Edward Griffin Quoting Matthias Martinius (1572–1630)

Edward Griffin translated Matthias Martinius, one of the delegates [to the Synod of Dort] from Bremen, as saying:

There is in God a certain common love to man with which he regarded the whole lapsed human race, and seriously willed the salvation of all. The exercise of this love to man appears in the outward call to the elect and reprobate without distinction.—In this call are to be distinguished these things: the historical narrative concerning Christ, the command to believe, the interdiction of unbelief, the promise of eternal life made to believers, the threatening of damnation to the unbelieving. And if any one does not believe, the issue of this call is condemnation, and expressly for this reason, because he does not believe in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3: 18.) But this issue in itself is not intended by God, but follows by accident through the fault of man.—Moreover, this outward call—necessarily requires antecedent to itself these things; the promise and mission of the Son (formerly future, now past), and redemption, that is, the payment of a price to atone for sins, and God rendered so placable as to require no other sacrifice for the sins of any man, content with this only most perfect one, and that for the reconciliation of men there be no need of any other satisfaction, any other merit for them, provided (what in remedies must be done) there be an application of this common and salutary medicine. If this redemption is not supposed to be a common blessing bestowed on all men, the indiscriminate and promiscuous preaching of the gospel, committed to the apostles to be exercised among all nations, will have no foundation in truth. But since we abhor to say this, it ought to be seen to how their assertions agree with the most known and lucid principles, who unqualifiedly deny that Christ died for all. Nor here will it be enough to assert such a sufficiency of redemption as could be enough; but it is altogether such as is enough, and such as God and Christ have considered enough. For otherwise the gospel command and promise are destroyed. For how from a benefit, sufficient indeed, but not designed for me by a sincere intention, can the necessity of believing that it belongs to me be deduced? What, then, shall we call this redemption? This redemption is in the new world what creation is in the old: to wit, as the creation of man is not the image of God, but is that foundation without which the image of God could not have place in him; so, also, redemption is no part of the image of God, but is that in which is founded the whole exercise of the prophetic and kingly offices of Christ, and his priestly intercession. But care must be taken not to carry this comparison too far. This redemption is the payment of a price due for us captives, not that we should go forth from captivity at all events, but that we should be able and be bound to go forth; and in fact we should go forth if we would believe in the Redeemer, acknowledge his benefit, and thoroughly become members of him as the Head. And, therefore, upon whatever man we fall, to him we are the messengers and publishers of this salutary grace (saving, however, to believers only), from the very office of piety and charity.

The Lord even merited grace for all men; but not for all men that grace which depends on particular election. What then? That which is promised on condition of faith. For certainly to all men is promised remission of sins and eternal life if they believe. Here, therefore, it appears that a conditional remission of sins and salvation belong to all, but not a promise to give strength and excite the actions by which that condition is fulfilled. For these things men are bound by the power of a divine command to perform themselves; and they who are not able to do this, are not able through their own fault.

Christ merited the favor of God for all, to be actually obtained if they believe.—This his favor God declares in common in the word of the gospel.

Christ died for all in regard to the merit and sufficiency of the ransom, for believers only in regard to the application and efficacy. In support of which very sentiment many testimonies of the fathers and schoolmen, and more recent doctors of the church, can be cited when there is need.

He who despises the offering of Christ made on the cross loses all the right which he might have had in it, and thereby aggravates damnation to himself: — and the gospel, which in itself is a savor of life unto life, becomes to the unbelieving a savor of death unto death, by accident, through their own fault,

Among the propositions which Martinius pronounces false are the following: "Christ died in no sense for them that perish;" and, "The decree of particular election or reprobation of certain persons, cannot consist with the universality of Christ's death."* [*Acts of Synod, Part II. p. 133–139]

See Edward D. Griffin, “An Humble Attempt to Reconcile the Differences of Christians Respecting the Extent of the Atonement,” in The Atonement. Discourses and Treatises (Boston: Congregational Board of Publication, 1859), 370–372. Some of what Martinius said is also translated by in Laurence Womock:

Martinius giving in his Suffrage, upon this Article, doth resolve thus. There is a certain Philanthropy of God, whereby he loves all mankind fallen, and seriously would have them all to be saved. Acta Syn. Dor. page 103. Thes. 1 & Thes. 8. If this Redemption be not supposed as a common benefit bestowed upon all: that indifferent and promiscuous preaching of the Gospel committed to the Apostles to be performed amongst All nations, will have no true foundation (Et thes. 9.). And seeing we abhore to say this; it is to be considered, how much they speak against most clear and known principles, who, at their pleasure, do plainly deny, that Christ died for all men. Thes. 10. Neither will it satisfy to propose such a sufficiency, as might be enough; but such as is altogether enough in God’s and Christ’s account. For otherwise the command and promise of the Gospel will be overthrown.

For (Thes. 11.) from a benefit, that is sufficient indeed, but not designed for me by a true intention, how can there be deduced a necessity of my believing it, to belong unto me? And Thes. 26. he gives the chief Reasons which induced him to be of this opinion, which are three.

1. That the Scriptures might be reconciled without wresting.

2. That the Glory of God’s truth, mercy and justice, in the commands, promises and threatenings of the Gospel, might be preserved; lest by these God should be thought to will and do something otherwise than the words signify.

3. That it may be manifest, that the blame of the destruction of the wicked may be in themselves, not in the defect of a remedy, by which they might be saved. Thus Martinius sent to the Synod of Breme, Act. Syn. Dord. part. 2. pag. 104. &c.

Laurence Womock, Arcana Dogmatum Anti-Remonstantium. Or the Calvinists Cabinet unlock’d. (London: Printed for Richard Royston, at the Angel in Ivie-lane, 1659), 60–61.

Bio:
Wiki

Martinius was a moderate Calvinist, much like John Davenant. I consider myself Martinian in my views, but prefer to be called a classical Calvinist, in terms of my soteriology.