by Ambrose, and granted to men universally, but denied toangels. Itis clear, because the value of the death of Christ is estimated from the dignity of the sufferer: it therefore had in itself, intrinsically, not only a sufficiency, but an infinite superabundance, even if there should be placed in the other scale the sins, not only of all mankind, but of the fallen angels. “There is therefore to be granted, with respect to mankind, not only that mere sufficiency, which depends upon the inherent dignity of the thing offered, but that ordained sufficiency which arises from the intention and act of Christ referring this his passion to all mankind, and not referring it to the fallen angels. This being granted, Christ is truly said to have died for all men sufficiently with that sufficiency which does not exist with regard to the apostate angels, and of which it may be truly said, that Christ did not die either effectually or sufficiently for the fallen angels.
Objection. But perhaps some one may meet this argument and assert, That the mere sufficiency of the thing offered, considered in itself, makes out as to men, that Christ may be rightly said to have suffered for all sufficiently; but does not make it out as to devils, because (Ames, Coron. p. 99) that that ransom is not sufficient which is not apt and suitable. But a great part of the aptitude in Christ to take away the sins of mankind consisted in his assuming the likeness of sinful flesh. Since, therefore, he did not take on himself the nature of angels, he was not in a suitable condition, nor was his death sufficient to take away the sins of the evil angels. .
Reply. This argument is unsound in both parts. For that sufficiency, (whatever aptitude and congruity it may have) if it has not also some ordination and act of offering relative to individuals, does not make out that Christ can be said to have suffered altogether for such persons, much less that he can be affirmed to have suffered for them sufficiently. In vain, therefore, is Christ’s assumption of human nature brought forward by those who contend that he died for the elect alone, to deduce from thence that he suffered sufficiently or insufficiently for all mankind. The exception is also weak on the other side, because, although there was not that similitude of nature between Christ and angels which there was between Christ and mankind, yet this could not hinder that the ransom paid by Christ, that is, the blood of God, should be in itself, on account of its own value, most sufficient to take away the sins of angels also. For what guilt of any creature can be so great, that the blood-shedding of God could not suffice for its expiation, which is of infinite value from the dignity of the Divine person ; and therefore, notwithstanding the dissimilitude of human nature, if God had deigned to grant this right in the death of Christ to angels, it would also be applicable for the redemption of angels. God indeed was willing to have compassion upon the human race, and not to have compassion upon angels; he willed that the Redeemer should not assume the angelic nature, but the seed of Abraham. Hence we may conclude, that the death of Christ was not ordained as a ransom for the redemption of angels; but we neither can nor ought to conclude, that it was not a ransom in itself of sufficient dignity, value, and efficacy, if it had been ordained. It might be argued on the other hand, that Christ, notwithstanding the dissimilitude of nature, is a sufficient, fit, and suitable head to communicate grace even to angels, from whence it is asserted by the most learned Divines, that the gifts of grace are merited even by the good angels. Since, therefore, the merits of Christ do not profit the evil angels, it is not to be referred to the insufficiency of the thing, but to the will of God alone ; and consequently, if we affirm that there are many human beings to whom the passion and merit of Christ is in no way ordained, as to the sufficiency of the death of Christ, the state and condition of these will not be different from that of the devils.
ARGUMENT 4. We prove that the mere sufficiency in itself of the thing offered cannot verify that dogma of Divines, That Christ died for all men sufficiently ; and this appears from the confession of those who deny that the death of Christ was paid for the whole human race, and who limit it to the elect alone. Thus Piscator2 (in Resp. Apologet. Sec. 87), It cannot be said, That Christ died for all mankind sufficiently, because it would follow that he died for all, the contrary to which is demonstrated. And in the same place, That distinction which is made, That Christ died for all mankind sufficiently, for the elect effectually, is vain, because it implies a contradiction, &c. It implies a real contradiction in those who admit a mere sufficiency of his death as to all mankind, and deny its universal ordination to procure salvation for all men. They are bound, therefore, to explode this distinction, which has been hitherto approved by the orthodox, or to acknowledge with us the ordained sufficiency of the death of Christ for the deliverance of all. The very learned Pareus seems to be of this opinion, when he affirms (Act. Syn. Dord. p. 213), That as to the sufficiency of his ransom and merit, Christ died and was willing to die for each and every man. Here he does not make the sufficiency consist in this only, that the death of Christ was sufficient of its own intrinsic value to redeem all, but also, in the will of Christ dying and ordaining his death to be sufficient for the deliverance of all. And here it is to be observed by the way, that they are deceived who . confine the death of Christ to the elect alone, so as to conclude that he was willing to die for them only, and yet pretend (Palatini Synod. Dord. p. 88) That there is no question or contention concerning the sufficiency of the ransom of Christ for each and every man; but all the controversy is respecting the efficacy of this ransom. Truly, granting the sufficiency of the death of Christ in itself for the redemption of a thousand worlds, and granting also, that the efficacy of this death is destined absolutely and infallibly, not to all, but to certain persons actually to be delivered, yet it still remains a matter of controversy, Whether the death of Christ is supposed to have an intrinsic sufficiency for the redemption of all, under this hypothesis: If it availed to offer and pay that ransom for all, and it had not also joined to it the ordination of God, according to which this ransom, sufficient in itself, was actually offered for all, and from thence is applicable and to be applied for salvation to all, if they should be willing to obey the aforesaid ordination and subject themselves to it. For such an ordination we contend, which regards even those who are not saved, because they have not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And hence we say, That Christ died for all men sufficiently. But here some of those who contend that Christ suffered and died for the elect alone, nevertheless wish to appear to defend, not the mere sufficiency of the death of Christ in itself, but that ordained sufficiency from the intention of God which we assert. And for this reason, when they are pressed with arguments, they do not refuse to make mention of the will and intention of God. Let us, therefore, examine their mind and opinion more closely, that we may not beat the air, or fight with a man of straw. Thus a learned man has written on this subject (Ames, Coron. p. 117), When we confess that Christ died for all, that phrase FoR ALL ts admitted hy our party on account of its sufficiency and the intention of God, by which he willed that it should be thus sufficient for all. At the same time it must be observed, that this manner of speaking is improper, but it is not to be rejected, because it has some foundation in the thing itself, and is received among Divines by long use. Others of the same opinion say (Acta Synod. Dord. p. 99), That the counsel and decree of God the Father was, that Christ by his suffering and death, should pay a ransom of such a kind, as, considered in itself, might suffice for the reconciliation of all men. These persons seem to add a sufficiency, besides the mere sufficiency of the thing, relative and pertaining to the reconciliation of all men from the intention and counsel of God. They seem to do this indeed, but do it not in reality. For first, what they say, that they acknowledge that Christ died sufficiently for all, on account of the intention of God, by which he willed that his death might be sufficient for all, is of no account. Since the death of the Son of God did not need any additional intention in order to its being sufficient for all, when it was in itself of infinite value. Yet it needed that it should be given for all, and accepted for their deliverance, under some condition. Intrinsic sufficiency is a certain power and fitness of athing ; (Ames, Coron. p. 99) nor is there required, in order to constitute it, the extrinsical act of one intending this sufficiency. But the ordination in behalf of certain persons to be delivered is a voluntary act, and flows from the intention and design of the person ordaining it. It is, therefore, frivolous to join the intention of God with the internal sufficiency of the thing, as the intention ought either to be altogether denied as to Christ having died sufficiently for all; or to be joined with an ordination of his death pertaining to all. Secondly, what they say, that this phrase, Christ died for all sufficiently, has a foundation in the thing itself, cannot be defended from their opinion. If I should say, the death of Christ is a sufficient ransom for all, there is a true foundation for this saying in the thing itself, namely, in the dignity of the person dying; but if l should say, Christ died or was offered on the cross (which are equivalent) for all sufficiently, there is now no foundation on which the truth of this saying can stand, unless 1 assert first, that Christ suffered and was offered for all, and then add the sufficiency of this suffering for all, on account of the dignity of the ransom. He who denies one of these, in vain attempts to defend the other. We therefore conclude, that neither can Christ be truly said to have suffered or died for all sufficiently, nor can the death of Christ be truly acknowledged to be an universal remedy applicable to all men according to the ordination of God, unless in addition to the mere sufficiency of the thing derived from its innate dignity, we admit the settled and fixed decree of God, according to which, from the will of God in accepting this sacrifice, and of Christ in offering it, this death of Christ is able to bring eternal life to each and every man. Hitherto we have treated of the first part of our proposition, in which we have shewn, that that mere sufficiency, which is understood of the death of Christ considered in itself, is not enough for the conclusion, that Christ should be said to have died for all, or that his death should be accounted an universal cause of salvation in regard to the whole human race. Let us now shew what that is which is further requisite for this purpose. For the illustration of this subject, the second thesis may serve:
Second. The death of Christ, according to the evangelical covenant confirmed by it with all men, is affirmed to have been truly endured for all men, and Christ, in the same respect, is asserted to have died sufficiently for all men. We allude to that covenant of which we have before made mention, Jf thou shalt believe, thou shalt be saved; or Whosoever believeth shall be saved. Rom. x. 9. That this covenant concerning the grant of remission of sins, and the salvation of mankind through faith, was confirmed by the blood-shedding and death of the Son of God, appears, in the first place, from the sacred Scriptures. In the insti- , tution of the Lord’s supper, Christ himself says (Luke xxii. 20), This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. As if he had said, It is a lively symbol of the Lord’s blood, by which the new covenant concerning the remission of sins and our justification by faith is confirmed and established. And the Apostle says (Heb. ix. 22), Without shedding of blood is no remission. Therefore, the covenant made with men, by which God bound himself to remit the sins of those that believe, has its strength or virtue in the death of Christ. The same Apostle teaches, (Rom. iit. 25) that God hath set forth Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past. Therefore, this evangelical covenant is founded in the blood or death of Christ, according to which, through faith, remission of sins, justification, and eternal salvation are conferred upon mankind. That I may not dwell too long on a subject sufliciently clear, since this conditional promise, If thou shalt believe, thou shalt be saved, flows from the gracious kindness of God towards men, it cannot have its foundation else- where than in the death and merit of Christ the Mediator, in whom all the gratuitous promises of God are Yea and Amen. (2 Cor. i. 20). Nor, indeed, is the act of faith itself of such value, that it can by its own dignity or merit obtain from God remission of sins and salvation. But of such great value is the death and blood-shedding of the Son of God, that by its own merit and virtue it can justify and save any one that believeth, according to the tenor of the evangelical covenant. “Therefore this covenant was confirmed by the death of Christ.
But, secondly, that remains respecting which there are great scruples, namely, Whether this evangelical covenant, If thou shalt believe, thou shalt be saved, which we have shewn to be confirmed by the death of Christ, pertains, according to the Divine ordination, to the whole human race, or only to individuals, and to certain persons 1a particular. We contend that it was confirmed with the whole human race. Which may appear, First, from the command and promise of Christ himself, who, after he had endured and conquered death, sent his Apostles into all the world, (Mark xvi. 15, 16) And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned. On which words of promise, the learned Calvin has rightly remarked, That this promise was added that it might allure the whole human race to the faith. (Harm. Evang. p. 374). It is therefore understood to have been established with the whole human race. For a promise has no power of alluring others to any action than those: for whom it is presupposed to have been made. Secondly, The same appears from the practice of the Apostles, and of all the ministers of the Gospel, conformable to ‘the command and promise of Christ For these, without any respect of nation or predestination, boldly promise forgiveness of sins on condition of faith to each and every person who assembles to hear them. By this act they acknowledge, that the covenant concerning the forgiveness of sins through faith, confirmed by the blood of Christ, is universal. For a conditional covenant cannot be seriously proposed, and a benefit annexed be promised conditionally to those persons to whom the covenant itself is not extended by the will of the maker of it. For example, if a King makes an agreement with certain persons who have been found guilty of high treason, that he will pardon them if they will humbly ask pardon of him; it would not be lawful for this reason for any of the King’s servants to go to the prison and announce to all persons there promiscuously, that pardon would be obtained from the King, if they would only humbly kneel down and ask it; because this conditional agreement regards those only who are included in it by the Royal clemency. Therefore neither would it be lawful for the ministers of God to promise promiscuously to all men remission and salvation on the condition of faith, unless it appeared to them beyond a doubt, that this conditional covenant was made and established for all by the will of God. But the Apostles did this, and we do it; therefore we acknowledge that this covenant was established with each and every man, that is, with the whole human race. But perhaps some one may say, Although this covenant, confirmed by the blood of Christ, should not pertain to all men promiscuously, but only to the elect, yet remission of sins and salvation may be proposed and offered to all, under the hypothesis of faith, because it is certain that the elect alone will perseveringly believe ; and therefore none of the non-elect can ever cause this covenant, which is conditional on the part of God, to be false or violated as to himself. But this answer is of no avail. For the truth of every conditional proposition is to be considered, before the condition is allowed ; therefore, although the condition should never be acted upon, still the truth of the conditional proposition, when rightly made, ought to appear. “Therefore, this conditional proposition or promise, If thou shalt believe, thy sins shall be forgiven thee, is false as to Cain and Judas, unless a true foundation of the connexion should be granted, in case it should happen that they believed. Nor does it at all relate to the truth of the conditional proposition whether they should believe or not, since in such a proposition, the reason of the connexion is regarded, not the truth or falsity of the separate parts. Jf Peter should deny Christ, he shall obtain eternal life, is a false proposition, on account of the weakness of the connexion, and yet each part separately was true. Jf Peter should not believe, he will not obtain eternal life, is a true proposition, and yet each part taken separately was false. For Peter both believed and obtained eternal life. For a like reason, therefore, this conditional declaration If thou shalt believe, thou shalt obtain remission of sins and eternal life, would be false as to a non-elect person, although it should be presupposed that he would never believe, if the antecedent reason and cause of connexion were wanting: but it is wanting, unless a conditional covenant confirmed with all men individually is asserted. — For it does not follow from the declaration, That God by the death of Christ confirmed a covenant concerning the salvation of all the elect through faith ; Therefore, If Cain should believe, he shall be saved. The conditional covenant, therefore, is established with the whole human race. Thirdly, We prove that this evangelical covenant, confirmed by the death of Christ, concerning the giving of salvation on the condition of faith, is universal, by urging further this same argument, and that from the concessions of those who seem to be opposed to us. Those who endeavour to restrict the death of Christ as much as possible, nevertheless grant, that by the merit of his death, there is a way and method appointed, by which any unbeliever may escape deserved condemnation, namely, if he should believe. (Collat. Hag. p. 154). They grant, that the death of Christ would abundantly suffice to save all men, how many soever they may be in the whole world who believe in him. They allow also, That the word of the Gospel concerning Christ crucified, should be announced indiscriminately to the elect and non-elect, and all should be commanded to believe in him, this promise being added, that all who believe in him shall obtain remission of sins. (Acta. Synod. Dord. p. 29, and 2 part, p. 89). These tLings being granted, I argue thus: If mankind, howsoever many they be in the whole world, would obtain remission of sins and salvation, if they should believe; then an universal covenant was established by the death of Christ concerning the salvation of any man whatsoever under the aforesaid condition of faith. But the first is true: Therefore also the second. The reason of the consequence is this, Because that conditional declaration, which they admit both as to the non-elect, and the elect, namely, If thou shalt believe, whosoever thou art, thou shalt be saved, is not as necessarily true from the nature of the thing, as this is, If there is fire, there is heat, or, If he is a man, he is an animal ; it remains, then, that its truth be founded in some voluntary ordination of God, by which he hath decreed, as to any human being whatsoever, that the antecedent being true of him, the consequence is so likewise. Since no third foundation can be assigned, on which the truth of the aforesaid conditional declaration can rest. “Therefore, it must be acknowledged, That this evangelical covenant is universal from the ordination of God himself, and that it equally regards all men individually.
If any one should object to this, that the Gospel itself was never preached to all men, and therefore neither does the evangelical covenant embrace the whole human race, or pertain to all men individually ; I answer, That it does not follow,— Because the evangelical covenant is not announced to this nation, or that individual, therefore, it was not made or established with regard to them. But this is a legitimate conclusion, The evangelical covenant is not of itself. annunciable to that nation or this man ; therefore, it does not in any way pertain to them. Since there may be some secret causes why the Gospel is not preached, which prevent it from being announceable to all, which causes it is not my present purpose to ascertain. We say, then, that remission of sins through the death of the Redeemer might have been truly announced in any age, to any nation, and to any man, on condition of faith. Thus, in the time of the old Testament, this covenant was revealed to Job, an alien. So likewise in our own age, if a minister of the Gospel should go to the Antipodes, he would not wait for a new establishment of this conditional covenant, but would at once announce it to them, taking for granted its having been made in their favour. And hence it is that the Apostle calls this word of the Gospel, the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest, &c. (Coloss. i. 26.) He acknowledged it, therefore, to have been established from eternity with the human race, although it was hidden or made manifest to one or another, according to the good pleasure of God. See Romans xvi. 25, 26, and Ephesians iii. 5and 9. It remains that by reason of this universal covenant, established through the death of Christ, with. the whole human race ; we should shew, that we can affirm in a true and sound sense, that Christ suffered or died for all men, which we wish to dispatch in few words.
But I must premise, in order to verify this form of speech, that it is not necessary, either from the sense of the Scriptures, or from that of the Fathers, or from the meaning of the words themselves, that we should defend the opinion, that all those for whom it is affirmed that Christ was crucified and died, are to be led by the infallible order of predestination to eternal life through the benefit of the death of Christ; although we willingly acknowledge that the intention of Christ in dying was, that some might be saved, which, in its proper place, we shall confirm by testimonies of the Scriptures, and by perspicuous arguments.
First, then, in Scripture language, these two things are not always equivalent, Christ died for these persons, and, God predestinated that through the death of Christ these persons should be infallibly saved ; because the Scriptures often declare universally, that Christ died for all; but never affirm universally, that God predestinated that all men should be saved through the benefit of the death of Christ. For what purpose, I ask, is it that the Spirit of God, in speaking of the death of Christ, frequently makes use of general terms, extending it to all, while in mentioning theDivine predestination, he always uses restrictive terms, limiting it to few, if the death of Christ, and the predestination of God as to mankind, had an equal and altogether the same extent ?
Secondly, Because in the sacred Scriptures Christ is said in the same sense to have reconciled men, to have given himself as a ransom for men, to have died for men, and he is said also to have reconciled and redeemed the world, inasmuch as the world has in his death an ordained and established universal cause, which, being apprehended by faith by any human being whatsoever, he may be actually reconciled to God and delivered from the guilt of his sins: therefore also, he is rightly conceived to have died for all, inasmuch as all men through his death have eternal life set before them, to be procured by faith. As, therefore, when God is said ¢o have reconciled the world in Christ, or Christ is said to have given himself a ransom for all, it is not said, that God predestinated all to be in Christ, so neither is this to be understood, when it is affirmed that he was crucified and died for all.
Lastly, Because the sacred Scriptures clearly extend the death of Christ as a benefit applicable according to the Divine ordination, to those who, through their unbelief, do not apply it to themselves. They extend it, therefore, beyond the number of the elect, of whom there is no one to whom that ransom is not infallibly applied for salvation. This is done in those passages of the Scriptures in which the unbelieving are declared to be condemned, because they believed not in the name of the only begotten Son of God, who was sent into the world, that the world through him might be saved ; (John ii. 17, 18) because they would not come to Christ, that they might have life; (John v. 40) because they put from them the saving word of God, and judged themselves unworthy of everlasting life, (Acts xiii. 46); and lastly, because the promise of entering into the rest of God being disregarded, because of unbelief, by their own fault they came short of it. (Heb. iv. 1.) All these things evince, that according to the sense of the Scriptures, the death and merits of Christ were ordained even for the use of those who despised and rejected them. But that they were not ordained for such persons according to the infallible decree of predestination appears from the event. Therefore, in order to verify the assertion that Christ died for these or the other persons, according to the Scriptures, it is not necessarily required that it should be understood that he died for them, with the absolute purpose of saving them.
From the Scriptures let us descend to the Fathers. It is evident, that the proposition, Christ died for these men, had not the same meaning with them as this, Christ will infallibly save these men by his death. We shall content ourselves with a very few testimonies, because the thing is well known to those who are moderately versed in the writings of the Fathers. Ambrose, on Psalm cxviii. affirms, that Christ suffered for all, and yet immediately subjoins, that they who do not believe in Christ, deprive themselves of this general benefit. It did not then appear to Ambrose to be the same, that Christ suffered for any one, and that he decreed that he should infallibly be saved by his passion. Prosper (ad Capit. Gallor. resp. 9) The Saviour is most rightly said to have been crucified for the redemption of the whole world. Yet he also affirms, (Sent. 9) Although the blood of Christ be the ransom of the whole world, yet they are excluded from its benefit, who, being delighted with their captivity, are unwilling to be redeemed by it. So that of these it may be truly said, the Redeemer of the world gave his blood for the world, and the world would not be redeemed. (Ad Cap. Gallor. resp. 9.) Prosper, then, did not think these two things one and the same; that Christ was crucified for these persons, and that Christ will procure that these persons shall be infallibly saved. Theophylact, on Heb. ii. 9, God gave his own Son to death for us, not for believers only, but for the whole world. or though all are not saved, yet he fulfilled all that he was in duty bound to do. From which words it appears that it was not the same to Theophylact for any one to say, Christ was given by God to die for all, as if he should say, Christ, from the absolute good pleasure of God, will save all men by his death. Further testimonies are unnecessary. Yet I add, that it cannot be inferred, merely from the words Christ died for all, that Christ so died for all, that he absolutely decreed to bring about by this his death the salvation of all effectually and infallibly ; because he may with sufficient truth and propriety be said to die for any one, who dies to procure the good of another, although the other by his own fault may not receive any advantage from it. The particle for denotes respect to another in the will and intention of the person dying, but does not perpetually and necessarily involve in it such a respect, that no one can be rightly said to die for another, but he who determines by his death absolutely and infallibly to deliver the other from death. What if under any condition he should make deliverance from death possible to guilty men, which without his death was impossible? Would it not be justly affirmed for that reason alone, that he died for them ? Ambrose has asserted, in writing on Cain and Abel, (ii. 3), that Christ came for the salvation of all, and undertook the redemption of all, inasmuch as he brought a remedy by which all might escape, although there are many who impute to themselves the causes of his death, who are unwilling to be healed. We do not, therefore, deny that the particle for in the sacred Scriptures, when used about the death of Christ, sometimes denotes that special intention, according to which deliverance from death and translation into life is infallibly destined to those for whom he is asserted to have died ; but we deny that this is so perpetually or necessarily the case, that the truth of the assertion, Christ died for all, will not stand, unless it is granted that he had an absolute intention of saving all.
It appears now that the secret and absolute good pleasure of God concerning the salvation of men, according to the infallible decree of predestination, is not necessary for this purpose, so that Christ may be rightly and truly said to have suffered and died for all. What then is necessary? I will tell you in few words. Forasmuch as the death of Christ has a twofold respect ; one to God, to whom this precious ransom was offered and paid, another to men, for whom it was offered and paid ; Christ may be said to have suffered, to have been offered, or to have died for all, if it should appear that by his death and passion he had effected, that God might be understood to be otherwise disposed as to giving eternal life to all men, than he would have been without the death of Christ ; and also, if it should appear that any man might claim for himself by virtue of the death of Christ, a right to the remission of sins and eternal life, which, without this death, he could not possibly have or claim in any way. Either of these plainly shews, that the efficacy of the death of Christ extends ] itself to the whole human race, and therefore, that we neither speak falsely nor improperly when we say that Christ died for all mankind.
As to the first, It is certain, that through regard to the death of Christ, the will of God is now otherwise ordered towards all men individually than it would be without it. For by this, that Christ in his own human nature suffered death, without any other intervening medium, it has at least been effected with God, that he is willing to be reconciled to any man who believes and repents, to pardon his sins, and to confer upon him eternal life. Hence, on the part of God, remission was prepared for Cain, if he should do well-and repent. (Gen. iv. 7.) Hence it is said to any wicked man in the name of God himself, If the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, he shall surely dive, he shall not die. (Ezek. xviii. 21.) Take away the regard to the death of Christ which is present to the mind of God and which embraces the human race, and there is nothing serious, solid, or true in promises of this kind as to the non-elect. For the conditional promise of remission ought to have its truth in the death of Christ as much as the remission itself, which is granted on the performance of the condition. Nor does it at all avail to diminish the: universal efficacy which the death of Christ hath obtained with God, that none of the non-elect fulfil the evangelical condition of faith and repentance ; for it is sufficient, that by virtue of the death of Christ, and the ordination of God established through it, if the condition should be fulfilled by any man whatsoever, the benefit of remission and of eternal life would undoubtedly follow.
Now as to the latter of these, It is also certain and directly connected with it, That any man whatsoever, through the benefit of the death of Christ, may claim to himself this right, that if he should believe, immediately all his sins are blotted out, and he is adopted as an heir of eternal life. For although on account of the want of fulfilment of the condition many cannot actually claim these promised blessings, yet there is no human being to whom they would not abound by virtue of the death of Christ, if the condition were fulfilled by him. This conditional decree of God, established by the death of Christ and revealed in the Gospel, from which we understand that God, by virtue of the passion of Christ, has obliged himself to give remission of sins and eternal life to every one that believeth, and from which an universal right has arisen, not to certain persons in particular, but to any individual of tie human race, to obtain remission of sins under the aforesaid condition, is abundantly sufficient for this purpose, that it may be truly asserted that Christ suffered for all men. Nor is this conditional decree confirmed by the death of Christ and extended to all men, a thing of no value, because the infallible fulfilment of the condition depends upon another secret decree; since that secret decree, inasmuch as it relates to this or the other individual, is altogether unknown to us, and therefore not to be declared to any one by name; but this conditional decree, which comprehends the whole human race, is to be announced to every individual as the most solid foundation of our evangelical doctrine, according to that declaration of the Apostle (Romans x. 8, 9, 11,) This ts the word of faith which we preach, That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. — For the Scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. This benefit by virtue of the death of Christ is set before, and to be procured by all men, under the condition of faith ; and in that respect Christ is affirmed to have died for all men. .
One thing only now remains; that we should demonstrate that this condition of faith, under which remission of sins and eternal life is promised to all men individually through the death of Christ, is possible.
We have taught that Christ died for all men, in the sense, that the evangelical covenant was established, through the death of Christ, with the whole human race ; according to which, remission of sins and eternal life is set before all men, under the possible condition of faith. Some persons, fixing the eyes of their mind solely on the secret of predestination and reprobation, cannot conceive how Christ, faith, remission of sins, eternal life, or any spiritual and saving good, can in any way, or under any possible condition, pertain to those who were not included in the number of the predestinated before the foundation of the world; although Christ may be offered to them in the preaching of the Gospel, although faith may be required of them, although remission of sins and eternal life to be obtained through Christ may be promised to them, under the condition of faith. We shall therefore briefly shew,
Tuirbty, That this condition of faith, which is required in order that the death of Christ, which was endured for all, may be applied to any person individually, neither is, nor ought to be conceived by us to be altogether impossible to any person living. This, however, is to be remembered, that from the beginning we have inculcated, that this possibility is founded on the supernatural assistance which may possibly be received by any one, while he is iu the land of the living, according to that celebrated saying of Prosper of Aquitain (Object. Vincent. Resp. 6), There is this difference between wicked men and devils, that for men, however wicked, a reconciliation is provided, if God should have compassion . upon them; but for devils there is no conversion reserved at all.
First, then, when we say, that faith thus to believe is a thing possible to any person living, we regard not its active and formal power, as if any one living could of his own free will elicit this act of believing ; but its passive and material power, as it is called, because God may effect in any one that he should be converted and believe the Gospel. For we are said to be able to do any thing in two ways, as Aquinas has well observed, namely, either by the power which is in us, as we say that a stone can be moved downwards ; or by power considered on the part of another, as we say that a stone can be moved upwards, not by its innate power, but by the power of the person who throws it. Quest. disp. De Pred. art. resp. ad 7. According to this mode we affirm that any living person can believe, or that the condition of faith is possible to any one who is in the land of the living, not by any innate power resident in himself, but by the supernatural assistance which can be supplied by God at any time to any man, according to the saying of John the Baptist (Luke iii. 8), I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. Therefore there is no heart so obdurate and stony, that it cannot be softened by God, and be turned to faith and repentance. This is what Augustine signified in other words, when he wrote, To be able to have faith is in the nature of men, but to have grace is peculiar to believers. (De Predestinat. Sanctor. cap. 5.) To this also Augustine alluded in his Soliloquies (lib. ii. cap. 1,) where, when he had said, We would believe, if it were in our power, he afterwards subjoins, Our power is God himself.
Secondly, When we refer this possibility of having faith to the active power of God, and to the receptive power of man, this is to be understood not only of the absolute power of God, but of his ordinary power. For among Divines some things are said to be possible by the absolute power of God, and some things by his ordinary power. It will not be foreign to our purpose to make this distinction, when we have explained it in a few words. That, then, is said to be possible by the absolute power of God, which, from the nature of the thing, does not involve a contradiction if it should be done; that, on the other hand, impossible, which does involve a contradiction. And under this consideration, as Thomas rightly says, (Part. qu. 25, art. 3,) Whatever can have a manner of being is reckoned among these absolute possibles, but among the impossibles, what cannot have a manner of being ; as for instance, whatever implies in itself that it both is and is not, at the same time. That such things are not subject to Divine Omnipotence, does not argue any defect in God. Because, as there is no defect in visual power because it does not apply to that which is not visible, so neither is there a defect in absolute power because it is not extended to that which is not possible. It is sufficient therefore for establishing the omnipotence of God, that it can do whatever is possible to be done. But of those things which are otherwise, it is more properly said, that such things cannot be done, than that God cannot do such things. For this some refer to Luke i. 37, With God nothing shall be impossible, that is, whatever can be conceived, even implying a contradiction to what may be supposed by any person, that can be done by God. Therefore the rule of judging what God can do of his absolute power ought to be taken from the thing itself; because where there is not a defect of impossibility on the part of the thing, there is no defect of power on the part of God. But this absolute power is not that which we properly and principally regard in our thesis, but rather that power which we call ordained or ordinary. Now this is understood, as Bannes3 rightly says, (In lmo, qu. 23, art. 3, p. 276) in the order of any common law given and promulgated by God, according to which any thing is understood as possible to be done, or not to be done ; or also according to the common course of natural or moral things. In this sense we affirm, howsoever the secret decree of the Divine will concerning the giving or not giving of faith to certain individuals is unknown to us, yet, because there is no common law promulgated by God decreeing the opposite, we ought to declare respecting any living person whatsoever, That the condition of faith and repentance is possible to him, : according to the ordinary power of God; as, on the other hand, we rightly say, that according to his ordained or ordinary power, faith and repentance are impossible to any of the damned. This possibility of having faith, which regards every living person, is confirmed by a threefold argument :
The first is derived from the Divine mercy ; for, as Prosper says, God takes away from no person (living) the way of correction, nor does he deprive any one of the possibility of good. (Ad Obj. Vine. Resp. 25.) Although he hath established a law respecting the grant of remission of sins and eternal life to every penitent believer. J have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. (Ezek. xxxiii. 11). Therefore, not only according to the absolute power of God, but according to his ordinary power, any unbelieving and impenitent person whatsoever may be endued with true repentance and saving faith. Of the unbelieving Jews, the Apostle truly says» (Rom. xi. 23), God is able to graft them in again. And of all obstinate sinners it is rightly declared in the name of God (Rev. ii. 21), I gave them space to repent, and they repented not. He has so granted to mankind the whole space of this life, that in any moment of it conversion to God may bring salvation to them, according to the celebrated saying of the prophet Ezekiel (xviii. 21, 22), If the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, &c. all his transgressions, &c. shall not be mentioned unto him. God hath reserved to himself that according to his ordinary power he can bestow upon any one who is not among the damned in hell, the grace of faith and repentance. Hence it is that we ought not to determine any one to be out of the possibility of salvation whom the patience of God suffers to live.
Secondly, The same thing may be shewn by an argument deduced from regard to Christ, as the head of the body, to every living person. For although the natural head has no power of influence except over the members joined and united to it, yet this mystical head can act towards members separated from it, and communicate to them quickening grace, by means of which they may become united to it. In which sense Aquinas hath not badly stated, (Part. 3, qu. 9, art. 3,) That Christ is the head of all men, but in different degrees. He is principally said to be the head of those who are united to him by an actual communication of his glory. But in a less degree he is the head of those who, according to the ordinary law of God, may yet be united to him, whether that power be brought into action or not. But of those who have no capability of receiving the influence of Christ, he can in no way be called the head. The damned, and those alone, ought to be considered in this state ; because, according to the promulgated will of God, there is no redemption from hell. Therefore, the possibility of having faith, as to every one who is living in this world, is founded on the virtue of Christ the head being most sufficient to influence them, and on the aforesaid mercy of God, who, according to his common law, is willing to grant the whole space of this life for their reception.
Thirdly, and lastly, It appears from the different condition of mankind while they are living, and after they have come to the end of life, that the condition of faith and repentance, by which the death of Christ is applicable for salvation to any human being, is possible while they are in this world. From the consent of all Divines, the will of any living person may in this world be turned to that which is good; as, on the other hand, the will of the : damned is in their state immoveably confirmed in evil. This is clearly the case with respect to both. Nobody doubts that after this life the state of wicked men is immoveably fixed and altogether unchangeable. For, as Damascenus rightly says (lib. 2, cap. 4,) What their fall was to angels, such is death to men. If the tree fall toward the south, or toward the north, in the place where the tree falleth, there it shall be. (Eccles. xi. 3.) On the other hand, the will of men placed in this mortal life may be changed, and their wickedness removed, so that, by the ordinary power of God, any unbeliever may be enlightened, any impenitent may be converted ; in one word, any wicked man may be justified and saved. Whence that exhortation of the Apostle (2 Tim. ii. 25, 26,) In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves ; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will, He intimates, therefore, that this may as yet be done, and that it ought to be hoped for by us. Not dissimilar is that declaration of Peter (2 Epist. iij. 9,) The Lord ts long-suffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Augustine says (Epist. 54,) There is no other place for the correction of manners, than in this fe. And Clemens Alexandrinus truly remarks (Strom. lib. 4, p. 235,) While we are in this life there is no time either too late or too soon to obtain the health of the soul. Who shall receive faith and repentance from God before he departs out of this life, and who shall not receive them, is a secret, depending on the will of him who hath mercy on whom he will have mercy. and whom he will he leaves hardened. (Rom. ix. 18.) In the mean time, if we regard the ordinary law of God, we shall rightly say of any persons still continued in this life, as Augustine says (De Pred. Sanct. cap. 5,) Allien have not faith, but the possibility of having faith is common to all.
Against this our opinion, which makes faith a condition possible to any living person, and the death of Christ applicable, through that possible condition, to any man, some things may be objected.
1. The most common objection is, That power is in vain, which is not brought into action. For to what purpose do we attribute to God an ordinary power to enlighten and convert any living man; to what purpose do we attribute to Christ the head a power of influencing him ; to what purpose do we attribute to any man a power of receiving this influence of saving grace, when it appears that this power is never to be brought into action as to the greater part of men?
We reply, As far as relates to the power of God, this saying is by no means to be admitted. Because, as Aquinas learnedly observes, (Part. i. qu. 25, art. ii. resp. ad. 2) That is in vain which is ordained for an end which it does not attain: but the power of God is not ordained for any external effect as its end, but is itself rather the end of its own effect. Therefore, although God should not have created the world, nor should save any mortal man, yet the power in God of creating and saving would not be vain or needless. For a like reason that power is not in vain in God or in Christ, by which he is able, according to a law made and promulgated by himself, to bestow upon any living man the grace of faith and repentance, although he will not vouchsafe that grace to multitudes of the human race. Now as to the receptive power, which God hath willed should extend to all men, even to the very close of this life, a power of this kind would indeed be in vain, unless it should be effectual in some persons; but that it is not effectual as to all mankind, is to be referred partly to the secret will of God, partly to the manifest depravity of men. In both respects, through the capacity or power of faith and salvation, which is not effectual as to many, God obtains a greater manifestation of his mercy towards the elect, and of his justice towards the wicked, unbelieving, and impenitent of mankind ; and therefore such power is not granted to them in vain. Alvarez4 well says, (De Auxiliis, disp. 105) In order that any power may not be in vain, it is not required that it should sometimes be exerted in some action which it can effect, but tt is sufficient that it may be exerted in some one or more of them. For as no one could truly.say, that power was given in vain to men by nature to understand Mathematics, although many who are capable of learning them, do not actually find masters to’instruct them ; so can no man affirm that this power to believe and repent is granted in vain to all living men by the fixed law of God, although God does not effectually work in all men faith and repentance.
2. It is also objected, that it seems to cause greater doubts in the mind, that God should not only have foreknown from eternity, but have predestinated to whom he would infallibly give faith, remission, and eternal life, and to whom he would not give it. But God cannot do other things in time, or act otherwise than he foreknew from eternity and decreed that he would act. Abelard} formerly relying on this argument, boldly asserted, That God could not possibly do any thing beside those things which he has done, or is about to do. (Wal. doct. fidei, Tom. 2, lib. i. cap. 1.) If this should be true, since it is certain as to the greater part of men, that God neither foreknew nor decreed that faith should be produced in them, yet there is no reason why we should say that this condition of faith is possible in any way as to the non-elect, although they are living in this world.5
We reply, It is most true that God neither does nor permits any thing, without his eternal decree and eternal foreknowledge preceding. But if any one should from thence conclude that God cannot do any thing according to his ordinary power, except those things which he hath foreknown and decreed should be done, it is most false. For as our Hales rightly says, (Part. 1, qu. 21, art. 4, memb. 2) The Divine power is not limited either by the will or the foreknowledge of God, although his foreknowledge and will always accompany the manifestation of Divine power in action. Aquinas gives the reason of this sufficiently plain, (Part. 1, qu. 25, art. 5, ad 1) namely, Because his act is subject to the foreknowledge and ordination of the doer, but not his ability to do that which is according to nature. For God does any thing, because he will, but it is not because he will, that therefore he is able to do it, but because he is able in his own nature. Aquinas likewise answers the aforesaid objection in form, (Quest. disp. de potentia Dei, art. 5, resp. ad 1”*) His words are as follows: This saying, THAT GOD CANNOT DO ANY THING BESIDES WHAT HE HATH FOREKNOWN THAT HE WOULD DO, is twofold; because the exceptive particle BESIDES refers either to the power which is denoted by the word can, or to the act which is denoted by the word no. If it is referred to the first of these, the saying is false ; for God can do more things than he foreknew that he would do. If to the second, then the meaning is, that it cannot be that any thing should be done by God, which zs not foreknown by God. Thus the saying is true, but this meaning is nothing to the purpose. But since some persons so totally apply themselves to the contemplation of the eternal and secret will and foreknowledge of God, that they admit hardly any thing else into their minds, we will shew briefly, that neither the Scriptures, nor the fathers, nor reason itself, permit that we should determine according to these secret and eternal decrees of predestination, what is possible or impossible with God according to his ordinary power.
We will begin with the Scriptures ; which do not confine the power of God according to the secret decrees of his will, but extend it according to his infinite might, and according to the rule revealed in the word. (Matt. iii. 9,). God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. (Mark x. 27,) With God all things are possible. (Matt. xxvi. 53,) Thinkest thou not that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? (Mark xiv. 36,) All things are possible unto Thee, take away this cup from me. Thus also the Apostle speaks of the rebellious Jews, God is able to graft them in again (Rom, xi. 23.) And of any fallen man, Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant ? to his own Master he standeth or folleth : yea, he shall be holden up, for God is able to make him stand (Rom. xiv. 4.) And lastly, of every living man it is true, God is able to make all grace abound toward him (2 Cor. ix. 8.) I mention no more; from these it appears sufficiently, that we are not to judge of the power of God from his secret decrees: for he did not decree of stones to raise up children to Abraham, nor to deliver Christ from the hands of the Jews, nor to raise up and make to stand every fallen man, nor to shed the abundance of his grace on every one ; yea, he decreed and foreknew that he would not do all these things, which nevertheless (if we are willing to attend to the holy Scriptures), are not on that account to be esteemed impossible.
Augustine, on this opinion, The Omnipotent Will can do many things which he neither wills nor does, urges the case of Judas, without controversy a reprobate, and says, The Lord, who raised Lazarus in the body, could he not raise Judas in mind? — He could indeed, but he would not. What Augustine does not fear to affirm concerning Judas, we boldly affirm concerning any living person, notwithstanding the secret will and foreknowledge of God of the opposite, namely, that God can raise any one in mind, that is, can give repentance, and faith, and saving grace; because he hath not revealed concerning any particular person, that he will not do this, and of any one whatever he hath revealed that he can do this by his ordinary power, while he is in the land of the living. To this will we ought to submit ourselves, and not to conjecture about the possibility or impossibility of things according to his will, altogether unknown to us.
Lastly, Reason itself teaches, that God’s ordinary power is not to be confined by the secret decrees of eternal pre destination. First, Because we human beings perceive that our power is not to be limited according to the pleasure of our will. He who hath most firmly determined with himself not to give alms to a certain person, does not on that account lose the power of giving; and on the other hand, he who hath determined to give to another, hath not for that reason taken away from himself the power of not giving. For, as he freely willed one of these opposite things when he might have willed the other, so also he freely does the one without losing the power of doing the other. If this is the case with man, whose power is mutable, and liable to be lost, how much more with God, whose power is immutable, eternal, and always the same.
Secondly, Because if we make the ordinary power of God to be bound, and as it were circumscribed by his eternal and secret decrees, we cannot seek any thing from God with a certain faith, I will not say that he will, but that he can help us. For instance, If I should perceive myself to be assaulted by Satan with some grievous temptation, I cannot go to God with an assurance of faith, as if he were able to deliver me, because it is uncertain to me what he hath decreed from eternity respecting this thing. For a ‘ like reason we cannot pray to God that he would convert any unbelievers to the faith, or that he would bring any wicked men to repentance, with a full persuasion that he can do that which we ask, because what he hath secretly decreed concerning these things before the foundation of the world is concealed from us.
Thirdly, and lastly, Because if nothing else is judged possible to be done, except those things which God hath decreed to be done, it would follow that the Divine power is not infinite. That power is finite which is equalized with finite effects, and is wholly drawn out into its own act. Since as Hales rightly observes, (Part. 1. qu. 21) Infinite power may be drawn out into its act, but not the whole of it. Therefore, God can do many things which he will not, as for instance, he can give faith to justify, ‘ and save any individual person whatever. Yea, he can will many things which he does not will; and yet his will cannot zn any way be either new or mutable. But although he could will what he never hath willed, yet he cannot will unwillingly, or with a new will, but only with an eternal will. For he can will what he could have willed from eternity. For he has the power of willing, both now and from eternity, that which nevertheless he neither does now will, nor hath willed from eternity. Thus Lombard hath rightly remarked (Lib. 1, Dist. 43. Litera E.)
We have thought that these things should be discussed rather at length, that it may more plainly appear that the death of Christ is applicable to any man living, because the condition of faith and repentance is possible to any living person, the secret decree of predestination or preterition in no wise hindering or confining this power either on the part of God, or on the part of men. They act, therefore, with little consideration who endeavour, by the decrees of secret election and preterition, to overthrow the universality of the death of Christ, which pertains to any persons whatsoever according to the tenor of the evangelical covenant. Thus much we have said respecting our second proposition. Let us proceed to the third.
* ATHANAsIUS, a celebrated Christian Bishop of the fourth Century. He was a native of Egypt, and a deacon of the Church of Alexandria under Alexander, the Bishop whom he succeeded in the dignity A.D. 326. He acquired the surname of Great on account of his zeal for the orthodox faith, in opposition to all heresies, especially the Arians, from whom he suffered the bitterest persecutions during the whole course of his episcopacy of 46 years. His works, which are numerous, contain a defence of the Holy Trinity, end of the Incarnation; of all which the best Edition is that of the Benedictines, 3 Vols. folio, Paris, 1698. The Creed which goes by his name, though supposed not to have proceeded immediately from his pen, contains the best illustration of his sentiments. Before it is hastily rejected by any one, it would be well to peruse with attention the remarks upon it iu Shepherd’s valuable work—*“ Critical and Practical Elucidation of the Morning and Evening Prayer of the Church of England.” It may be remarked of modern sources of information, that Gorton’s Biographical Dictionary has an extended Life of Athanasius, well drawn up, and Clarke’s “ Succession of Sacred Literature” contains a good account of his works. Vol. II. p. 409 ↩
* PrscaTor or Fiscuer (John), a German Protestant Divine, born at Strasburg, in 1546. He was successively a Lutheran, a Calvinist, and an Arminian. But his attainments in divinity became so celebrated, that he was invited to accept the Professor’s Chair at Herborn, which he filled with such effect as to draw many students thither from different parts of Europe. He was very diligent and laborious; translated the Bible into German, and was the author of Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments, which are said to be valuable. His works were collected in four Vols. folio. He died in 1626. Vide Mosheim and Middleton. Vol. II. p. 414 ↩
* Dominco Bangs, or Dommnicus Bannestus, mentioned also a little before, at page 407, was a Spaniard born at Valladolid in 1527. At the age of 15 he went to Salamanca, and after completing a course of study there, he entered into the Order of Preaching Friars. After he had taken the vows of his order, he was Professor of Theology for more than thirty-two years at Avila, Alcala de Henarez, Valladolid, and Salamanca, and died at Medina del Campo, Nov. 1, 1624, aged 77 years. Besides some Common, taries on different writings of Aristotle, and one or two other pieces, he wrote Commentaria Scholastica in primam partem Summe S. Thome, necnon in secundam Secunde—the work which Davenant cites. Venetiis, 1602, in three Vols. folio; also at Douay in 1614—16, in two Vols. folio. The first Edition appeared at Salamanca between the years 1584 and 1594. (Biographie Universelle, Tom. III. pp. 510, 311). Vol. II. p. 431 ↩
* ALvAnEZ (Diego), a Spanish Dominican who distinguished himself in the Controversy between the Thomists and Molinists, and became Archbishop of Trani, in the kingdom of Naples. He wrote Commentaries upon Isaiah: De Auriliis Divine Gratie : Responsiones ad objectiones adversus Concordiam Liberi Arbitrii et Prascientie Divine; De Origine Pelagiana Ieresis. He died in 1635. Vol. II. p. 435 ↩
† ABELARD, the celebrated Scholastic, as renowned in his day for his erudition, as for the romantic amour on account of which, perhaps, his name has been since most noted. He flourished in the 12th Century. Mosheim thus speaks of him in this period: —* the disciple cf Anselm, and most famous in this century on account of the elegance of his wit, the extent of his erudition, the power of his rhetoric, and the bitterness of his unhappy fate.” He is generally regarded as the author of the Scholastic System which gave rise to so many subtleties in this age, and became so serviceable to Rome. Vol. II. p. 435 ↩
