Hitherto we have treated of the death of Christ as it regards the whole human race, in the universal circuit of his quickening power to be brought into act under the condition of faith, as to every man. For although, through. the want of this condition, the death of Christ does not display its saving virtue in the greater part of men, yet it is not to be denied, that the Scriptures every where clearly testify, nor is it to be doubted, but God had in himself the most just and wise reasons of his counsel, while he determined that the death of his Son should be applicable to all men on condition of faith, and nevertheless did not determine to effect or procure that it should be applied to all by the gift of faith to each individual. We ought not, therefore, to oppose to each other and clash together these Divine decrees, I will that my Son should so offer himself on the cross for the sins of the human race, that all men individually may .be saved by believing in him ;—and—1 will so dispense my efficacious grace that not all, but the elect only, may receive this saving faith, whereby they may be saved. If these two decrees seem to any one to oppose each other, he ought rather to acknowledge the weakness of his own understanding, than to deny any. of those things which are so plainly contained in the holy Scriptures. Let this, then, be fixed and established, That according to the decree of God himself, Christ was so offered on the cross for all men, that his death is a kind of universal remedy appointed for all men individually, in order to obtain remission of sins and eternal life, to be applied by faith. But now, lest under this universal virtue of the death of Christ, which extends to all rational creatures, we should destroy its special efficacy, which actually pertains to the predestinated alone, we shall enter upon the other part of the discussion we undertook, which will explain and defend the special prerogative of the elect in the death of Christ, both from the will of God the Father in giving his Son to death, and that of the Son in offering himself. For we ought not so to contend that Christ died for all, as to believe with the Pelagians, that the quickening efficacy of his death is at the same time common to all, from the intention of the Divine will, but in its event becomes saving to some and not to others, no otherwise than from the contingent use of human liberty. Nor are we to fancy with the Arminians, that God gave his Son to death absolutely intending nothing more than that from thence he might have a mere power of saving some sinners, notwithstanding his justice, and that any sinners might have a way or means by which they might be saved, notwithstanding their own sin. Hence arises that celebrated corollary of Grevinchovius,1 in his dissertation on the death of Christ (p. 9,) That the dignity, necessity, and usefulness of redemption might abundantly appear by its being obtained, even though it should never be actually applied to any individual. Again (p. 14,) That the redemption might be obtained for all, and yet applied to none on account of their unbelief. But we by no means think that the death of Christ was like the cast of dice, but that it was decreed from eternity by God the Father and Christ, through the merit of his death, infallibly to save some certain persons whom the Scripture marks by the name of the elect; and therefore, that, according to the will of God, the death of Christ was, by some special mode and counsel, offered and accepted for their redemption. Nor is it here necessary, for the defence of this special counsel, to define that thorny question which has been tossed about by many, and vexed all who have undertaken to discuss it, viz. Whether that decree was first, by which certain persons are predestinated to the infallible participation of eternal life; or the other, by which Christ was ordained to his mediatorial office. For although, to sustain the weakness of the human understanding, we are compelled to conceive of some of the eternal decrees of God as prior and some as posterior, yet it seems to me a slippery and ‘ very dangerous thing to contend about these imaginary signs of our reason, as to undertake to establish and to refute from them questions of faith. It ought, indeed, to be placed beyond all doubt, that those decrees of God, which are thought of by us according to the order of prior and posterior, with respect to God himself consist of an equable eternity of infinity; neither can or ought any separate moment to be granted, in which one decree having been established, it can be rightly supposed, that the other is not yet foreseen and established. Conceive, therefore, that first in order was the decree of God concerning the appointment and sending of a Mediator (which seems to me more suited to our mode of understanding,) and that afterwards was the decree concerning the choice of certain persons to the infrustrable attainment of eternal life through the appointed Mediator; yet you can never so separate these, as that the passion of the Mediator would not have been foreseen from eternity, as offered in some special way and regard for those persons who were to be chosen, and accepted as if it were offered by God for them specially, and that from eternity. On the other hand, conceive that first in order was the decree concerning the election of certain persons to salvation ; that afterwards was the decree concerning the destination of Christ to the office of Mediator, yet you could never so separate these, as that the passion of Christ, which was specially offered and accepted for them, should not be the cause of preparing and giving to those elect persons both effectual grace and salvation. Since, therefore, both these opinions are the same for our purpose, we shall dismiss the discussion of a thing so very unnecessary, and propose and confirm one thesis only respecting the death of Christ as limited by some special consideration to the predestinated alone ; which is as follows,
The death vf Christ, from the special design of God the Father, who from eternity ordained and accepted that sacrifice; and of Christ, who offered it in the fulness of time to God the Father ; was destined for some certain persons, whom the Scripture calls the elect, and for them alone, so as to be effectually and infallibly applied to the obtaining of eternal life.
We oppose this proposition to the error of the Arminians, which Grevinchovius endeavours to establish, ( Dissert. de morte Christi, p. 7) where he teaches that God, delivering up his Son, intended the obtaining of a reconciliation common to all men individually, but did not absolutely will the application of it, when obtained, to any of the children of men. J acknowledge, says he, in God indeed a constant and perpetual desire of applying to all men individually the good obtained ; but 1 deny that the application itself was destined by the certain counsel and will of God for any man but him that believeth. This modern innovator, then, thinks that God equally willed eternal life in Christ to all men, and that he did not, by his absolute and antecedent will, destine and prepare for any effectual grace, whereby Christ might be infallibly applied to them ; but that, by his eternal foreknowledge, he foresaw that some would believe, and some would remain in unbelief, and then at length destined to believers, as such, an effectual application of the death and merits of Jesus Christ. But we think, that, in predestination to faith, the application of the death of Christ was infallibly destined for some certain persons ; and we say that this faith is not prepared for believers, as such, but for unbelievers, that through it they may become believers. The application therefore, which is not destined, but made, is understood as regarding men. who are considered as believers; but the application which is destined, is understood as regarding those to whom faith is destined to be given, by which this application may be made. But these are the elect, and the elect alone; whose special prerogative it is, that according to the absolute will of God the Father and of Christ the Mediator, they are decreed and caused to be infallibly saved through the death of Christ.
These things having been premised, let us proceed to our argument, and in the first place treat of the clear testimonies of the Scriptures.
1. To this purport, in the first place, are those passages which mention the absolute will of the Father with respect to giving, and, as it were, commending certain persons to the Mediator, with the design that from him and through him they may receive all things necessary to salvation, and at length salvation itself. (John vi. 37, 39,) All that the Father giveth me shall come to me, and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out; aud this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, &c. lt is evident from the contest, that not all men promiscuously, but some persons in particular, were given to the Mediator by the mercy of God the Father, according to a certain gracious purpose of infallibly and effectually bringing these persons to eternal life. A similar passage is (John xvii. 2) Thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. This special giving cannot be understood to have been done otherwise than in eternal election. But no one can justly doubt that those who were thus given to the Redeemer, have a special prerogative in the work of redemption. Certainly, the Apostle has plainly signified it in Ephes. 1. 4, 5, 6, &c. According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, &c. having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, &c. Here you have the special gift of certain persons known to God alone. Then in verse 7 it is shewn, that according to the purpose of God, the same persons always obtain that redemption which is effectually applied through the Mediator, In whom we have redemption through his blood, &c. Those, therefore, who are specially given to Christ by election, always derive faith, remission of sins, sanctification, and salvation from the death of Christ, or the beneficial application of his being given to them, at the same time. St. Augustine understood nothing else than eternal election by this giving. (In Johan. tract. 107) He says, The Father would not have given them to the Son, unless he had elected them. And (De predest. Sanctor. cap. 16) he demonstrates, that those who were thus given to the Son, were also called in such a peculiar manner, that Christ crucified should not become to them a stumblingblock or foolishness, but the power and wisdom of God, effectually to work in them faith and salvation. See the words of the Author, which I omit for the sake of brevity. Therefore, it must either be denied that some certain persons were specially given to Christ the Mediator by God the Father, or it must at the same time be confessed that the Mediator had a special regard to them in his offering. . 2. Secondly, the same is evinced by those passages which teach that Christ, conscious of the will of the Father, by his special care directs and infallibly brings to salvation the aforesaid persons who were specially given to him. Which would not be done beyond doubt, unless the death of Christ, which is the meritorious cause of all-saving grace granted to us, had been by some special design destined for these persons, as saving and quickening them. But let us observe the words of Scripture, (John xvii. 9) T pray for them, I pray not for the world, but for them which Thou hast given me, for they are thine. And ver. 12, Those that thou gavest me I have kept. And ver. 19, For their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanct:fied through the truth. Nothing is more clear than that two things are affirmed in these passages; First, That not all men pronuscuously, but some persons especially, were given by Chap. vit. AS 1T REGARDS THE PREDESTINATED. 519 God the Father to Christ the Mediator, which it has been shewn is to be understood of the elect. Secondly, That Christ in discharging his office of Mediator and Saviour, embraces and regards them with a special love, attention, and care, that is, with such love, attention, and care as may produce in them the infallible effect of eternal life. Which manifestly appears from Heb. 11. 13, where Christ represents to his Father that those children who had been given to him by his Father were preserved and saved, Behold, I and the children which God hath given me. Now that we may bring all these things into a small compass, Those whom Christ commended to the Father by special intercession, that is, by absolute prayer, as Bannes expresses it (in 1, qu. 23, art. 5, p. 297,) or as Suares says (in 3, tom. ‘ 1, quest. 19, disp. 31, p. 634,) for whom he prayed with an effectual and absolute will, that the merit of his death might be effectually applied to them; for the preserving and keeping of whom he watched in an extraordinary manner ; for whom he so sanctified himself, that they might effectually receive from him that sanctification which is produced in the hearts of those who are saved by the doctrine of the Gospel, and moreover, whom he will place altogether at length before his Father safe and glorious: these persons, beyond all controversy, he also embraced with a special design in the very act of his offering, and so likewise in the whole work of redemption. For it is absurd to say, that by a special design, salvation was procured by the Mediator for those persons for whom the death of Christ, which is the cause of the salvation of mankind, was not destined by a special design.
3. A third argument is derived from those Scriptures in which the death of Christ, when joined, and as it were connected with his certain and absolute purpose of giving eternal life, is not extended to all men, but is limited to certain persons, and that according to the special design of Christ himself. Such as (John x. 15) I lay down my life Jar the sheep. (John xi. 51, 52) He prophesied that Jesus should die, &c. that he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad. (Ephes. v. 25, 26) Christ loved the church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, &c. (Tit. ii. 14) Jesus Christ gave himself for us, that he might purify unto himself a peculiar people, &c. (Acts xx. 28) Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Ephes. i. 22, 23) He gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body. (Eph. v. 28) Christ is the head of the church, and he is the Saviour of the body. In all these passages three things are to be observed: first, That by the names of sheep, the church, the children of God, the body of Christ, are intended the sheep, the children of God, and members of Christ, not as actually united to him by faith already received, but as by the counsel and design of God to be united by faith to be received. Secondly, That the whole human race promiscuously cannot be meant by these titles. Thirdly, When it is said that Christ died that he might gather together in one these children of God, that he might sanctify this church, that he might purchase this church, &c. there is not denoted in Christ’s offering himself an ineffectual will, or some conditional design, which might fail of the intended effect; but an effectual will and design joined with an infallible event. It is proved in the first place, That his discourse in the passages aforesaid, is concerning his sheep, his members, his children considered according to the eternal and secret purpose of Divine election, and not according to their actual present state; Because no one actually becomes a sheep of Christ, a child of God, a member of his mystical body, except by the merit and benefit of the death of Christ actually and effectually derived and applied to him: therefore, Christ died for the sheep, for the children of God, for the church, for the members destined for him from eternity according to the purpose of election, namely, that by the merit of the death of Christ this predestination of God might be accomplished in them. Thus Augustine says (in Johan. tract. 46,) The Lord knoweth them that are his; they are his sheep, according to his predestination, according to his foreknowledge, according to his election of the sheep, before the formation of the world. And (Tract 49, page 366) he thus speaks of the children of God that were scattered abroad. These things are said according to predestination: For they were not as yet the sheep or the children of God, because they had not yel believed. It is proved, Secondly, That in the passages alleged, the death of Christ is said to be limited to certain persons for some special reason. For otherwise why would the Scripture have mentioned sheep, children, or the church, if it wished to mark that it is extended to all? It would have been in vain to make use of words which desctibe a small part of the human race, unless it had also shewn tliat the design of Christ in this thing did not regard the whole human race, but referred to those few only. The death of Christ, and . the design of God embracing all mankind promiscuously is excellently expressed, John iii. 16, God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. But he so loved his sheep, his children, his church, that he determined by his death effectually to derive to them faith and eternal life. As often as the holy Scripture makes mention of the death of Christ in reference alone to the church, the sheep, the members of his mystical body, it would unfold to us the special design of Christ in offering himself, arising from his special love; according as Aquinas says (Part. 3, qu. 24, art. 4,) God_fore-ordained the salvation of the elect, by predestinating from eternity, that it should be accomplished through Jesus Christ. It is proved, Thirdly, That in the passages aforesaid, it is shewn that the will of God the Father and of Christ, concerning the salvation of the sheep by the death of Christ, is not ineffectual or conditional, but absolute and effectual ; Because Christ speaking of the same sheep, says, (John x. 28) I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish : and (John xvii. 24) Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am. And (Eph. v. 23) the Apostle says of that church for which Christ gave himself, Christ is the head of the church, and he is the Saviour of the body. These passages all express an absolute will joined with its effect, Therefore Christ is truly called the Saviour and Redeemer of the world, inasmuch as he hath brought to the whole world a saving remedy, which is applicable by faith. But he is the Saviour and Redeemer of his sheep, his church, his body, in short, of the predestinated children of God, inasmuch as by his special design he hath destined and procured this remedy to be applied to them, by granting to them that the eyes of their understanding should be enlightened (Eph. i. 18,) that by faith they might possess Christ effectually united and applied to them.
4. Lastly, we may confirm our opinion by those passages in which God hath absolutely promised to Christ, on his dying, that by the merit of his death the church should be infallibly delivered from death, and put in possession of eternal life. (Gen. iii. 15) The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpeut’s head. What else does this mean, but that by the virtue and merit of the death of Christ, Satan should be trodden down, and all those should be delivered from his power whom God in Christ willed specially to pity? Now who can doubt that Christ, by a special design, referred his death, which was to destroy Satan, to those who, by a special benefit, were to be delivered through him ? But that those who were infallibly to be delivered were the elect, is allowed by all sound Divines. Rupert (lib. 2, de victoria Verbi Dei, cap. 18) says, He calls the elect by name the conquerors of the serpent; because, truly, the efficacy of the death and resurrection of Christ to bruise the devil is of his special mercy destined and procured to be effectually applied to them alone. From whence Marloratus2 says on this passage, The devil and the generation of the wicked fight against the elect of God; but the elect at length come off the victors, on account of their head, even Christ, who by his death hath destroyed him that had the power of death. Therefore the death of Christ was specially intended and destined to bruise Satan under the feet of the elect, and effectually to save them, and that according to the most sure promise of God himself. A promise not dissimilar of. - God the Father concerning the efficacy of the death of Christ as to the elect, is contained in Isaiah liii. 10, 11. The words are these, When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shuil see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand ; he shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied, &c. In these words God the Father promises to the Son, that his pas-. sion and death should not be useless or without fruit, but a seed should undoubtedly be brought forth to him. I ask then, whether this promise regards vague and uncertain individuals, or certain persons specifically known to God the Father and Christ the Mediator? Without doubt it would be most unworthy of Divine perfection and wisdom to form a confused promise concerning the salvation of some persons, who were not then specifically marked out by God himself. But if a determination were made by God and Christ concerning the effectual salvation of this seed through the death of Christ, it would follow, that there had been an effectual and specific design with regard * to their salvation, in the death of Christ. All the interpreters of this passage have so understood it, as to allow that by the death of Christ a most effectual and most certain deliverance and salvation was promised to his mystical body, that is, the church, or the elect. Thus Luther says, The posterity or seed of which he speaks, is the church. He SHALL SEE HIS SEED, that is, he shall have a kingdom and royal children. So Calvin observes, HE SHALL SEE HIS SEED, signifies that the death of Christ would be the cause of begetting an offspring, because having died and risen again, he should acquire to himself a peculiar people. Musculus does not disagree when explaining the words, He shall see of the travail of his soul and shall be satisfied. Christ saw beforehand the flowing together of the elect to be saved ; he sees it even now, and he shall see it to the end of the world ; and he is satisfied with seeing it, because the pleasure of God his Father prospers in his hand. “These all agree that, according to the special good pleasure of God the Father, the effectual salvation of the church, that is, of some certain persons known to God alone, was promised to Christ, as the fruit of his passion; and that Christ intended with a specific and effectual will, and laboured for the salvation of these elect persons, or this peculiar people individually given and commended to him by God the Father,
Objection. If any one should object with Grevinchovius, (Dissert. de morte Chr. p. 8 and 14) That there was not any absolute promise or will of God concerning the effectual redemption of any individual persons, but that God willed or did not will the application of the death of Christ to all men individually not absolutely but conditionally ; He willed it to all if they had faith ; he did not will it if they disbelieved : and therefore, although Christ laid down his life, it was possible nevertheless that his death might not be applied to any; that is, it was possible that he might be defrauded of his promised seed, on account of the unbelief of all men intervening.
Reply. I answer, that in this promise, by which God the Father as it were bound himself to the Mediator, to give him a seed, if he should lay down his soul for sin, a tacit promise is contained of giving faith to the elect, without which they would not be the seed of Christ. It was therefore decreed by God on account of the death of his Son, to give faith to some persons, as well as to give a progeny to his Son which should live for ever. Christ being aware beforehand of this promise and counsel, could not offer the sacrifice of his death to God the Father, without a special design for this seed, who should hereafter believe in him.—So far we have contended from ex- press testimonies of the Scriptures; let us now bring forward some arguments founded also in the holy Scriptures.
Argument l. He who by his death not only established the evangelical covenant which regards all men promiscuously, Whosoever believeth shall be saved ; but also that secret covenant which comprehends some certain individual persons known only to God, and which is described by the Prophet (Jerem. xxxi. 33) in these words, This is the covenant that 1 will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts and write it in their hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be my people; He who by his death procured such a covenant, offered his death and merit to God the Father that it might be effectually applied to some elect persons. This proposition is clear and evident, because to put his laws into the minds of men, and to write them in their hearts, and to make them a peculiar people to God, denotes an effectual application of the merits of Christ, and describes the privileges of the elect, or the spiritual Israel. Now I add the minor, and affirm, That Christ, by his death, is the Mediator of this secret covenant, which includes its application, and embraces the Israel of God, or the elect children of God, and them alone. Besides the words of the prophet just quoted, we have also the clear testimony of the Apostle, citing the same prophet, (Heb, viii, 6) Our High Priest is the Mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. But what are those better promises which Christ the Mediator hath established ? They are recounted verse 10, in the words which are recorded by Jeremiah, and are divided into two heads, into a promise of inward reformation of the hearts, and of gratuitous remission of sins, as Calvin has well observed on this passage. Christ therefore, by his death, hath merited remission of sins for all, if they should believe and be converted ; but he hath merited and procured for some, that this gratuitous and secret covenant should be fulfilled by God who hath promised it, namely, that they should believe and be converted by God’s effectually reforming their hearts through and on account of the Mediator, and putting his laws in them. But these persons for whom Christ hath merited this are (as Bede hath observed from Augustine) al/ pertaining spiritually to the house of Israel and the seed of. Abraham ; and what else is this but all the elect? Therefore the elect according to the intention of God and Christ, have the special benefit of a profitable application, on account of the death of Christ, both destined for and presented to them.
ARGUMENT 2, May be drawn from the consideration of the price paid on the cross for the redemption of the human race. This price was the blood of the Son of God, of the only begotten and beloved Son. But it is not to be believed, that such and so great a price was paid for an event dependent on the uncertain determination of the human will: Therefore it was the design and intention of God the Father and Christ the Mediator infallibly and effectually to redeem and to save some men by this precious death. But these could not be any others than those who are really saved, that is, than the elect: Therefore the intention of Christ in offering himself regarded the elect in some special manner. I know that Grevinchovius and others of the same school, boldly assert, (Dissert. de mort. Chr. p. 14, 15) That the proper end obtained and designed by God was, that the sinner might be saved, notwithstanding his Justice ; but that this redemption, although obtained for all, might possibly be applied to none, on account of the intervention of the unbelief of all. Which is the same as if they should say, that God so gave his Son to death, that at the same time he had no certain purpose of saving any inen by the merit of his death ; but having procured the bare possibility of salvation, through the death of Christ, for all men generally, he committed the effectual participation of salvation to the free-will of each individual, so that the death of Christ, considered in the whole latitude of its merit, could not have effectually redeemed any one from death. But whoever rightly considers how precious the death of the Son was in the eyes of the Father, could not think that he would have been willing to expose his Son to death, without a certain purpose of effectually applying his death to some persons. (Isa. liii. 10) The pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hands. ear what Malderus says, a Popish writer, but much sounder in this matter than the Arminians. (Anti Synod. p. 138) If the offering alone be regarded, it is equally for all ; but it is otherwise, if that should be regarded, for the actual obtainiug of which he offered himself. For he obtained for the elect the perfect benefit of his passion actually following and applied, as though they were given to him by the Father for this purpose. The blood of Christ, then, could not flow in vain, because by the price of his blood, according to the decree of God, he merited for the elect the beneficial application of that price.
ARGUMENT 3. Whatever of spiritual and saving good the Spirit of Christ produces in any persons, the bloodshedding of Christ merited it for them: But the Spirit of Christ produces in some certain persons repentance and faith, and through faith and repentance the infallible application of his death: Therefore he merited these special benefits for those persons: Therefore he intended to merit them when he made himself a sacrifice on the cross. Nor is it lawful to think rashly or by chance, That Christ procured greater spiritual benefits for some than for others. What will our opponents say to this? Will they say that the Spirit of Christ bestows benefits on man which Christ hath not merited for them? They will not dare so to trample upon the merit of Christ. Will they reply, That faith and a good will, and the act of a beneficial application, are not the special gifts of the Holy Spirit? They will be ashamed of such gross Pelagianism. Let them, then, confess with us, That as through the death of Christ special benefits are procured for the elect, so there was in the will of Christ in dying, and of God the Father in accepting his death, an effectual intention of procuring and conferring them. And this is that singular privilege in the death of Christ which we claim for the elect alone; because it appears from the fact, that God has destined that they alone should be effectually saved by the death of his Son. From whence (Heb. vii. 25) he is stated to be the Saviour of some, that is, of the elect, altogether, viz. both meritoriously and efficaciously.
ARGUMENT 4. The commonly received distinction among all Divines, by which it is said, That Christ died for all sufficiently, but for the elect effectually, will afford us a fourth argument. For as from the former part of it we have refuted the opinion of those who deny that the death of Christ, according to the decree of God, is a remedy effectually and infallibly to be applied to the elect: for what other sense can there be of these words, He died effectually for the elect, than, He died with an absolute intention and effectual will of saving theelect? Forif any one perverts this distinction, as if the sense were, That the death of Christ, which is sufficient for all, becomes eventually efficacious to some from the contingent act of the human will, in the first place, he is refuted by the words themselves; since when it is said, Christ died for such and such persons effectually, we denote a singular efficacy proceeding from the special will of him that died, not flowing from the contingent act of him that believes. Secondly, Such an eventual efficacy is not understood even by the Jesuits themselves in this distinction, but an efficacy specially intended and merited by him that died. Thus Suares says,3 (In 3, disp. 41, p. 629) Christ hath not merited remission of sins for all men as to its efficacy, because he hath not applied his merit so that all men should infallibly obtain such an effect. Therefore, to merit effectually, or as to its efficacy, is to apply his merit to some persons with that intention, that they should infallibly obtain from it the effect of eternal life. He says a little more plainly, (p. 635) The merit of Christ equally regards all men as to its sufficiency, not as to its efficiency ; which is to be understood not only on account of the effect, which is produced in one and not in another, but also on account of the will, by which Christ himself offered his merits in a different way for different persons. Thirdly, all those testimonies of the Scriptures which set before us the death of Christ connected with the certain purpose of redeeming his sheep, gathering together the children of God, purchasing the church, cleansing and preserving a peculiar people, and others of that kind befarementioned, plainly shew that th’s efficacy of which Divines speak, is to be entirely separated from the will of Christ in dying, and not to be sought from the contingent act of the human will. Christ, by some special application of his offering, obtained that it should be rendered effectual to the elect; but the elect did not render it effectual to themselves by any special apprehension flowing from their own free-will.
ARGUMENT 5. We shall take our fifth argument from the Divine predestination. Since, the predestination of certain persons before the foundation of the world being admitted, it is necessary to admit that in the will of Christ in offering himself there was some regard and respect to their salvation to be produced by the merit of his passion. For whether we place the Divine election (according to our mode of understanding it) before the decree of his suffering, or place it afterwards, yet it will always remain firm, that in the will of Christ, whether as about to suffer, or as suffering, there was some effectual and singular intention of effectually saving these persons, whether elected or to be elected. Since the will of Christ is never without conformity to that of his Father: Therefore it is incredible (as Suares hath rightly remarked, in 3. disp. 31, § 2, p. 635) that Christ did not otherwise offer his merits for those whom he knew to be elected by his Father than for others, since he saw that it was the will of the Father that they should be infallibly saved, and not the others ; and to his will he conformed himself in all things. To this also refer the words of the prophet before quoted (Isa. liii. 10,) The pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. Therefore, the election of some persons to eternal life, which proceeds from the gratuitous will of God, is put in execution through the merits of Christ, and therefore it is not to be doubted, that the meritorious death of Christ was specially and effectually destined by the Redeemer himself, and offered to the Father for the infallible redemption and salvation of these elect persons. Excellent is the observation of Scotus on this passage, (lib. 3, dist. 19, p. 74) Christ saw beforehand that his passion was to be offered to the Father for the predestinated and elect, and thus in reality he offered it effectually ; and the whole Trinity thus effectually accepted it on their behalf, and Jer no others was it effectually offered or accepted from etermity. By effectual offering and acceptance he means nothing more than that the offering and acceptance was joined with an absolute purpose of saving those for whom it was offered and accepted in this manner. Malderus, Bishop of Antwerp, relying on this argument, rejects the contrary opinion of those who think that Christ died for all equally as to the efficacy of his death, and concludes thus (page 137,)4 Predestination being supposed, it follows, that Christ conferred by his death much more on these predestinated persons than on others.
ARGUMENT 6, Sixthly, we may argue from that proposition which is to be retained between the offering of Christ for men, and his prayer or intercession for them. That Christ prayed or interceded with his Father for the elect, that they might retain a firm and invincible faith to the last, and might effectually obtain salvation, may be collected from John xvii., and from his prayer offered for Peter by name, that his faith should not fail. And truly, he who should deny that the excellent gift of perseverance was obtained for particular persons by the special prayer of Christ, would refer the greatest of all spiritual benefits to the acceptance of free-will. This being admitted, I will add, As Christ specially prayed for special benefits to be conferred on the elect, so he specially offered up himself in order to merit the same benefits. Of this special prayer and oblation Suares says (in 3, disp. 41, p. 635,) As Christ prayed for men in a different way, so he merited differently ; on which account, although he is the universal Redeemer of all men, and a sufficient cause of salvation, yet in a special way he is the effectual cause of salvation to those whom he makes obedient to himself. Therefore the prayer which Christ specially and effectually put up for the elect, had its foundation in the oblation, in which he specially and effectually offered up himself for them. Observe the force of the argument; Whatever Christ obtains for individual persons by his special intercession, that he merited for them with the Father by the offering of himself which pertained to them especially: But by his intercession he obtains for the elect faith, perseverance, and salvation itself: Therefore he specially offered himself for them, that he might infallibly procure for them these benefits. I doubt not (says Vasques, in |, qu. 23, art. 5, disp. 94, cap. 3,) that Christ by his peculiar prayer and will applied his merits to those who were predestinated and elected.
ARGUMENT 7. The death and merit of Christ is the mean ordained by God for the execution and accomplishment of the eternal counsel of God concerning the salvation of men. If, therefore, the will of God shews itself differently in effecting the salvation of men, then also the death of Christ will be differently disposed by it in the salvation of men, and will be differently applied; since means are always used in order to the end, and the mode of application will be according to the intention of the agent. Now it is certain, and admitted by all sound Divines, That God does not will the salvation of all, in the same way as he wills the salvation of some: Therefore, neither hath he willed that the means by which he hath determined that the salvation of mankind is to be procured, namely, the death of Christ, should be so applied to all as to some. Whence it follows, that the death of Christ was so destined for those to whom God hath determined salvation by his effectual will, that by the merit of it, all things necessary infallibly to produce salvation should redound to them from it. And, on the other hand, to those whom he hath not decreed salvation by such a will, neither was the death of Christ destined for them in the same manner. The death of Christ, therefore, according to the special intention of God the Father, who ordained this sacrifice for the salvation of men, and of Christ, who offered up himself in conformity to the will of the Father, is understood to have been destined and applied to the elect, whom God hath determined infallibly to save by his death, in a different way from its application to others, whom God permits, notwithstanding this death, to perish through their own fault. Whoever denies that the death of Christ was offered for men, and that it is applied to them with this difference, may by the same means deny that God, who is most wise and most powerful, either knows not how or cannot design and accommodate differently to various persons the means which were instituted by himself, as the different manner of his will demands.
ARGUMENT 8. Itiscertain from the event that some men apply to themselves the death of Christ, with its infi-. nite merit, really and effectually for salvation. I ask, then, whether this application is made according to the antecedent and effectual intention of Christ in offering himself on the cross, or contrary to it, or without any such preceding intention? If it should be granted, that Christ in dying had an antecedent and special will concerning the effectual application, which pertains to all the elect, and to them alone, this is the very thing we are endeavouring to prove, namely, that this death was destined, according : to the special intention of God and Christ, to be effectually applied to the elect. But no man would say, that any person can effectually apply this death to himself contrary to the intention of Christ. There is but one thing remaining, viz. We say that this effectual application is made by some men according to the freedom of their own will, without any special, preceding, absolute, and effectual intention of the will of God. But religion forbids us to assert this: First, because in good and saving actions the effectual will of God is antecedent to the effectual will of man, For it is God which worketh in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure, (Philip. ii. 13) and he doth not work any thing in us antecedently which he hath not antecedently determined to work. ^ Secondly, because in those works which pertain to salvation we can do nothing without Christ, (John xv. 5,) Without me ye can do nothing. But what we can do through Christ, we receive the power of doing on account of the merit of Christ, which is not given to any man without the antecedent and special intention of Christ, who died and merited it. Therefore, whoever has obtained this most excellent benefit, that he should have the merit of Christ applied to himself effectually, ought to confess, that he has received the power of applying it more than others, from the special kindness of God and Christ, who intended, destined, and applied this his own merit especially to that person. Thus the event of the beneficial application of it in the predestinated, demonstrates that there was in Christ, who offered himself, and in God, who accepted this sacrifice, a special and effectual intention of its application to the predestinated. And this is that singular privilege of the elect in the death of Christ which we have endeavoured to establish by our proposition.
ARGUMENT 9, If it is asserted, that the death of Christ, according to the appointment of God and the intention of Christ, has not merited the effectual application and infallible attainment of salvation which flows from it to those who are predestinated, it will improperly follow, that the merit of the Mediator, according to the will and intention of the Father who accepted it, and of the Son who exhibited it, did not more regard those who are elected than those who are passed by, but pertains equally to both. The consequence is plain, because it is evident, That according to the will of God, the merit of Christ in dying extends itself to all men on this condition, If they should apply it to themselves by faith. Therefore, unless Christ had intended by his death to merit for the elect, in addition, that the beneficial application should be made to them by faith being given to them, no special privilege would be given to them in the merit of Christ. For the death of Christ, according to the appointment of God, merited this for Judas, that on the condition of faith he might attain to eternal life; but it obtained in addition for Peter, that on account of the merit of Christ he should receive persevering faith and all other spiritual benefits which are required in order infallibly to obtain eternal life. And to this the reasoning of the Apostle has respect (Rom. viii. 32,) where he discourses of the privileges of those who are predestinated, He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? In which passage as he had before intimated some special calling of the predestined, which he named a calling according to purpose, so also he marks some special oblation of Christ for these predestinated persons, which may be called an oblation according to purpose, that is, with a certain purpose of conferring effectual grace on the elect, and infallibly leading them to life by the merit of this death. Those who take away this distinction in the design of God, as to the death of Christ, considered in relation to those who are elected and those who are passed by, as Bannes truly says (in 1, quest, 23, art. 5, p. 296, 297,) Declare that the merit of Christ is in no degree more perfect as a cause of salvation to the predestinate than to the reprobate. Because, as to the sufficiency of his merit, it equally regards all men ; but the difference is in this, that his merit is applied to some, but not to others. Therefore if the application as to the elect is not derived from the merit of Christ, his merit will have an equal regard to the predestinate and the reprobate.
ARGUMENT 10. If Christ did not offer himself to God the Father with some peculiar and absolute will of redeeming and effectually saving the elect by the merit of his death, then effectual grace and eternal life would not be otherwise prepared for or given to any persons in Christ than it was in Adam. For the possibility of having grace and eternal life on a condition depending upon our freewill, was granted to the human race through the first Adam. If, therefore, Christ did not by his death merit grace and life for any persons absolutely, but for all promiscuously, on this uncertain condition, If they should receive grace offered, and believe in him, and persevere in faith, and at the same time commits and leaves to the free-will of each whether he is willing to believe and to persevere or not, truly, as to the manner and uncertainty of obtaining effectual grace and eternal life, we should be in no better condition through Christ, than we were by Adam. But this is opposite to the holy Scripture, which suspends grace and eternal life, as prepared and given through Christ, to all who are to be saved, on the certain purpose of the good pleasure of God, and not on the contingent motion of the human will; which is shewn in the controversy concerning election and preterition. It is opposite also to the opinion of the orthodox Fathers, who opposed the Pelagians, and especially that of Augustine (de corrept. & grat. cap. 11,) where, when he had shewn what that grace was which was given in the first Adam, he speaks thus concerning the grace prepared and given through Christ to the predestinated : So much more help of grace ts given by Jesus Christ, to those to whom it hath pleased God to give it, that not only that is bestowed without which we cannot stand, even if we would, but also so much and such grace is bestowed, that we are willing. There is truly in us, through this grace of God, not only power to do what we will in receiving and perseveringly retaining the benefit, but also power to will what we are enabled to do. This grace, which is given for Christ’s sake to the elect alone, and which produces in them alone the effect of a beneficial application and salvation, does not flow to them from any special operation of the human will, but from the special decree of the Divine will, through the medium of the merit of Christ. Therefore the merit of Christ was in some special way destined for them by God, and is applied to them by Christ himself.
ARGUMENT 11. That opinion is to be rejected by us which is either altogether the same, or at least is closely allied with the condemned opinion of the Pelagians: but the opinion of those who assert that the death of Christ, as to the Divine will and intention, is equally the same to all as to its efficacy, but that it arises from the human will that it is eventually effectual and beneficial to some, comes as near as possible to Pelagius. But the orthodox having been stirred up to an accurate consideration of this thing by Pelagius, always taught, on the contrary, That a beneficial or effectual application of the merits of Christ depends on the grace of predestination, by which faith and, p od will is mercifully conferred upon some, though ‘dea hee others by the just judgment of God. As to Pelagius, that he transferred the benefit of the death of Christ, that is, eternal life, from the special intention of God, to the special operation of the human will, appears from the epistle of Prosper to Augustine. It appears also from the epistle of Hilary to Augustine, in which the Remnants of the Pelagians express their opinion that eternal life is so proposed and set before all men, through the death of Christ, that they altogether deny any singular or special purpose of God concerning the salvation of the elect through the death of Christ, and refer to the human will, the whole distinction between those who are saved through the death of Christ, and those who are not saved. But, on the other hand, that the orthodox acknowledged a special and secret purpose of God in accepting the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of Christ in offering it, concerning its effectual and beneficial application to certain persons, is not less evident from the books of Augustine, On the predestination of the saints, On the benefit of per-: severance, and others written against the Pelagians and Semipelagians ; in which this conclusion concerning the special will of God in saving the elect through Christ, is the primary, if not the only one. The same may be said of Prosper and Fulgentius, who every where refer the effectual obtaining of salvation to the effectual and special will of God in destining Christ in a special manner to the elect, and not to the free-will of men in applying the death and merits of Christ to themselves, as it may happen.
ARGUMENT 12. But lest we should seem to contend with empty names, our last argument is derived from the express testimonies of the Fathers, and of modern writers, who assign to the predestinated a special prerogative in the death of Christ ; which is nothing else than an infallible attainment of grace and glory, according to the special appointment of God, derived from the merit of Christ in dying and offering himself with a special regard for them. And first from St. Augustine :
Test. 1. This is an eminent testimony (in Johan. tract. 48, p. 352, tom. 9,) How did he say to them, Ye are not of my sheep? Because he saw that they were predestinated to eternal perdition, not purchased with the price of his blood to eternal life, A little after, Of those sheep, neither the wolf seizes, nor the thief steals, nor the robber kills any one. He who knows what he gave for them, is secure of every one of their number. From which words we collect two things : first, That our Saviour offered the price of his own blood in some special way for the redemption of the predestinated; in such a way indeed, as that from thence follows their infallible salvation. Secondly, That he did not offer his blood in the same way for those who were passed by, or not predestinated ; from whence they are denied £o have been purchased with the price of his blood in order to eternal life: which is to be understood of an absolute and effectual ordination to eternal life to be completed and brought into act by the death of Christ.
Test. 2. To this testimony another is allied (Serm. 50, de verbis Domini, p. 194, tom. 10,) The predestinated were not yet gathered together ; but he knew them who had predestinated them; he knew them who had come to redeem them with his own blood. He saw them, though they did not yet see him ; he knew them, though they did not yet believe in him. What is more plain, than that Christ came into the world, that he might redeem the predestinate with his own blood, and that he redeemed those who were effectually and infallibly to be brought to the participation of eternal life ; in which way he never determined with himself to redeem the nonelect.
Test. 9. The third testimony of the same Augustine, we shall produce from his book, (de natura & grat. cap. 5) which is as follows, Those who are delivered, are not called vessels of their own merits, but vessels of mercy. Of whose mercy but his, who sent Christ Jesus into this world to save sinners? whom he foreknew, and predestinated, and called, and justified. As if he had said, That God, according to a special decree of mercy, sent Christ to deliver and save the predestinate effectually and infallibly ; in which sense they alone are called vessels of mercy.
It would be useless to produce more passages from Augustine, whose opinion of the absolute predestination of some to eternal life and of the eternal giving of them to Christ the Mediator, that they might be by him infallibly led to the same, is known to all who are conversant with his writings. What is meant by predestination, and giving and leading to eternal life, without this special design of applying his death and merits to them, can neither be understood nor imagined. See cap. 18, de prad. Sanct. cap. 7, de bono persev. cap. 9, de cor. & grat. —
Test. 4. The fourth testimony may be derived from Ambrose, whose words are these (lib. 6, cap. 7, Luke ;) Although Christ suffered for all, yet he suffered specially for us, because he suffered for his church: therefore tt is not to be doubted that much is due from him who hath received much. Here we see that, according to the opinion of Ambrose, Christ in suffering had a special regard to his church, from whence it followed that she received the special benefit of that passion of Christ. Therefore he asserts, that Christ suffered for all; but so that the will and intention of Christ in suffering does not equally regard all men, but is directed in some singular manner towards his mystical body, that is, the church of the first-born, which he willed to acquire for himself with his own blood and to unite to himself by his Spirit, in order to the infallible participation of eternal life. He did not suffer for all men with this special intention.
Test. 5. Remi, Bishop of Rheims, may follow Ambrose. He writes thus on Rom. viii, Whom he predestinated or before appointed to reign with him in eternal blessedness, those he called and justified by his passion, by baptism, and faith, adorned with good works, and justified unto the end of life. A little after, on these words, He who spared not his own Son, he says, that is, did not preserve him from death, but delivered him up for us all who were predestinated to eternal life.—Al these shew that Christ suffered for the elect and the elect alone, with a certain purpose of saving them; which is the special intention that we endeavour to establish, and which we contend is to be limited to the elect alone in this oblation of Christ.
Test. 6. Fulgentius says (De incarn. & grat. Jesu. Chr. cap. 29, p. 92, Biblioth. Patr. tom. 6,) Those who think that the will of God, by which he wills the salvation of all men, is equal towards the redeemed and the condemned ; when they are asked, why God wills that all men should be saved, and yet all are not saved, what will they answer? The learned Fulgentius intimates, that God of his special will hath determined that the salvation of those who are actually saved should be procured by Christ, and that those who affirm the contrary have nothing solid to answer when they are urged to shew from whence this distinction arises, that some are really saved by the death of Christ, and others are not saved. He demonstrates that this cannot be referred to the human will (cap. 30 and 31).
Test. 7. I add another testimony of the same Fulgentius, (lib. 5, de verit. Predest.) Those whom God hath predestinated to the adoption of sons, no Christian ought to doubt that these were not only predestinated tn Christ before the formation of the world, to the reward of glorification, but also to the grace of justification ; and by virtue of this predestination were called according to purpose and justified. He who does not doubt that the elect children of God were predestinated both to grace and glory before the formation of the world, will willingly confess, that the death and merit of Christ was ordained and accepted in some special way for these elect persons, that from thence they might infallibly obtain the grace and glory destined for them.
Test. 8. Paschasius5 (Biblioth. Patr. tom. 9, p. 930) on the words Matt. i. 21, He shall save his people from their sins, writes thus, Hence Zacharias says, HE HATH RE- DEEMED HIS PEOPLE IN THE HOUSE OF HIS SERVANT David. Therefore those whom he foreknew to be his own, without doubt he came to save; all the rest he hath left by his secret Judgment in the mass of damnation. In these words he teaches that Christ came into the world and suffered death, with some special intention of saving the predestinate; but he had not the same special intention to effect the salvation of others, although he was willing to make salvation procurable by all on condition of faith.
Test. 9. Gregory the Great says (Moral, lib. 22, cap. 18, p. 132,) For the only begotten Son of God to intercede for man, is, with the co-eternal Father, the same as to demonstrate that he was man; and for him to have petitioned in behalf of human nature, is to have taken the same nature into the height — of his divinity. He intercedes, therefore, for us, not with words, but with compassion ; because what he was unwilling should be condemned in the elect, he delivered them from by undertaking tt. The last words are especially to be noticed, in which it is clearly indicated, that Christ in his whole mediatorial office had a special regard to the infallible deliverance of the elect.
Test. 10. Bernard on Psalm xci., He who dwelleth in the secret place of the Most High, vers. 9th, says, Christ died for his friends, that is, to acquire them; so that out of enemies he might make them friends. A little after, Thus, therefore, Christ died as to time for the ungodly, but as to predestination for his brethren and friends; which is the same as if he had said, That Christ in dying on the cross had a singular respect to the predestinate, his future brethren and friends.
But passing from the antients, let us descend to the Schoolmen and modern Popish writers, who, while they contend that Christ died for all, at the same time acknowledge that he died for the elect alone, with special intention of applying his death to them, in order to the infalhble attainment of eternal life.
Test. l. Let us begin with the Master of the Schoolmen, Peter Lombard: Christ offered himself on the cross for all men, as to the sufficiency of the price, but for the elect only as to its efficacy; because he brings salvation to the predestinate alone (lib. 3, dist. 20, lit. E.) The argument which he adjoins, why Christ is said to have died for the elect alone as to its efficacy, is most worthy of notice. For he does not say with the Pelagians and Arminians, that they alone were foreseen to be excited by grace to apply Christ to themselves, according to the freedom of their own will; but that he effected salvation in them alone through the benignity of his special mercy. Now what he has effected in the elect, without doubt he determined to effect in them. And this is that special intention according to which we profess that the death of Christ referred and was ordained for the elect alone.
Test. 2. Aquinas says, (part. 3, qu. 24, art. 4,) God fore-ordained our salvation, by predestinating from eternity that tt should be completed through Jesus Christ. Aquinas speaks of the elect, and asserts that God ordained, from eternity, that their salvation should be infallibly completed through Jesus Christ, I ask, then, how Christ exhibited himself as conformed to the eternal appointment of his Father, if, in his saving passion, he had not applied his merits in a peculiar manner infallibly to effect and complete the salvation of the elect? It is granted, then, that the special intention of God in accepting this sacrifice, and of Christ in offering himself, was limited to the elect alone, as far as the passion of Christ is joined with the infallible effect of salvation as to individuals.
Test.,3, Aquinas also observes (Quest. disp. de grat. Christi. art. 7, resp. ad 4,) The merit of Christ as to its suf- Jictency equally regards all men, but not as to its efficacy ; which arises partly from free-will, partly from the election of God, through which the effect of the merits of Christ is mercifully conferred upon some, but is by his just judgment withdrawn from others. What Aquinas says, that it arises partly from free-will, that the merits of Christ as to their efficacy do not equally regard all men, is to be understood with respect to those who are lost, who, of their own freewill turn themselves away from the fountain of salvation: but what he says, that this inequality arises partly from the election of God, is to be understood with respect to those who are saved, who, because God, according to the good pleasure of his election, has special compassion on them, receive from the fountain of salvation whatever is necessary to effect their salvation. That this was the sentiment of Aquinas appears from his answer to the last argument, where he says, That this is conferred freely upon men by God, that they obtain the efficacy of the merit of Christ. If the effect of the merits of Christ is mercifully conferred on some certain persons by the election of God, and is at the same time denied to others, who can doubt that Christ, being most conscious of the election of God and of his calling, offered himself and his merits specially for these persons, and to the price of his death, which was most sufficient in itself, added moreover the most effectual and special intention of his will, in order to effect the salvation of these elect persons? To this those words refer (John x. 15,) 1 lay down my life for the sheep, namely, with some special intention of effectually redeeming and delivering them, and leading them to life eternal; as may be collected from the whole discourse of our Saviour at that time.
Test. 4. Scotus (in 3 Sentent. dist. 19, quest. 1) has many things which greatly conduce to the illustration of our opinion; this especially: As the Word foresaw that his passion would be offered to the Father for the elect, so he offered it effectually in the event, and the whole Trinity effectually accepted his passion for them; and for no others was it effectually offered, nor from eternity accepted. Scotus acknowledges, that, according to the eternal decree of the whole Trinity, the passion of Christ was offered and accepted in some singular way, and with some special intention for the elect.
Test. 5. Hugo de St. Victor (de Sacr. fid. lib. 1, part. 8, cap. 7, where he has a treatise on the passion of Christ) writes thus: Human nature was corrupted by sin, and altogether under the sentence of condemnation through sin; and therefore if all had been condemned, there would have been no injustice. But grace came, and chose some out of the mass of mankind through mercy to salvation, and left others through justice in condemnation. Hugo plainly teaches that Christ in coming into the world and offering himself for the sins of the human race, had a special regard to the elect, whom he chose from the mass of mankind; and whom, according to the eternal good pleasure of God, he determined to bring to salvation through the merits of his death, and does always actually bring them to it.
Test. 6. Cajetan, in explaining Rom. viii. 32, He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? writes thus, Paul had perceived that the aforesaid argument of so many gifts did not effectually infer that God worked ALL THINGS to the elect for good; but that God worked for good to them; and therefore that he might effectually conclude that it was with respect to ALL THINGS, he added, that God had freely given even his Son for the elect, that thence he might infer that all things were given with the Son to the elect. These words of Cajetan cannot be accommodated to that universal giving of Christ, by which it is understood that he was equally given for the whole world: for this being granted, God would equally give all things to all men; which is evidently false. Therefore some special giving must necessarily be admitted, according to which Christ may be understood to be given for the elect alone, and which alone brings with it an infallible and certain giving of all things necessary to salvation.
Test. 7. Stapleton, (Promptuar. moral. Dominic. 2, post. Pasch. p. 254) observes, Christ in dying died effectually indeed for his friends alone, and for those who would become his friends after the conversion of each of them, not for those who were his friends before. This Papist does not fear to acknowledge a special intention of Christ in dying as to the elect. For these were to be his friends after their conversion, for the effectual redemption of whom Christ laid down his life, when, together with others, they were . ungodly enemies, sinners, dead in sins. He is said indeed to have died for all men, as to the sufficiency of his death; but for his sheep or his elect, as to its efficacy; that’ is, with the special intention of giving to them, through the merit of his death, that effectual grace by which they should believe and be saved.
Test. 8. Estius, on the words (Titus ii. 14) Who gave himself for us, says, that is, who having assumed our flesh delivered up himself, whether for all men, or especially for the elect, in whose person Paul often speaks. For the price of the death of Christ is sufficient indeed for the redemption of all men, but it is applied for salvation to the elect alone. Estius here intimates two things ; first, That the oblation of Christ had a general regard to all men, but a special one to the elect; secondly, That the special regard ought to consist in this, that it should be joined with a certain intention of applying it. For he does not say, The elect alone apply this death of Christ to themselves for salvation through the strength of their free-will; but, It is applied to these alone for salvation; truly, by the special favour of God in choosing them and intending this great benefit for his elect through the death of Christ.
Test. 9. I come now to the Jesuits, who although they defend universal grace and universal redemption, yet dare not deny the special and effectual appointment and intention of this saving passion as to the elect. Let two of the most eminent, Suares and Vasques,6 speak for the rest. Suares (in 3 Aquin. qu. 19, disp. p. 635, 41) remarks, As Christ prayed for men in a different manner ; so he merited in a different manner, for some sufficiently, for others effectually. On which account, although he is the universal Redeemer of all, and a sufficient cause of salvation, yet he is in a special way the effectual cause of salvation to those whom he makes obedient to himself. For it cannot be supposed, that Christ did not otherwise offer his merits for those whom he knew to be elected by the Father, than for others, when he saw that it was the will of the Father that these should be infallibly saved, and not the others. Suares here allows, that the death and merits of Christ are effectual to the salvation of the elect on account of the special mode of the oblation, and the will of the Offerer; not on account of the causal or contingent act of the human will in apprehending it. Test. 10. Vasques (in 1 Aquin. qu. 23, disp. 49, cap. 3, p. 687) clearly acknowledges this special intention of Christ as to the elect in the application of his merits. I doubt not that Christ by his peculiar prayer and will applied his merits to those who were predestinated and elected. Avain, (in 3 Aquin. qu. 19, disp. 77, cap. 5, p. 384) he produces Andreas Vegast asserting, That the merits of Christ did not profit all men effectually, because Christ did not pray, nor offer his passion for those whom they do not profit, We have then, not only the antient Fathers, but even the modern Papists, confessing what we are endeavouring to demonstrate, namely, That the death of Christ was so constituted by God to be an universal cause of salvation apphicable to all men, that at the same time, through some special intention of him who offered and him who accepted it, it is constituted a particular cause of salvation to be infallibly and especially applied to all the elect, and to them alone. See also Malderi Anti Synod, p. 138.7
Test. 11. Lastly, our own Divines, who do not deny that Christ suffered for all, yet at the same time profess that he redeemed the elect by his death in some peculiar manner. Bucer expresses his opinion on these words, (Matt. 1. 21) He shall save his people, that is, the elect, whom’ the Father brings to him. By his death he expiated the sins of all the elect, and merited that the Father being propitious to them should give them his Spirit. Here observe that Christ by his death merited something for the elect, which he did not merit for others: But what Christ merited for any one, he merited according to the appointment and acceptance of his Father: Therefore, according to the will and appointment of the Father, the death of Christ pertains to the elect in some special way, in which it is not extended to others. Musculus, who in his Common-places strongly urges, that Christ is to be esteemed an universal Redeemer, yet acknowledges a special intention of Christ concerning the redemption of the elect, (on Rom. 8) where he says, That Christ came into this world for the sake of the elect. Which cannot be otherwise understood than that he came into the world with a peculiar intention of infallibly saving the elect. Which special intention of obtaining for the elect the benefit of his passion to be applied to them, is so far peculiar to them, that it is not extended to others. Calvin, on Heb. ii. 13, at the words, Behold, I and the children which God hath given me, says, Christ brings none to the Father, but those whom He hath given him. But we know that this giving depends on eternal election ; because those whom the Father hath destined to life, he delivers into the custody of the Son, that he may preserve them in safety. Three things are here to be observed; first, That God the Father hath specially destined some to life by the decree of election : secondly, That Christ the Mediator hath received these elect persons as peculiarly commended to him by the Father: thirdly, ‘That Christ takes special care of these elect persons, and so defends and governs them in this life, that at length he may lead them to life eternal. Which things being granted, he would be destitute both of reason and religion who should deny that Christ, in the work of his oblation and of human redemption, intended the salvation of these persons with a peculiar, that is, with an absolute and effectual will. Zanchius (in Miscell. tract. de pred. Sanct. p. 14) observes, Jt is not false that Christ died for all men: for the passion of Christ is offered to all in the Gospel. But he died effectually for the elect alone, because indeed they only are made partakers of the efficacy of the passion of Christ. But that they only are made partakers effectually of this passion, is to be referred to the special and effectual will of Christ in suffering, and of God the Father in accepting this sacrifice in a peculiar way for the elect more than for others: for in the participation of saving good, the will of God precedes the human will. Lastly, that 1 may not be tedious in bringing together many authors, Vorstius8 himself could not deny that the redemption completed on the cross pertains in some peculiar way to the elect. For thus he speaks (in Arnica duplic. p. 230) l¢ appears that the word redemption may be applied in a different. sense to many species of the same genus ; and therefore it may be properly said, that some only, and not all, were redeemed in some special way or peculiar sense, and so it is usually said iu the holy Scripdures. Again (page 235,) answering a passage produced from Heb. xiii. 20, in which Christ is called The great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, he grants, that Christ is the Shepherd of these sheep, and indeed of these only, in a peculiar way, namely, as to the saving and spiritual act of feeding them, which contains the actual gift of the Holy Spirit ; and also as to some special ac- ‘ quisition of these sheep. Y ask, what this is which Vorstius concedes to us, when he grants, that not all, but some, were redeemed by the death of Christ in a special way and peculiar sense? and when he says, that Christ is the Shepherd of his sheep in a peculiar manner, as to some special acquisition of them? If he means nothing more than that in the event the benefit of redemption pertains to some, that is, to those that believe, in a special and peculiar way, according to the different acts of the human will, he merely trifles, and does not at all answer the testimonies brought against him. For all those passages, He purchased the church with his own blood: he is the Saviour of the body ; he laid down his life for the sheep: he died that he might gather together in one the children of God: these, and such like texts, do not point out any special works of the Church, the body, or the sheep; but the special intention and operation of the Husband, the Head, the Shepherd, respecting this Church, this body, these sheep, by his special will determining and procuring their salvation by the virtue and merit of his death.
Against all these things which we have discussed respecting the special intention of Christ in dying being referred and restricted to the elect, and concerning the saving application of the death of Christ depending upon and flowing from that intention, it may be urged by way of
Objection, l. If it is granted that in the oblation of Christ there was such an intention limited to the elect, so as that an effectual application and infallible salvation is obtained for them, then we seem to refer their justification and salvation not so much to the good pleasure and special mercy of God, as to some kind of justice. For if it should be inquired, why Peter rather than Judas received effectual grace and salvation from the merit of the death of Christ? it will be answered, according to our opinion, Because Christ, by his special intention, and by the application of his merits, merited that for Peter which he did not merit for Judas. But that which is given, from the merits of Christ being peculiarly applied to any person, does not seem to be given merely from the mercy of the good pleasure of God, but rather from justice : because it is just that what Christ hath merited for these or those persons, should be specially assigned to them. But this seems to contradict the Apostle, who derives grace, and the infallible salvation of the predestinate, from the mere favour of God.
Reply. There is no opposition between these two opinions, God justifies and saves Peter of pure grace, or of his own mere good pleasure, and, God justifies and saves Peter in consideration of the merits of Christ being specially ordained and accepted for the salvation of Peter. The reason of this is plain, Because God, who, of his own mere good pleasure and pure mercy, determined to give faith and salvation to Peter, determined at the same time not to give to him these things otherwise than through and on account of the merits of Christ, destined for and given to Peter. in some singular way, and that from the same good pleasure and pure mercy. This good pleasure of God is opposed to our merits, and is accomplished, not made void by the merits of Christ being applied to us. From whence the Apostle (Heb. xiii. 21) says, that God works in us that which is well-pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ. Therefore, although it is of the mere good pleasure of God, that he is willing to grant to Peter effectual grace and salvation, yet this good pleasure is not accomplished otherwise than through the merits of Christ. “This, then, is the sum of our reply ; Although every work of special grace which is done in the elect is done on account of the merits of Christ being specially applied to them, yet in their justification and salvation is seen the true way of mercy, and not of justice; because Christ with his merits, with this very mode of meriting and offering his merits, some special regard being had to the elect, the whole of this, I say, derives its origin from the gratuitous good will of God towards them.
OBJECTION 2. If we admit that the elect obtain effectual grace or saving faith because the death and merit of Christ in suffering on the cross was applied to them by some special intention, then we seem to admit that the merits of the passion of Christ were imputed or applied to some men before they believed. But this is contrary to the received opinion of Divines, which asserts that faith is an instrument or medium, without which the merits of the passion of Christ are not applied to individuals. It is necessary, therefore, that this act of faith should exist, which may have the merits of Christ specially applied or imputed toit. How, then, can this special application of the merits of Christ to the elect, who are not yet made faithful and believing, be applied ?
Reply. Inorder to meet this objection, let us make the words of the Apostle (Eph. i. 3) the foundation of our remarks, God hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in Christ, that is, whatever saving good comes to us from God, is given to us through Christ and for the sake of his merits. Therefore, since saving faith itself, which is peculiar to the elect, is to be placed among the chief spiritual blessings, it ought to be granted, that it is given on account of the merits of Christ, to all those to whom it is actually given. Therefore, what Divines commonly say, that faith is the instrument, by means of which the merits of Christ are applied to us, is to be understood of its application, as it is considered on the part of men: For the elect cannot apply to themselves the merits of Christ in order to the reception of any spiritual benefits whatever, unless through faith being first supposed to be in them. But if we consider the application or imputation on the part of God alone, then we say, That God both can and does apply, that is, impute and communicate to men the merits of Christ, so that, from regard to those merits, he gives to them spiritual good things, even when they are reckoned impious and unbelieving. For faith, when it is first given, is not given to a believer, but to an unbeliever; but it is given to the elect on account of the merits of the Mediator. Therefore we must necessarily confess, that none of the elect can, by believing, apply to themselves the merits of Christ in order to the fruition of eternal life, unless God of his special mercy should, on account of the merits of Christ, first give them faith whereby they may believe. And this is that special application of the merits of Christ, which we affirm pertains to the elect by some peculiar privilege, from the special will of Christ in offering himself, and of God the Father in accepting this sacrifice. Scotus had respect to this in his saying, which is most worthy of observation, That this was the principal thing in the merit of Christ, that he merited that those should be united to him who had not been so before (lib. 3, dist. 19, qu. 1, p. 75). Which is the same as if he had said, that the chief efficacy of the merits of Christ consisted in this, that he merited, that some of those who believed not should actually become believers, and, being united to Christ by faith, should obtain eternal life. This is that special ordination and application of the merits of ‘ Christ, which altogether depends on the good pleasure of God, and not on the free-will of men.
OBJECTION 3. If in Christ’s offering himself, and God’s accepting that sacrifice, there was some special intention of quickening and infallibly saving all the elect, by the virtue and merit of this sacrifice, we seem to exclude from this special privilege the elect under the Old Testament, who were born and died before this sacrifice of Christ was made on the cross.
Reply. As to the argument of general sufficiency or special efficacy, I answer, That the sacrifice of Christ had the same virtue under the Old Testament, before the external act of its exhibition, as it had and has under the New Testament, after Christ was really exhibited and offered on the cross. For as, from the special intention of God, special grace is derived to the elect under the New Testament, on account of the merit of this sacrifice now actually offered ; so, from the special will of the same God, special grace flowed to the elect under the Old Testament on account of the merit of the sacrifice afterwards to be offered. For Christ was a Lamb slain from the foundation of the world both in the preparation of his own will, and in the acceptance of the will of the Father. It is, therefore, here to be observed, that there is one kind of cause which operates physically, or naturally, another which operates meritoriously, or morally. A cause which acts physically, must necessarily be brought into action, before any effect can be produced by virtue of it: but a cause which acts meritoriously, or morally, such as is the passion of Christ, may produce its effect before it actually exists, unless it precedes, at least in his knowledge and acceptance to whom it refers, by regard to him, to dispense the benefits of his grace to men. For in this thing a meritorious cause has some connexion with a final cause, which, though not yet actually existing. but being only foreseen and previously considered, very much moves the agent in doing this or that. In this manner we say that the passion of Christ, and his merits depending upon it, having been foreseen as offered to God, and to be specially applied to Jacob, and not to Esau, were a kind of moving cause to God to give to Jacob that special grace which he denied to Esau. Suares rightly says, (in 3, qu. 49, art. 4, in Comm.) That special love by which, on account of the merits of. Christ either given or foreseen, God sanctifies and reconciles men to himself, may be included in the merits of Christ, either by his meriting for us the effect of that love, or the love (or election) of God freely bestowed upon us.
OBJECTION 4. Lastly, it may be objected, That it is ! not consistent, or rather it is altogether incongruous, tliat God, who willed that the death of Christ, with the rich treasure of his merits included in it, should be equally. applicable to all men for the obtaining of eternal life, on condition of faith, was, at the same time, unwilling to prepare and give this faith, on account of the same merits of Christ, equally to all; but should give persevering and saving faith to the elect alone, and that on account of the merits of Christ being limited to and ordained for them by some special will and regard of God.
Rerrv. I answer, where any Divine act appears, it is rash, I will not say impious, to doubt of its equity or coneruity. But we have already demonstrated, that now, by the death of Christ, a covenant was established with the human race, according to the tenor of which, eternal life is promised to every man on condition of faith. Of this covenant Rupert observes, (in 4, Gen. cap. 34) We say that that covenant, by which alone the enmities were removed which had subsisted between God and men, was many times indeed promised, but once executed, namely, by the passion of Christ the Son of God. For in this, without any contradiction, is a certain foundation of peace, while God, accepting the faith of men, gives to them Christ his Son, that they may be saved by him. Therefore no doubt is to be entertained of this appointment of God, founded on the death and merits of Christ, and having respect to all men individually. But it is still questionable, whether, granting this universal covenant of giving eternal life to all men, if they should believe, God exercises his liberty, and. exhibits his special mercy, in giving to the elect that saving faith by which they may believe, and that through Christ, and on account of his merits, applied to them by some peculiar privilege. The thing speaks for itself. For we see that the elect, and the elect alone, eventually obtain from God persevering and saving faith. But suppose that so great a gift were specially given to them in any other way or respect, than on account of the merits of Christ, ordained and applied to them by some special intention of God ; it is altogether unlawful to suppose it. For as Ambrose excellently says on Eph. i. 2, (He hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in Christ), Every gift of grace is through Christ. These things being settled, although (as I said) it is useless to dispute of the congruity of Divine actions where there is evidence of the facts themselves, yet, that no scruple may be left, we say, first, That this special intention of God, according to which he determined with himself, on account of the merits of Christ, to give to the elect the special benefits of effectual grace and salvation, does not clash with that conditional compact, Whosoever believeth shall be saved, but is rather a kind of special design subordinate to the infallible fulfilment of this universal compact. For those who trust to their own free-will, with some little helps of grace, repel or oppose faith. Lest, therefore, this universal compact should not bring the effect of salvation to any one, God, by a special and secret intention, hath taken care that the merit of the death of Christ should be applied to some for the infallible obtaining of faith and eternal life. Secondly, we say, That it is not unjust or incongruous, that this special intention of an effectual application of the merits of Christ should exhibit its efficacy in some, and not in all men; because, since the death of Christ is a free gift of God bestowed on the human race, the free distribution and application of merits arising from it, ought by all means to depend on the mere will of God. Thirdly, we add, That God, who in the Gospel has promised eternal life to all men individually, on account of the merits of Christ, if they believe, yet has not promised to any unbeliever, that he would give to him, on account of the merits of Christ, infallibly and perseveringly to believe. I ask, then, Where is this inconsistency to be found? Not with respect to those who believe and are saved; for it is not culpable injustice to give, on account of the merits of Christ, to individual persons what was not promised to them individually, but it is laudable goodness to do this. Not with respect to those who believe not, and perish; for it is not unjust in itself, nor can it be judged to be inconsistent with the supreme goodness of God, to deny that benefit to any one, which it appears is not in any way due to him.
Therefore, let this be the sum and conclusion of this whole controversy on the death of Christ; That Jesus Christ, the Mediator between God and man, in confirming the evangelical covenant, according to the tenor of which eternal life is due to every one that believeth, made no division or separation of men, so that we can say that any one is excluded from the benefit of his death, if he should believe. And in this sense we contend, in agreement with the Scriptures, the fathers, and solid arguments, that Christ suffered on the cross and died for all men, or for the whole human race. We add, moreover, that this Mediator, when he had determined to lay down his life for sin, had also this special intention, that, by virtue of his merits, he would effectually and infallibly quicken and bring to eternal life, some persons who were specially given to him by the Father. And in this sense we contend that Christ laid down his life for the elect alone, or in order to purchase his Church; that is, that he died for them alone, with the special and certain purpose of effectually regenerating and saving them by the merit of his death. Therefore, although the merit of Christ equally regards all men as to its sufficiency, yet it does not as to its efficacy : which is to be understood, not only on account of the effect produced in one and not in another, but also on account of the will, with which Christ himself merited, and offered his merits, in a different way for different persons. Now, the first cause and source of this diversity, was the election and will of God, to which the human will of Christ conformed itself. And from hence : Suares rightly deduces, That this merit of Christ is the very cause of spiritual regeneration, and gives it efficacy, and produces its effect, and at the same time is the cause why that man is reg. nerated, on account of whom he specially offered his merit (in 3, qu. 19, disp. 41, § 2, p. 635.) For our Divines, let that eminently learned man of pious memory, Robert, Bishop of Salisbury, speak. Thus he says, (in Thomson Diatr. p. 94) Although we do not deny that Christ died for all men, yet we believe that he died specially and peculiarly for the Church, nor does the benefit of redemption pertain tn an equal degree to all. And from the peculiarity of this benefit, and from the human will, in some degree depends the efficacy of all means, that they are for those only, and for their use, whom Christ redeemed with some peculiar regard to their being elected in him. Nor do they obtain the effect, because of being willing, but because God, according to the purpose of his own grace, works in the elect and redeemed to will that to which he chooses them. Therefore, He, who by his death merited eternal life sufficiently for all n.en, so as that it is to be given to all, according to the evangelical covenant, if they believe, also merited most effectually for some, by the peculiar application of his merits, that they should believe, and that they should receive eternal life from the gratuitous gift of God, through and on account of our Lord Jesus Christ. And this is the peculiar lot of the elect: Of which may the Father of Mercies make us all partakers! To whom, with the Son, and the Holy Spirit, be honour, praise, and glory now and for ever. Amen.
END OF THE DISSERTATION.
* To what has been observed respecting Grevinchovius at p. 304, it may be added, that he took an active part in the controversy between the Calvinists and Arminians in Holland. Besides various publications written in the Dutch Language, he wrote (in reply to William Ames’s Disceptatio Scholastica de Arminii sententia, quá electionem omnem particularem fidei preevise docet inniti, Amst. 1593, 4to.) Dissertatio de duabus questionibus hoc tempore controversis ; quarum prima est de Reconciliatione per mortem Christi impetratà omnibus et singulis hominibus : altera, de electione ex fide previsá, Roterodami, 1595, 4to. To this treatise Ames rejoined, as the Reader will have observed in the early part of the 4th Chapter of this Dissertation, in a Rescriptio Scholastica, published at Leyden, in 1597, 12mo. ( VP’alchii Bibliotheca Theologica, tom. Il. pp. 543, 544. 548, 549.) Vol. II. p. 514 ↩
* Augustine Manronar, an eminent Protestant divine of the 16th century, was born in the dukedom of Lorrain in 1506. Having made great proficiency in his studies, in a Monastery of Augustine Friars, whose licentious morals appear to have inspired him with a dislike for their religion, he quitted that monastery, and pursued his studies first in France, and afterwards at Lausanne, where he made open profession of the Protestant religion, and was admitted into the Ministry. He was chosen pastor at Vevey, and then at Rouen, in Normandy, where he contributed to the diffusion of the principles of the Reformation. In 1561, he was present at the memorable conference held at Poissy between Beza and the Cardinal of Lorrain, in which he distinguished himself by his ability and zeal in defence of the Protestant cause. In the following year the civil wars broke out in France; and, Rouen being taken, Montmorency, Constable of France, threw Marlorat into prison, on the false charge of being a seducer of the people. On this charge, of which No proofs were brought, he was condemned to be hanged, his head then to be set upon a pole on the bridge of the city, and his property confiscated. He accordingly suffered Oct. 30, 1562, in the 56th year of his age. He wrote Commentaries on Genesis, Job, the book of Psalms, and the Song of Solomon, and on the prophecies of Isaiah ; and a book of Common Places. But his greatest work is entitled, Novi Testasenti Catholica Expositio Ecclesiastica, of which there were not fewer than nine Editions between the years 1561 and 1604. It was formerly held in the highest estimation, and deservedly so: it contains Erasmus’s Latin Version of the New Testament, and the Expositions are collected with singular industry and ability from the works of the early Ecclesiastical writers as well as from modern Protestant Interpreters and Commentators, with which the Author has interwoven his own judicious remarks. English translations of his Exposition of the Psalms and of the Gospels of St. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and of the Epistle of Jude, and the Apocalypse, were published at London during the reign of Queen Elizabeth. (Chalmers’s Biographical Dictionary, Vol. XXI. p. 332. Walchii Bibliotheca Theologica, Vol. 1I. pp. 414. 606.) Vol. II. p. 522 ↩
* Suares or Suarez (Francis), a learned theologian, born at Grenada, in Spain, in 1548. After having completed his education as a law student at Salamanca, he entered into the Society of the Jesuits, who employed him to teach philosophy at Segovia, and he subsequently occupied the Chairs of theology at Valladolid, Rome, Alcala, and Salamanca. The first Professorship in the University of Coimbra becoming vacant, it was bestowed on Suares by Philip II. at the request of the heads of that Institution. He took an active part in the disputes which originated from the Theological doctrine of Father Molina, on the subject of Grace, which Suares endeavoured to explain by means of the principle termed “ Congruism.” He published a work against our King, James I., in defence of the Roman faith, for which he received the public thanks of the Pope and the King of Spain ; but the book was prohibited in England and France, and ordered to be burnt in London by the common hangman. His death took place in Sept. 1617, at Lisbon, whither he had gone to be present at Conferences to be held before the Legate of the Holy See. His works, extending to twentythree Volumes folio, were published at Mentz and Lyons, 1630, &c. and reprinted at Venice in 1740. His “ Tractatus de Legibus, ac Deo Legislatore,” esteemed his best work, was printed in London, 1679, folio. An abridgment of the works of Suares, by Father Noel, appeared at Geneva, 1732, two Vols. folio.— Moreri.— Biog. Univ. Vol. II. p. 529 ↩
* MaLDERUS, or John MALDER, who was first a Doctor in Theology and Regius Professor in the University of Louvain, was nominated Bishop of Antwerp by the Governors of the Low Countries, and on the 7th of August, 1611, took possession of his See, over which he presided 22 years, and died at Antwerp, Oct. 21st, 1633. He is said to have been a man of singular modesty and learning. Besides treatises on Confession, and on the abuses of Mental Restrictions, he wrote, what he called, a Refutation of the Synod of Dort, (vide p. 527) a Commentary on the Song of Solomon, Theological Meditations, and several Volumes of Commentaries on the Summa of Thomas Aquinas. (Richard et Giraud, Bibliothégue Sacrée, tom II. p. 381, et tom. XV. p. 493.) Vol. II. p. 531 ↩
* Pascnasius Ratrrertus, a celebrated Benedictine of the 9th Cen. tury, was born at Soissons, and was carefully educated by the Monks of Notre Dame. He took the religious habit in the Abbey of Corbey, of which he became Abbot. About the year 831 he wrote a treatise “ On the body and blood of Christ,” in which he maintained, that after the consecration of the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper, nothing remained of these symbols but the outward figure, under which the identical body and blood of Christ were really present. Thus was revived and brought into shape in the Latin Church that doctrine which has occasioned so much contention in the Church and havoc among Christians—the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which had been first started by a Monk at the beginning of the 7th Century. This doctrine being thus introduced into the Western Church occasioned a violent controversy. It was vigorously opposed by Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mentz, the most considerable man of his times, who says, it was an error newly broached. Most of the learned men of that age took part in the controversy it excited. Paschasius was constrained to resign his Abbey in consequence of the opposition his opinion met, and he died soon after, in 865. His other works are Commentaries on St. Matthew; on Psalm xliv.; and on the Lamentations of Jeremiah : with Treatises De Partu Virginis; De Corpore Christi, &c. His works were collected and published by Father Sirmond, in 1618. Vol. II. p. 540 ↩
* SuanEs, vide Note p. 629.—VasaqueEs, or Gabriel Vazquez, a Jesuit, author of various works collected in 10 vols. folio. Lugduni, 1620, containing Commentaries upon Thomas Aquinas, and similar works. He died at Alcala, in 1604, aged 55.—( Antonii Biblioth. Hispania. ) Vol. II. p. 546 ↩
† ANDREAS VEGAs, or Andreas de Vega, a Spanish Franciscan, a Professor at Salamanca. He was at the Council of Trent in 1546, and was looked upon there to be a very able Divine, and had a great share in the Decrees of that Council concerning Justification. He wrote a defence of them in fifteen Books, in which he treats at large of Justification ; after which come fifteen questions upon the same subject, which are, as it were, an abridgment of that work, in which he treats of Faith, Grace, Good Works, and Merits, printed at Venice in 1548, and at Cologne in 1572; and, with a Preface by Canisius, at Aschaffembourg in 1621. This work of Vega’s is a Commentary upon the Decrees of the 6th Session of the Council of ‘Trent upon Justification.—[F’or a clear understanding of the different opinions on this important subject, and the point upon which all difficulty turns, the Editor would recommend to every doubting mind the perusal of Scott’s Continuation of Milner, Vol. II. chap. xiii.] —Vega wrote also a Commenlary upon some other passages in the Council of Trent, printed at Alcala, in 1574. A Commentary likewise upon the Psalms, bearing his name, was printed at the same place in 1599.—( Du Pin.) Vol. II. p. 546 ↩
* VonsTIUS (Conrad), an eminent Divine of the Arminian sect, born at Cologne in 1569, was the son of a dyer with a numerous family, who secretly seceded to the Protestant Communion. Conrad, who was destined to a literary life, after passing five years at a village grammar-school, was entered, in 1587, at the College of St. Lawrence, at Cologne, which he quitted without taking a degree, but was subsequently sent to Haerlem and Heidelburgh, at which University he was created a Doctor of Divinity. After visiting the Academies of Switzerland, and giving lectures on theology at Geneva, in 1596, he accepted the Professorship of the latter faculty at Steinfurt, where he also officiated as Minister until 1610, when he received a call to succeed Arminius in the professorship of Theology at Leyden. Having accepted this offer, he soon became involved in the controversial war which raged in the Netherlands ; and the Gomarists, or rigid Calvinists, taking advantage of a book which he had lately published, entitled, Tractatus Theologicus de Deo, sive de Natura et Attributiis Dei, they accused him of heresy, and engaged several foreign Universities in the party. In particular, they obtained the aid of our own James I., who, on receiving the book of Vorstius, in an hour’s time drew up a large Catalogue of heresies from it, which he sent to his minister at the Hague, with an order to certify to the States how much he detested those alleged errors: He also caused his book to be burnt in London; and informed the States, who had sent a doubtful reply that they would inquire into the case, that if they did not dismiss Vorstius, none of his subjects should visit Leyden. James moreover wrote against Vorstius, who respectfully replied; all which would not have prevailed upon the States to dismiss him, but for the untimely appearance of a book by some of his disciples, entitled, De Officio Christiani Hominis, which contained some Anti-trinitarian doctrines; and although formally disclaimed by Vorstius, so much odium was thereby excited against him, that he provisionally resigned the professorship, from which, by the Synod of Dort, he was entirely dismissed, and banished by the States of Holland from their territories. He lived for more than two years in secrecy, frequently changing his abode in fear for his life, until in 1623 the Duke of Holstein collected the dispersed followers of Arminianism, and assigned them a spot of ground for building a city. To this place Vorstius retired, but died soon after at Toningen, in Sept. 1622, at the age of 53. According to Bayle and Sandius, the opinions of this theologian probably leaned towards Socinianism, or at least he dogmatized on the attributes of God in a manner which was quite unusual at the period.—The Reader who desires to see a more ample account of him and his opinions, may consult Nichols’s Life of Arminius with advantage, Appendix P. pp. 202— 236. Vol. II. p. 548 ↩
