Skip to content

Jacob Kimedoncius (d. 1596) on the Death of Christ: Unlimited Expiation and Redemption

August 29, 2007

Introductory comment and endorsement from David Paraeus:

Here they will call heaven and earth to witness, that this pertains not unto them, that their desire is to have their opinions refuted by us: and not long since that currish Apostata wished for a Champion on whom he might fasten his holders and purchase himself a name by his glorious conflict. But let him know that no man is so mad as to enter combat with a self-condemned desperate person. In vain he provokes me by name, notwithstanding, in the mean space, I know that I have not been reckless in defense of the truth, and arming my hearers against this his doctrine, whilst I have ripped up his rude rabble of detestable opinions. And in the Treatise of the Universality of Redemption that famous personage D. IAMES KIMECONCE the worthy Governor of our University, whom in honour I here name, has employed himself, debating the main question, resolving it very judiciously in his public lectures. Concerning the rest it were impertinent to chew a dry Colewort, and harp daily on one string.

David Paraeus, “A Preface to the Fourth Part of the Catechism, wherein are deciphered the pestilent pamphlets of some Divines of this age: and Calvin the most valiant Champion defendant of Christ his glory is briefly cleared of the slanderous crime of Arrianism,” in David Paraeus, Certain learned and excellent discourses: treating and discussing divers hard and difficult points of Christian Religion: Collected, and published in latin, by D. David Parreus, out of the writings of that late famous and worthy light of God’s church, D. Zachary Ursine. Faithfully translated, (At London: Imprinted by H.L. and are to be sold by John Royston, at his shop at the great North Dore of Paul’s, at the signe of the Bible, 1613), 52-53.

Jacob Kimedoncius, b. ca. 1550 at Kempen near Cologne , d. 1596 in Heidelberg, Germany.

1) For there is one God, and one Mediator also of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a price of redemption for all, as the Apostle says. Jacob Kimedoncius, The Redemption of Mankind: Three Books: Wherein the Controversy of the Universality of the Redemption and Grace by Christ, and his Death for All Men, is Largely Handled, trans., by Hugh Ince, (London: Imprinted by Felix Kingston, 1598), 4.

2) Notwithstanding Ambrose lib. 9. Epist. 77. writes that the price of our deliverance by the blood of our Lord Jesus, was paid unto him to whom we were sold by our sins, that is to the devil. But that is a very hard saying. For whereas it was not lawful to offer sacrifice but unto God alone, how much more ought this peculiar sacrifice to be offered to none, but to God alone, which the eternal high priest offered upon the Altar of the cross, by the sacrifice of his flesh and effusion of his blood, and which only by the propitiation for the sins of the world. Jacob Kimedoncius, The Redemption of Mankind: Three Books: Wherein the Controversy of the Universality of the Redemption and Grace by Christ, and his Death for All Men, is Largely Handled, trans., by Hugh Ince, (London: Imprinted by Felix Kingston, 1598), 7.

3) This is a mere mockery of Satan, and a profanation of the blood of Christ, as Pope Leo notably shows in the forenamed Epistle against the Papists of these times: whose words are these: “Albeit” (says he) “the death of many Saints has been precious in the sight of God, yet the slaying of no guiltless person has been the propitiation of the world.” Jacob Kimedoncius, The Redemption of Mankind: Three Books: Wherein the Controversy of the Universality of the Redemption and Grace by Christ, and his Death for All Men, is Largely Handled, trans., by Hugh Ince, (London: Imprinted by Felix Kingston, 1598), 12. [C.f., Bastingius’ same citation of this comment from Pope Leo.]

4) Therefore all men must hope in him alone, who only is the Mediator of God and man, the redemption, propitiation, and salvation of all men. Jacob Kimedoncius, The Redemption of Mankind: Three Books: Wherein the Controversy of the Universality of the Redemption and Grace by Christ, and his Death for All Men, is Largely Handled, trans., by Hugh Ince, (London: Imprinted by Felix Kingston, 1598), 13.

5) But to proceed to my purpose, the Lord from the time of his coming and appearing in the flesh, sustained all his whole life both in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sin of all mankind: but especially in his end, when he bare our sins in his body upon the tree, and took out of way the hand-writing of death that was against us, nailing it to the cross. Jacob Kimedoncius, The Redemption of Mankind: Three Books: Wherein the Controversy of the Universality of the Redemption and Grace by Christ, and his Death for All Men, is Largely Handled, trans., by Hugh Ince, (London: Imprinted by Felix Kingston, 1598), 14.

6) The sum of is, that seeing GOD has loved us as his work, but especially as the members of his Son, before the foundations of the world were laid, he of his mere and free love being moved, gave us his Son, that being redeemed by his grace from sin, (whereby we put away from the presence and fruition of God) we might be made heirs of eternal life. Bernard, Serm. 20 of the 9. Verse of the Psalm, “He that dwells”, &c very well says: “Christ according to the time died for the wicked: but in respect of predestination he died for his brethren and friends.” Jacob Kimedoncius, The Redemption of Mankind: Three Books: Wherein the Controversy of the Universality of the Redemption and Grace by Christ, and his Death for All Men, is Largely Handled, trans., by Hugh Ince, (London: Imprinted by Felix Kingston, 1598), 26.

7)

Chap. XI.

Who be Redeemed

by Christ

The controversy of the question propounded is

rehearsed, and briefly expounded.

These things being declared, let us come to the question, reserved to that place: “Who they be, whom Christ the mediator of God and men, redeemed by his death: or, for whom he died?” And this matter shall be more largely handled, then the former questions, (as far as the Lord shall assist us) for their sakes that are desirous to learn, and for the defense of the truth of the Gospel: seeing not long ago by occasion of the Conference of Mompelgart, the matter has grown into a grievous contention, and a certain man inflamed with anger, and seeming to be mad has too too bitterly and reproachfully in his writings, which he has spersed abroad both in Latin and Dutch, blown the same with the fain of contention: as though there had not been before discords and strifes more then enough in our corrupt age in the church of Christ, with often and most grievous offenses of the weak. He overwhelms such as dissent from him with all kinds of reproaches, and railing words, as come into his mouth: That they come near to Mahometism and Paganism: That they maintain Satanical blasphemy, are frantic, desire to extinguish the name of Christ, and that they hereunto inclined to drive away Christ, first out of the hearts, then out of the Scripture, and lastly put of the church itself. And he terms them seducers, Pharisees, Scribes, a subtle, poisoned, and a false sort of men: and grievously abuses innocent persons with other hard words, as it pleases him, according to that his passing Christian zeal towards the Church of God: supposing by his brazen forehead (as I think) to get himself credit with the reader, to think it written truly, what he should write impudently: forgetting altogether the admonition of the Apostle: That the servant of the Lord must not be contentious, but gentle to towards all, apt to teach, forbearing evil men, with meekness instructing those that are contrary minded” (1 Tim. 2:24.) This is the duty of a divine. As for reproaches, railing speeches, mocks, biting taunts, ill reports, back-biting, and all other doggish eloquence, let scoffers and jesters take to themselves. “Conference,” (says Ambrose) and not contention ought to be among the servants of God. For strife must needs wring out something, nay many things, which are spoken against conscience so that inwardly he loses in his mind, when outwardly he gets away with victory. For no man suffers himself to be overcome, altogether he know the things to be true which he bears” (In 2. Capt, 2.ep. Ad Timot). Therefore let us speak of the thing itself. For to railing words and reproaches he will answer who has said: “Vengeance is mind, I will reply” (Deut. 32. Rom 12.): unto whom for Christ’s sake, who has pardoned our sins, we heartily pray, that he would forgive our adversaries those grievous wrongs they do unto us, that he would take away discord, and plant love and peace in the truth among the Churches, that with one moth we may glorify God the father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and receive one another, as Christ has received us to the glory of God. Roms 15.

Therefore comparing matter with matter, and cause with cause, let us begin at the state of the controversy. The question is: Whether Christ suffered for the redemption of all, or not?” Here straight away those men cry out, that the Calvinists (so they call us for the hatred of the truth) raging against the passion of the Lord Jesus Christ, do openly deny that he died for the sins of the world. Again, that the Calvinists both dissemblingly and plainly deny, that Christ suffered and died for all men.

But in the very entrance (as it is said) they run on ground, fastening as a false opinion, against which afterwards they perpetually fight. For we willingly acknowledge these manner of speeches: That Christ is made the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, and has given himself the price of redemption for all men.” For who can deny that, which the Scripture would have to be expressed in so many words? But the question is the meaning of the words. For as he shall not escape the note of impudency, who shall deny what the Scripture expresses: so we are to take heed, lest not understanding what is written, we should think there is some repugnance in the Scripture. For the same Canonical Scripture, which says, that Christ died for all, also makes redemption after a sort common to all, does restrain in other places the property of redemption unto the church the church. The words of Paul are, Eph 5. “Christ loved his Church, and gave himself for it to sanctify it, and present it glorious unto himself. And in the same place, Christ is the head of the Church and the Saviour of the body.” And in 1 Tim 4. He is called the savior of all men, but specially of the faithful.” Also Heb. 9, For this cause he is the Mediator of the new covenant, that through death which came for the redemption of transgressions, the called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.” Of which called also that is rightly taken, which is read in the end of the same chapter: Christ was once offered, to take away the sins of many. What? does not Christ in his solemn intercession pray for his own expressly, and not for the world? I pray not for the world,” (says he) “but for them whom he has given me” (Joh, 17.). Now the intercession and sacrifice of Christ for us, be inseparable parts of his priesthood. Other testimonies of this sort I conceal, which shall be produced in their place.

Therefore seeing the Holy Scripture here, as elsewhere, requires not contentious disputers, but understanding readers, the ancient fathers for the explication of these, have used the distinction of sufficiency and efficiency. Thomas Aquinas the best schoolman, who flourished 300 years ago, upon the 5. Chapter of the Apocalypse writes of this matter: “Of the passion of the Lord” (says he) “we speak after two sorts: either according to sufficiency, and so his passion redeemed all. For it is sufficient to redeem and save all, although there had been many worlds, as Anselm says lib.2 cur Deus homo. cap. 14. Or according to the efficiency, and so all are not redeemed by his passion, because all cleave not unto the redeemer, and therefore all have not the efficacy of redemption.” The same man, part. 3. Summa quest. 1 arctic. 3. when he had said that Christ came to blot out all the sins, expounding himself, he adds these words: “Not that the sins of all men are blotted out, which is through the fault of men, who cleave not to Christ: but because he exhibited that which was sufficient to have abolished all sins.” Whereunto also many be referred the things which he writes, quest. 49. art. 1.3.5. “Christ has delivered us” (says he) as his members from sins, and his passion has his effect in them, who are incorporated into him, as the members of his body, and so are partakers of his passion. But such as are not joined unto the passion of Christ, can not receive the effect thereof.

But let us hear others also more ancient than Thomas. Innocentius 3. Pope of Rome Anno Dom. 1200. repeating the same distinction, lib.2. de officio Missa. cap. 41. says: The blood of Christ was shed for those only that predestinated, as touching efficiency: but for all men as touching sufficiency. For the shedding of that righteous blood was so rich in price, that if the universality of captives would believe in their redeemer, the tyrannical bands of sin and Satan could withhold none, because as the Apostle says, where sin abounded, there grace did superabound.” This later whole sentence is Pope Leo’s Epist. 83. And 97. which seeing Innocentius alleges, he shows apparently, that Leo was of the same mind. Unto these, that is not much unlike, which Basil writes in Psal. 48. “Man cannot give a propitiation for himself, to God: yet one worthy price was found out for all men, even the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for us all.” And that he speaks of the sufficiency and dignity of the price is apparent by the words themselves, as by that which he says elsewhere very often respecting the effect, that the blood of Christ was shed not for all men without exception, but for many, that is for believers. Chrysostom also and Theophilact who abridged him, acknowledges the same distinction, as we shall see.

Moreover, Augustine the chief of the ancient sound writers, does not only acknowledge that distinction, but also does expound it largely, Tom.7 answering unto Articles that were false fathered upon him, whereof the first was, that he was reported to maintain, that “our Lord Jesus Christ suffered not for the redemption of all men.” But he distinguishes after this manner: As touching the greatness and might of the price, (says he) and as touching the only cause of mankind, the blood of Christ is the redemption of the whole world, and so all are well said to be redeemed. Yet because all are not pulled out of captivity, and many are not redeemed, the propriety of redemption without doubt belongs to them, out of whom the prince of this world is cast forth, and now are not the members of the devil, but of Christ, whose death was not bestowed for mankind that even they should appertain unto the redemption of it, who should not be regenerated: but fo, that was done by one example for all, should be magnified in every one by one sacrament given unto them.” This much as he had said: As touching the sufficiency of the price, the redemption belongs to all: but as touching the effect, it belongs not to all, but to the members only of Christ. And anon he sets out the matter by similitude, saying: The cup of immortality, which is made of our infirmity and the divine power, has power in itself to profit all: but if it be not drunk, it does no good.”

The new writers also allow this distinction as usual, very ancient, and profitable, & in this point diligently to be retained. Stapulensis upon the 5.10 to the Romans, declaring the matter by a similitude, says: “As light is able to drive away infinite darkness, albeit the eyes of all are not enlightened: so Christ has in himself the redemption of all, not sufficient for us only, but to redeem innumerable worlds also, albeit all, through their own perverseness, are not made partakers thereof.” Neither otherwise does Calvin, Beza, Grineus, and other Divines of our confession, who are hatefully spoken of by our adversaries, as though simply & without all distinction they should avouch, that Christ died not for all. Which to be falsely laid to their charge, he shall confess, whosoever shall weigh the places of the authors, of whom now we have spoken: Calvin. in 1 Joh 2. Beza in 2 Cor. 5:15. and often in the second part of his answer to the Acts of the Conference at Mompelgart, fol. 217 & 221. Gryneus in Thesaursthesium, class. 1. thes. 13, Tossan. thes. 31. in disput. de loco Pauli 1. Cor. 15:22. Zanch. lib.2.Miscel. pa. 312. & Pet. Mart. loco de predest. ad Rom. 9. In these places the forenamed writers, as many other writers of our side in their books do retain with one accord the common distinction of Sufficiency, and Efficiency, not to be refused doubtless in this disputation. Only let the terms sufficiency, and efficiently, be rightly and truly understood. Sufficiently that is, by Augustine’s interpretation, as touching the greatness of the price, or as Thomas shows, as far forth as he exhibited that, which was sufficient to take away all the sins. Efficiently, or as others speak of it, effectually, let it be understood in respect of the effect, which is found in the only members of Christ, all the rest being without redemption, who live without faith and regeneration, as Augustine also has learnedly left in his writing.

But this is the opinion of our adversaries, that Christ without any difference died for the sins of all men, and that all the sins of all men are satisfied and cleansed by sacrifice, not only sufficiently, but also effectually. Which thus they do declare, that our heavenly father has instituted and ordained in very deed a reconciliation with all and every man, without any respect of faith or unbelief. But in them it abides effectual, who by faith receive that reconciliation with God ratified by Christ his sacrifice: and in those, who refuse it by unbelief, it is abolished and taken away, no otherwise then if a common bath erected for many sick persons, wherein all in very deed are restored to health, and some of them by intemperance do lose again their former health, which continues in others which live soberly. With similitude truly much differs in sense, from those which Augustine and Stapulensis used before.

Furthermore, they profess and write plainly that Christ suffered, was crucified, dead and has satisfied no less for the sins of all which already are damned, and hereafter to be damned, then for the sins of Peter, Paul, and of all the Saints: that is to say, that Christ not only gave that which was sufficient to have taken away the sins no less of the damned, and such as shall be damned, then of those that are saved, and shall be saved, are washed away in his blood. And they avouch that it comes to pass, that nevertheless the former sort are condemned, not for their sins, for they are indeed cleansed by Christ, but for unbelief alone, whereby they destroy again, and make ineffectual that reconciliation, which was made and done for them.

This was the opinion of Jacob Andreas in the Conference of Mompelgart, which Huberus thes. 19 set down in this manner: to wit, “That Christ suffered and died not for some men only, but for all the posterity of Adam, none, (and to speak it most plainly) none at all excepted out of the whole universality of mankind, whether he receive himself salvation by faith, and continue in salvation obtained, or else through unbelief refuse salvation wrought for him, and therefore perish again for ever.” We see that he boldly avouches that indifferently all and every one, believers and unbelievers have obtained in very deed salvation in Christ, but that some in believing continue ins salvation received, others are deprived again of the same by not believing. The same man in compendio thes. 10. says: We boldly affirm, that Christ by his death has mercy upon all men in very deed and in truth, and gave himself a sacrifice for sins, no less for every infidel then for every faithful man, to wit, that he may deliver from death, the devil, and hell, all men whosoever they be”: he means in very deed and truth, (as we use to speak) and not sufficiently only. And that nothing may obscure, he maintains that the work of salvation by Christ belongs to all (thes. 49) sinners, and that such as by Adam have sinners, have righteousness by Christ imputed unto them: and that all judgement (thes. 60) and wrath of God is taken away and abolished from all men in very deed and properly: and that all are truly and undoubtedly (thes. 65) together delivered by the death of Christ from all sin and condemnation, and whole mankind receive in deed into the favour and bosom of the father (thes. 168.1): and that all do belong to the communion of salvation, and kingdom of grace: lastly, that all the reprobates and elect are alike saved by Christ, whether they believe, or not (thes. 270): and other like things altogether raw, new and strange, do meet us here and there dispersedly in reading him.

Unto this opinion as new and unheard of, and many ways erroneous (as it shall appear) we cannot subscribe: but following the old distinction we affirm, that Christ suredly exhibited that which was sufficient to have taken away all sins, and so they are taken away, and that all are redeemed, as touching the sufficiency or greatness and power of the price, as Augustine expounded. But as touching the efficiency, we say that by the death of Christ, the sins only of the elect are blotted out, who believe in him, and stick unto him as members to the head: but such as are not incorporated into Christ, cannot receive the effect of his passion. For as the Lord says: “God so loved the world, that he gave his son that every one that believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life. He that believes is not condemned: but he that believes not, is condemned already,” Joh. 3. Which in that place John Baptist confirming testified: He that believes in the Son, has eternal life: but he that believes not in the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” And in this sense, and not absolutely and without restraint, is it to be taken, as oft as it is read in our writers, that Christ suffered not for all: to wit, in respect of the effect of his passion, which belongs to such as are to be saved, and not to them that shall be damned; to the faithful, and not to infidels. And so Beza also declares himself Colloq. Mompelga. pa. 217. And there is nothing in him, which is not in so many words, and in the same sense written by the old writers.

Neither are cavaliers to be regarded, which say: what need is there to say, that Christ is a price sufficient for the whole world? why bewitch ye men with these terms? I answer, this is not bewitching, but the ancient and right explication of this controversy against them, that love to bewitch the world with new opinions. But (say they) the word sufficiently taken in that signification wherein sacred antiquity took it, we refuse not, but rather approve it. Being our Calvinists (say they) devising a wrong and doubtful signification1 of the word, doe deceive the simpler sort. For the ______ [word unreadable] that Christ’s death is so mighty, that if he would help all men by the same, he could easily do it. But if they would use the word sufficiency in another signification (thes. 1132), as when we say against the Papists, that the death of Christ is sufficient for all men, that is, needs no help from any man’s works to redeem us: or else also in this sense, when we say, that Christ’s death is sufficient for all, whether men believe and be saved, or believe not, and perish: yet Christ has satisfied for all, we would not refuse the use of this term in such signification.

But I think it is plain enough by the things which are recited before, how antiquity has used those terms of sufficiency and efficiency, neither that we change any thing in the sense, or deceive any doubtful signification. In the meanwhile the thing itself proves, that the simpler sort are here beguiled by our adversary, who when he would seem to allow for term of sufficiency in that sense, wherein antiquity accepted it, yet he devises of his own head significations altogether unknown unto antiquity, in his propounded opposition: otherwise we defend also against the Papists, that the merit of Christ needs no help of man’s works: neither deny we, that he has satisfied for all whether they be saved or perish, to wit, as touching the sufficiency and greatness of the price so mighty and rich for redemption, that if the universality of captives would believe in him, the band so of the devil should hold back. Jacob Kimedoncius, The Redemption of Mankind: Three Books: Wherein the Controversy of the Universality of the Redemption and Grace by Christ, and his Death for All Men, is Largely Handled, trans., by Hugh Ince, (London: Imprinted by Felix Kingston, 1598), 30-39.

8) First of all, as touching the testimonies of the death of Christ for all, we grant also after a sort, that Christ suffered and died for all men, as many has have been, are, and shall be. What then? Shall it thereof follow, that all and everyone, whether they believe, or not believe, are in very deed reconciled, justified, quickened, renewed, saved, and that all judgement and wrath of God is truly and properly taken away in all men, and that all together are set free from all sin and condemnation undoubtedly, and received as sons into the favour and bosom of God? Jacob Kimedoncius, The Redemption of Mankind: Three Books: Wherein the Controversy of the Universality of the Redemption and Grace by Christ, and his Death for All Men, is Largely Handled, trans., by Hugh Ince, (London: Imprinted by Felix Kingston, 1598), 49.

9) This answer use Theophilact upon Heb 2. whom Anselm there seems to follow. His words are these: He tasted death not for the faithful only, but for the whole world. For albeit all are not saved in very deed, yet he wrought that which was his part to do. See how it does not follow, that if Christ died for all, all are straightway saved, which is the divinity2 of Huberus, thes. 270. Upon the 9. Chapter to the Hebr. The same interpreter has left it written thus: He has taken away the sins of many. Why said he of many, and of all? Because all mortal men have not believed. The death of Christ surely was equivalent to the perdition of all, that is, was of value sufficient that all, and as much as lay in him he died for all: yet he took not away the sins of all: because they that refuse him make the death of Christ altogether unprofitable unto themselves. The foresaid answer Stapulensis (an interpreter among the late writers not to be despised) confirmed upon the 2. Chapter to the Hebr. In these words: Christ truly suffered for all men, and his death is of value for the redemption of all, but then his death has freed the fear of death, and from the fear of bondage has restored us into the liberty of life, when we follow him willingly.” And upon the 10. chapter he writes: “that by the oblation of Christ there is a most full satisfaction for all the sins of the world, which have been, are, and shall be: but their sins are remitted, who coming unto Christ does ask grace, which he vouchsafed to obtain of the father for them: but their sins are not pardoned, who refuse his grace, and contemn the universal fountain of the washing away of sins, not knowing, or being unwilling to purge themselves in him.” And Brentius does so declare it, Catechis. arctic. de remiss. peccat. “We are justified” (says he) “by the mere mercy of God only for the redemption, wherewith Christ has redeemed mankind from sins, and for that reconciliation which he has obtained, and not for any merit of man. But this benefit of God we receive not but through faith by the preaching of the Gospel. For albeit Christ has redeemed mankind from sins and reconciled with God, yet this benefit had nothing profited mankind, if it were not preached unto them by the Gospel. And the Gospel requires faith, and is to be received by faith. He that believes not shall be condemned; and he that believes shall be saved. Wherefore remission of sins purchased by Christ, and preached in the Gospel, is received of us, and applied unto us no otherwise then by faith.” Hereunto the assertion is contrary, that all have received reconciliation and salvation whether they believe or not. Jacob Kimedoncius, The Redemption of Mankind: Three Books: Wherein the Controversy of the Universality of the Redemption and Grace by Christ, and his Death for All Men, is Largely Handled, trans., by Hugh Ince, (London: Imprinted by Felix Kingston, 1598), 50-51.

10) What shall we say to that which follows, Who gave himself a ransom for all?” The answer is plain by the things that have been spoken before. For he truly gave himself a price of redemption sufficient for all, none excepted at all of the whole universality of men: but because the unbelievers do not apply redemption to themselves, the wrath of God abides on them. Also, he gave himself the price of reconciliation for all that belongs to the universality of the elect, and to his own body. Again, for all indefinitely, that is, for whomsoever Jews and Gentiles, high and low, masters and servants, as it has been often already said. Jacob Kimedoncius, The Redemption of Mankind: Three Books: Wherein the Controversy of the Universality of the Redemption and Grace by Christ, and his Death for All Men, is Largely Handled, trans., by Hugh Ince, (London: Imprinted by Felix Kingston, 1598), 56.

11) As touching the place, Joh. 1:29. Behold the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world”: we willingly grant that the sacrifice of the lamb is sufficient for all the sins of all men: but as touching the effect, Christ takes away sins from such as confess them, and believe, as John himself witnesses, 1 Epist. 1. “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity. Again, If we walk in light, as he is the light, we have fellowship with him, and the blood of Christ purges us from all sin.” He call it sin in the singular number, for any kind of iniquity. And where he says (of the world) he draws the efficacy of this sacrifice indifferently unto the redemption of Gentiles and Jews, lest the Jews should think that the redeemer was sent to them alone. Jacob Kimedoncius, The Redemption of Mankind: Three Books: Wherein the Controversy of the Universality of the Redemption and Grace by Christ, and his Death for All Men, is Largely Handled, trans., by Hugh Ince, (London: Imprinted by Felix Kingston, 1598), 76.

12) Secondly, though we grant that the iniquities of all men were laid upon Christ; we deny the consequence that therefore by the sacrifice of Christ the sins of all be in very deed cleansed, and that all are justified, and received into grace. For to the intent that the sacrifice and merit of Christ may profit us to righteousness and grace before God, we need application by faith. “For being justified by faith we have peace towards God: and without faith it is impossible to please God.” Here upon it is added in Esay: “My righteous servant by the knowledge of him shall justify many, and he shall bear their iniquities.” Albeit therefore he has borne the sins of all by sufficiency: yet properly they be accounted his redeemed ones, in whom the true knowledge or faith of Christ shines. Jacob Kimedoncius, The Redemption of Mankind: Three Books: Wherein the Controversy of the Universality of the Redemption and Grace by Christ, and his Death for All Men, is Largely Handled, trans., by Hugh Ince, (London: Imprinted by Felix Kingston, 1598), 104.

13) Furthermore, it is an impudent speech, that says “the Catholic and true Church is condemned of us, which has believed, and always with one month confessed, that Christ died for all men.” We also confess, that Christ died for all men. For who can deny that without distinction, which divers times is expressedly set down in sacred Scriptures? But hereof is the question, whether all believers and unbelievers together, be from all sin and condemnation, by the death of Christ, set free, justified, and received into grace of the father, as sons and heirs? It is most false, that the Catholic Church has believed that with one consent: yea rather it has always believed this, and always confessed it with one mouth, that faith is required, (without which it is impossible to please God) to the intent we may obtain remission of sins, by the mercy of Christ. Jacob Kimedoncius, The Redemption of Mankind: Three Books: Wherein the Controversy of the Universality of the Redemption and Grace by Christ, and his Death for All Men, is Largely Handled, trans., by Hugh Ince, (London: Imprinted by Felix Kingston, 1598), 136.

14) In alleging Augustine, I know not whether may blame craftiness or grossness in the adversary. Augustine entitled a book, “Of articles falsely laid to his charge” (Augustine: The 4. Testimony): whereof the first article was, that he was falsely charged (as we are also falsely charged by such as envy us at this day) as if he should teach “that our Lord Jesus Christ suffered not for the redemption of all men.” Therefore (says thou) by Augustine’s judgement it is a false and profane opinion, that Christ suffered not for the redemption of all.

But Huber by a sophistical or deceitful cunning passes by those things, which Augustine there largely writes for the declaration of this article. For he also using the distinction before alleged out of Chrysostom, says: Quoad ad magnitudinem & potentiam prety, &c. that is, “As touching the greatness & power of the price, and as much as concerning the ____ [word unreadable] cause of mankind, the blood of Christ is the redemption of the whole world; and so all are rightly to be said to be redeemed: but whereas they are void of redemption who pass through this world without the faith of Christ, and without the Sacrament of regeneration, doubtless the propriety of redemption belongs to them, out of whom the prince of this world is cast forth, and are now not the vessels of the devil, but the members of Christ: whose death was not bestowed for mankind, that they also, who were not to be regenerated, should belong unto his redemption. For the cup of immortality, which is made of our infirmity, and the divine virtue, has surely in itself that it can profit all: but if it be not drunk, it does no good. Jacob Kimedoncius, The Redemption of Mankind: Three Books: Wherein the Controversy of the Universality of the Redemption and Grace by Christ, and his Death for All Men, is Largely Handled, trans., by Hugh Ince, (London: Imprinted by Felix Kingston, 1598), 139-140.

15) Bullinger, Gualter, Musculus, and others are cited, and the confessions of one or two Churches in Helvetia, out of whom these and the like kinds of sayings are diligently drawn: to wit, that “Christ, as (Bullinger. Ser. 2. De nativit Chri.) much as is in him is a Saviour to all, and came to save all: (The same upon 1 John 1.) that he pleased God by sacrifice for all the sins of all times: (Catech. minor Ecc. Tigur.) that his passion ought to satisfy for the sin of all men, and that he whole world is quickened by the same (Mise. in locia de remiss. p.q.2) that the grace of remission of sins is appointed to all mortal men,” and such like.

Unto these I answer, that however, and in what sense soever those writers uttered these and the like kind of speeches, it is certain that they were not of the adversaries opinion, that effectually and in very deed, all without exception of anyone, and without and difference of believers and unbelievers, are received into grace, and made partakers of remission of sins, righteousness and salvation in Christ. Jacob Kimedoncius, The Redemption of Mankind: Three Books: Wherein the Controversy of the Universality of the Redemption and Grace by Christ, and his Death for All Men, is Largely Handled, trans., by Hugh Ince, (London: Imprinted by Felix Kingston, 1598), 141-142.

16) Yet lest thou should chance to doubt of these things, take but the advise of Hildrick Zwinglius only, the ornament of thy Helvetia, and the brightness of all kind of learning, Annot. in Evang. & epist. Pauli, per Leonem Juda editis. There may be many such kinds of speakings used afterward in like manner of his successors: “That the son of God took flesh, that he might be made a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world: that his flesh was given for the life and redemption of the whole world: and that he died for all, that he might quicken all by himself, and by his death give life to the universal world: that Christ came to save all, and to give eternal life to all, &c” (Annot. ad Heb; In Joh. 6; In Joh 12.). That man surely uses thus to speak, but in a far other sense than thou hunts for such kind of speakings in his schollars. For expounding himself he expressly writes: “Christ’s death is the remedy and plaster of our deceases and wounds, yet that many feel not the efficacy thereof, namely such as do not acknowledge their sins.” Also, “that he was sent to forgive sins to all repentant sinners, and to communicate eternal life: that he is the life and salvation of the godly, the life of believers and such like. And yet he takes away the sins of the whole world (In Joh. 6 &c) , and gives life to all, both because no sins in the world are forgiven, but by and for the only reconciler Christ Jesus (In epist. a.1): and also, because he is an universal Saviour, to wit, not only for the Jews, but of the Gentiles also (Rom. 3), that they have the fruition of Christ his oblation, may for ever go to God through him (In Joh. 12), and may have by faith Christ the blotting out of all their sins”: as more at large a man may see in he same writer Tom. 1. expostul. ad Fridolium. Attend and weigh O Huber, and cease to abuse the testimonies of thine Helvetians. Jacob Kimedoncius, The Redemption of Mankind: Three Books: Wherein the Controversy of the Universality of the Redemption and Grace by Christ, and his Death for All Men, is Largely Handled, trans., by Hugh Ince, (London: Imprinted by Felix Kingston, 1598), 143-144.

17) And in this sense it is rightly said, that the promises ought to be preached and propounded unto all, believers and unbelievers: as far as the ministers office stretches, that they should disperse the word of faith and salvation indifferent and publically into the ears of all, and setting forth the mercy of God in Christ, (who is the sacrifice for the sins of the world) they should call whomsoever, to embrace the gift of grace, and should invite whomsoever they find, as it were to the marriage of the king. Jacob Kimedoncius, The Redemption of Mankind: Three Books: Wherein the Controversy of the Universality of the Redemption and Grace by Christ, and his Death for All Men, is Largely Handled, trans., by Hugh Ince, (London: Imprinted by Felix Kingston, 1598), 154. [Original pagination incorrectly has 145.]

18) O trifler. For first to bring it to an absurdity, one of the propositions must be the Hypothesis, or the very opinion of the adversary which is impugned, where here is not done. For the question is about this: Whether Christ died effectually for all men? He says it: We deny it…

Thirdly, the Minor of the argument is false: for he that has acknowledge knows himself to believe, as before has been shown. And whosoever believes, is partaker of the merits of the death and humiliation of our Lord Jesus Christ, and he says: “this is my body which is given for you: and this is my blood, the blood the of the New Testament, which is shed for you (Luke. 22; Matth. 26). Why says he “for many”? Because albeit the blood of Christ be shed for all as touching the sufficiency: yet it was shed for the regenerate only as touching efficiency, as I have shown before out of Innocentius. Jacob Kimedoncius, The Redemption of Mankind: Three Books: Wherein the Controversy of the Universality of the Redemption and Grace by Christ, and his Death for All Men, is Largely Handled, trans., by Hugh Ince, (London: Imprinted by Felix Kingston, 1598), 168 and 169.

19) Now we come to the confirmation of true doctrine. And that is, that albeit the death of the son of God our Lord Jesus Christ, as touching the greatness of the price, be the redemption of whole mankind, none excepted: yet the propriety of redemption belongs to those, who are not now the vessels of the devils, but the members of Christ, by faith and the grace of regeneration: the rest, who live without faith and regeneration, not belonging to this redemption from sin and death. And because faith and regeneration pertain not to all but the elect, it is truly also avouched that redemption belongs to them and not to the reprobates. Jacob Kimedoncius, The Redemption of Mankind: Three Books: Wherein the Controversy of the Universality of the Redemption and Grace by Christ, and his Death for All Men, is Largely Handled, trans., by Hugh Ince, (London: Imprinted by Felix Kingston, 1598), 177.

20) The seventh place is th tenth of John, where that good shepherd says: “I lay my lie for the sheep: my sheep hear my voice, and I know them and that follow me, and I give unto them eternal life, neither shall they perish for ever, neither shall any man take them out of mine hand” (Joh. 10) Here it appears, that howsoever Christ after a sort died for all, yet specially he died for such has shall be saved, because he died for his sheep. Jacob Kimedoncius, The Redemption of Mankind: Three Books: Wherein the Controversy of the Universality of the Redemption and Grace by Christ, and his Death for All Men, is Largely Handled, trans., by Hugh Ince, (London: Imprinted by Felix Kingston, 1598), 185.

21) But let us return to the Latin writers among whom Prosper of Aquitaine answering the articles of the French men, plainly approves this phrase or manner of speaking: “that Christ died only for them that shall be saved”: which our adversaries slander as blasphemous and Satanical. His words are these: Therefore although our Saviour be rightly said to be crucified for the redemption of the whole world, because he truly took man’s nature upon him, and because of the common perdition of the first man: yet he may be said to be crucified for them only, whom his death did profit: for the Evangelist John says, cap 11, that Jesus should die for the nation, and not only for the nation, but also to gather in one the sons of God. The same writer, or whosoever he was that wrote the Book “Of the Calling of the Gentiles,” denies that saying of the apostle Ephe. 1. “Of the reconciliation of all in Christ, is thus to be understood, as though none ought to be thought to be not reconciled. And a little after he sets down a rule, which like to the North Star in all controversy is to be regarded, to wit, that in the elect, and foreknown, and in those that be separate from the generality of all men, there is to be considered a certain special universality, and fulness of the people of God, so that out of the whole world the whole world seems to be set free, and out of all men, all men may seem to be taken. For most often in the Scriptures, all the earth is named for a part of the earth, the whole world for a part of the world, and all men for a part of men. Unto which rule afterward he squares the words of John. He is the propitiation of the sins of the whole world, and he expounded them of the fulness of the faithful, and not of the generality of all men, as our adversaries do.

Furthermore, Primarius Comment. ad Heb. 2. upon the saying, “he tasted death for all,” comprises the whole matter. His words are, whereas he says, that Christ tasted death “for all,” some Doctors take the sense thus absolutely it is said “for all, for whom he tasted, that is for the elect predestinated to eternal life.” Behold a restraint unto the universality of the elect. But he goes on “but some take it for the generality, that he is said to die for all, albeit all are not saved. For albeit not all believe, yet he did that which was his part to do.” And he alleges Prosper’s similitude, which Augustine also uses before Prosper, of the cup of immortality, which finally has in itself, that it can profit all, although it profits none in very deed, but those that drinks thereof. So also Christ (says he) as much as was in him, died for all, although his passion profits none, but those only who believe in him. Jacob Kimedoncius, The Redemption of Mankind: Three Books: Wherein the Controversy of the Universality of the Redemption and Grace by Christ, and his Death for All Men, is Largely Handled, trans., by Hugh Ince, (London: Imprinted by Felix Kingston, 1598), 230-231.

[To be continued.]

_________________________

1Here most of the word is erased, but this seems to be what he is saying.

2Kimedoncius here means the theology of Huberus.

Advertisements
2 Comments leave one →
  1. Flynn permalink
    September 18, 2007 5:13 am

    I have updated my Kimedoncius file, inserting an imprimatur comment from David Paraeus, who references Kimedoncius’ book, giving it a full endorsement.

Trackbacks

  1. The Heidelberg Catechism and unlimited atonement - Page 2 - The PuritanBoard

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: