Universal redemption of mankind, by the Lord Jesus Christ stated and cleared by the…

If Christ died for all Men quoad sufficientiam pretii, then he hath satisfied for all. But he died for all Men quoad sufficientiam pretii Ergo, &c. The Minor is maintained by the generality of our Ancienter Protestant Divines, who use ordinarily this distinction to solve the doubt, whether Christ died for all? viz. he died for all sufficiently, and for the Elect only effectually. And indeed this one distinction rightly understood, and this answer thence fitted, is most full and apt for the resolution of the question. The Schoolmen go the same way.

The consequence of the Major proposition is acknowledged by our late most rigid Anti-Arminians, who on that reason do deny the Minor. For our new Divines have utterly forsaken the old common opinion, and in stead of saying that [Christ died for all Men sufficienter] They will not so much as say that [His Death was sufficiens pretium pro omnibus] But only that [It is sufficient to have been a price for all.] For all our former Divines (and the most of these times; so far as I can discern) who acknowledge that Christ died for all Men quoad sufficientiam pretii, and for the Elect quoad efficaciam; they say the same, and as much as I; and therefore I need not say much more to them. For Christ cannot dye for Men sufficienter and yet not die for them at all, or not satisfy for them. I may well take up with this one argument. If Christs Death be a sufficient price for all, then it is a Price for all: But Christs Death is (by their confession) a sufficient Price for all: Therefore it is a Price for all. Here understand that it is first in order of nature a Sacrifice expiatory, or a satisfaction, before it is meritorious of further benefits, or is a Price for them. Had it not been to satisfy Justice, God would have been so far from taking his Sons Death for meritorious, that he would have been utterly displeased in it: For he delighteth not in the Death of him that dieth; how much less of the innocent; and lest of all of his only Son.

The consequence of the Major proposition is acknowledged by our late most rigid Anti-Arminians, who on that reason do deny the Minor. For our new Divines have utterly forsaken the old common opinion, and in stead of saying that [Christ died for all Men sufficienter] They will not so much as say that [His Death was sufficiens pretium pro omnibus] But only that [It is sufficient to have been a price for all.] For all our former Divines (and the most of these times; so far as I can discern) who acknowledg that Christ died for all Men quoad sufficientiam pretii, and for the Elect quoad efficaciam; they say the same, and as much as I; and therefore I need not say much more to them. For Christ cannot dye for Men sufficienter and yet not die for them at all, or not satisfie for them. I may well take up with this one argument. If Christs Death be a sufficient price for all, then it is a Price for all: But Christs Death is (by their confession) a sufficient Price for all: Therefore it is a Price for all. Here understand that it is first in order of nature a Sacrifice expiatory, or a satisfaction, before it is meritorious of further benefits, or is a Price for them. Had it not been to satisfie Justice, God would have been so far from taking his Sons Death for meritorious, that he would have been utterly displeased in it: For he delighteth not in the Death of him that dieth; how much less of the innocent; and lest of all of his only Son.