CCLXVI. Corollary LXII

COROLLARY LXII.

When the Tridentine prelates treat¹ of the dispensation and mystery of the advent of Christ, in order to declare its σκοπόν, aim, and end, they first bring forth the words of John²: “God set him forth as a propitiator through faith in his blood for our sins, and not only for ours but also for those of the whole world”; then, in a continuous discourse, they add³: “But although he died for all⁴, nevertheless not all receive the benefit of his death, but only those to whom the merit of his passion is communicated.” These things are altogether twin to those which the Synod of Quierzy had defined⁵, saying: “Just as there is, was, or will be no man whose nature Christ Jesus our Lord did not assume, so there is, was, or will be no man for whom he did not suffer, although not all are redeemed by the mystery of his passion.” But the Calvinist ministers who were present at the assembly of Dort declared war both upon other heads of doctrine sanctioned by Tridentine authority and upon this distinction also, and explained their mind in these words⁶: “The synod rejects the error of those who employ the distinction between impetration and application, in order that they may instill this opinion in the unwary and unskilled: that God, so far as pertains to himself, willed to confer upon all men those benefits which are acquired through the death of Christ. For while these men pretend that they propose this distinction in a sound sense, they endeavor to offer the people the pernicious poison of Pelagianism.”

But what do they call the sound sense of this distinction, and what do they call the pernicious poison of Pelagianism? The answer—

—is perfectly clear from the acts of that same assembly⁷: 1) that the sense is called sound according to which, although the blood of redemption is judged to have been poured forth for the elect alone according to the purpose of the Father and the will of Christ, it is nevertheless believed to be, in itself and ὄντως, really, of infinite price and infinite power; but 2) that the doctrine of those who, as regards redemption, carefully observe the following is called the pernicious poison of Pelagianism: a) that it is necessary to distinguish from one another those effects of which Christ is the sole and adequate cause, and those of which he is indeed the principal cause but not likewise the sole and adequate cause; b) that Christ is the sole and adequate cause of the power of having faith, practicing piety, and obtaining salvation, but that he is only the principal cause, and not likewise the sole and adequate cause, whether of faith possessed, of piety cultivated, of justice preserved even unto the end, or of salvation obtained; and c) that redemption is therefore universal if those things are considered of which Christ is the sole and adequate cause, but that the same redemption is particular if it is referred to those things of which Christ is only the principal cause and which, in order that they may exist, demand the free concurrence of a subordinate cause.

Now can it be endured that these three heads of doctrine should be judged the noxious and deadly poison of Pelagianism? That they should be disapproved by the Calvinists with the same confidence with which manifest heresies are rejected and condemned? It neither can nor ought to be endured, since each and every one of them is proved by the most certain testimonies of the Fathers and by the suffrage of Christian tradition⁸. There is therefore reason for us to rest in the Tridentine judgment, and there is reason for us to affirm with the Tridentine bishops that redemption must be believed to be universal if account is taken of those things which can be expected from God the Father alone and his Christ, but particular if those things are considered which demand the zeal and care of free will.