3. In that they say: For whom Christ died, for them he made full satisfaction for their sins, as the Apostle shows, “in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of his grace” [Ephes. 1:7, Coloss. 1:14.]. But Christ made not any satisfaction for the sins of the reprobate, for if he had, then God in justice could not punish them for those sins for which Christ had fully satisfied, therefore, it cannot be that Christ died for reprobates.

The wicked
condemned for
not applying
the merits
of Christ.

I answer: that Christ made sufficient satisfaction for the sins of the reprobates, and yet God in his justice may punish them, for want of application of the merits of Christ: for as the patient may well perish though the physic be made for him, if he does not receive & apply the same unto himself. As S. Augustine shows, that we were all sick of sin, and the heavenly Physician descended unto us, and brought us heavenly physic, imo phamaca benedicta, even the most blessed medicines: yet, merito perijt agrotus, the sick man may well perish, if he does not receive and apply this heavenly physic unto himself, even so though Christ died for them, and made satisfaction for their sins, yet they be most justly condemned, for not receiving and applying the same unto themselves, but to suffer το λυδον υαγα,1 this great price, to be ineffectual unto them.

And this our Saviour shows, “This is condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men love darkness more than light.” For this is spoken of the reprobate, and not of the godly, for they love light more than darkness, and, therefore, this is the condemnation of the wicked, that the light, [of2] Christ Jesus is come unto them, and yet they refuse to accept him, or to apply his benefits unto themselves, and do love darkness more than light, because their works are evil.

And, therefore, in a word, to determine this question, I say, that the exhibition, or giving of Christ, was for all men, the manifestation of him, by the preaching of the word, unto many, and the special application of him by a lively and saving faith unto few, according to that saying of our Saviour Christ, “Many are called, but few are chosen.”

And so you see in what sense Christ may be said to have died for all men, and to procure grace for all men, and in what sense he may be said to die only for his elect, and to procure grace only for his elect, an to procure grace only unto the elected saints.

Gryffith Williams, The Delights of the Saints (London: Printed for Nathaniel Butter, and are to be sold at the signe of the pide Bull neere Saint Austins gate, 1622), 38-41. [Some reformatting; marginal headers and Scripture references cited inline; some spelling modernized; italics original; bracketed insert mine; footnote values and content mine; and underlining mine.]

[Notes: We can see in William’s argument here an early attempt to deal with the double payment dilemma (compare Aquinas and Ursinus), which was first posed by Socinian writers arguing against vicarious satisfaction. Williams’ argument, being one of the early responses, does not into account the later attempt to shore up the double payment argument, that Christ’s death “purchases” faith for all whom Christ died. However, the more such secondary arguments were enlisted in support of the double payment argument, the more doctrine of atonement came to be grounded on pecuniary categories or pecuniary causal mechanisms. And ironically, it then became even more vulnerable to criticism; see, for example, C. Hodge and R.L. Dabney.]


1[The Greek here is fairly unreadable. This is a “best guess” transcription.]

2[Original appears to read, “i.”]

This entry was posted on Friday, November 14th, 2014 at 9:42 am and is filed under Double Jeopardy/Double Payment Fallacy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

Comments are closed at this time.