The argument which1 Quesnel abuses, and which he borrows from these2 and similar3 words of the author, in no way opposes the truth of this conclusion, IV.:
Whether we contemplate the last ages, the first, or the middle, it is rationally and piously believed that God wills all men to be saved and has always willed it; and this is shown from no other source than from those benefits which the providence of God expends commonly and indiscriminately upon all generations. For gifts of this kind were and are so general that by their testimony men could be assisted in seeking the true God; and upon these gifts, which throughout all ages proclaim their Author, the largess of special grace has been poured forth. Although it is furnished more copiously now than before, nevertheless the Lord has retained the causes of its distributions within his own knowledge and hidden them within the secret of his most powerful will.
“Behold,” Quesnel adds4, “what universal grace the author praises: that very grace which is not separated from outward divine testimonies and which Paul5 commemorates, saying: ‘And indeed he left not himself”—God—“without testimony, doing good from heaven, giving rains and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.’” For heaven and earth, as our author6 teaches,
and the sea, and every creature which can be seen and understood, were disposed chiefly for this utility of the human race: that rational nature, from the contemplation of so many forms, from the experience of so many good things, and from the reception of so many gifts, might be instructed in the worship and love of its Author; the Spirit of God, in whom we live and move and are, filling all things.
But many things occur to me which I would ask of Quesnel and by which I would show that he departed greatly from the truth in expounding the opinion of the author of On the Calling. First, I ask whether he rightly weighed all the words which the author employs and by which he commends both the universal salvific will of God and the universal benefits which the providence of God expends commonly and indiscriminately upon all generations. I do not think so; for if he had weighed the individual words as was fitting, he would also have noted these: “upon these”—outward—“gifts, which throughout all ages proclaim their Author, the largess of special grace has been poured forth.” Then he would have noted these things which immediately follow: “Although it”—special grace—“is furnished more copiously now than before, nevertheless the Lord has retained the causes of its distributions within his own knowledge.” Nor would he have passed over these: “the Spirit of God, in whom we live and move and are, filling all things.” He would have seen, namely, that the amplitude of outward benefits is not so asserted that the gifts of interior grace are separated from them. He would have seen this most intimate conjunction signified by the formulas by which the author hands down either that the largess of special grace had been poured forth upon outward benefits, or that special grace had always been bestowed with a lesser abundance indeed, yet with some measure of plenty,
or that the Spirit of God is so present to outward gifts that he fills them with his power and renders them salutary. He would consequently have seen it deduced from this most intimate conjunction that no less the universal outward gifts than special grace is proposed as universal and proved by arguments by the author into whose mind we are inquiring.