Cap. 4 Mem. 1 Rat. 4 and close: Piscator/Pareus; intent vs ordination; first member closed

4. We prove that a bare sufficiency of the thing offered in itself cannot make true that pronouncement of the Theologians, Christ died sufficiently for all human beings, and that from the confession of those who deny that Christ’s death was spent on the whole human race and restrict it to the elect alone. So Piscator in the Apologetic Response, section 87: It cannot be said that Christ died sufficiently for all: for it would follow that he died for all, whose contrary has been demonstrated. And in the same place, that distinction by which Christ is said to have died for all sufficiently, for the elect alone efficaciously, is empty, because it implies a contradiction, etc. It truly implies a contradiction among those who admit a bare sufficiency of the death as to all, and utterly deny its universal ordination for procuring the salvation of all human beings. They are therefore bound either to explode this distinction hitherto approved by the orthodox, or with us to acknowledge an ordained sufficiency of Christ’s death for freeing all. The most learned Pareus seems to go this way when he affirms that Christ, as to the sufficiency of his merit, died and willed to die for all and each. Where he does not constitute this sufficiency in that alone, that Christ’s death in its intrinsic value suffices for redeeming all; but also in the will of Christ dying and sufficiently ordaining his death to freeing all. And here it is to be noted in passing that those err who narrow Christ’s death to the elect alone, so as to establish that he willed to die for them alone, and yet plead that there is no question or contention about the sufficiency of Christ’s death for all and each; that the whole controversy is about the act of this efficacy. For even with that sufficiency of the death in itself for redeeming a thousand worlds posited; and this also posited, that the efficacy of this death is destined absolutely and infallibly not to all but to certain persons to be freed in fact — still it remains controversial whether Christ’s death has only an intrinsic sufficiency for redeeming all, conceived under the hypothesis, If he had willed to offer and pay that lytron for all, or also a conjunct Divine ordination according to which this lytron, sufficient in itself, was in fact offered for all, and thence is applicable and to be applied to all unto salvation, if they have been willing to obey and subject themselves to the aforesaid ordination. Such an ordination we defend, looking even to those who are not saved, because they did not believe in the name of the only-begotten Son of God; and hence we say that Christ died sufficiently for all. But here some of those who hold tightly that Christ suffered and died for the elect alone nevertheless wish to seem to defend not a bare sufficiency of Christ’s death in itself, but that ordained one from God’s intention which we assert. And for this reason, when they are pressed with arguments, they do not refuse to mention the Divine will and intention. Their mind and sense must be examined more closely, lest we seem to wrestle with ghosts, or to fight (as they say) about goat’s wool.

So a certain learned man wrote on this matter: When we confess that Christ died for all, that phrase, FOR ALL, is admitted by our men on account of the sufficiency and the intention of God, by which he willed that it be sufficient for all. Yet it is to be known that this locution is improper; not however to be rejected, because it sometimes has a foundation in the thing itself, and among Theologians is received by long use. Others say in the same sense that it was the counsel and decree of God the Father that by his passion and death Christ should pay such a lytron as, considered in itself, would suffice for reconciling all human beings. These seem, besides a mere sufficiency of the thing, to add a sufficiency related and pertaining from God’s intention and counsel to reconciling all human beings. They seem to, but in truth they do not. For first, that they say they acknowledge Christ to have died sufficiently for all on account of God’s intention by which he willed that his death be sufficient for all, is of no moment. For the death of the Son of God does not need some supervening intention in order to be sufficient for all, since in itself it is of infinite value: yet it does need, in order to be given and accepted for freeing them, under whatever condition. Sufficiency is a certain intrinsic power and aptitude of the thing: nor is an extrinsic act of one intending this sufficiency required to constitute it; but ordination to freeing any persons is a voluntary act, and flows from the intention and counsel of the one ordaining. It is therefore frivolous to couple God’s intention with the internal sufficiency of the thing; which intention was either to be denied altogether as to Christ having died sufficiently for all, or was to be joined with an ordination of the death pertaining to all. Second, that they say this phrase, Christ died sufficiently for all, has a foundation in the thing, cannot be defended on their own view. If I should say, Christ’s death is a sufficient lytron for all, the true foundation of this saying is in the thing itself, namely in the dignity of the dying Person: but if I say, Christ is sufficiently dead or offered on the altar of the cross for all (which are equipollent), there is now no foundation on which the truth of this saying stands, unless I first posit that Christ suffered and was offered for all, and then also add the sufficiency of this passion for all from the dignity of the lytron. He who denies the one forum vainly attempts to defend the saying in the other. Let us conclude, then, that neither can Christ truly be said to have suffered or died sufficiently for all, nor can Christ’s death truly be acknowledged as a universal remedy applicable to all human beings according to God’s ordination, unless besides a mere sufficiency of the thing flowing from its innate dignity we admit, from the will of God accepting this victim and of Christ offering the same, a stable and fixed decree of God according to which this death of Christ can bring eternal life to all and each. And thus far we have treated the first member of our thesis: in which we have shown that that bare sufficiency which is understood in Christ’s death itself considered by itself does not suffice for this, that Christ be said to have died for all, or that his death be held the universal cause of salvation with respect to the whole human race. Let us show further what that is which is required beyond this for the matter. This second thesis will serve to illustrate that point.