Cap. 7 Quartum: not contingent human will—Suarez on intended efficacy
If someone twists the distinction as if Christ’s death, sufficient for all, became efficacious for some only by a contingent act of human free choice, the words themselves refute him: “Christ died efficaciously for these or those” marks a singular efficacy flowing from the dying one’s special will, not from the believer’s contingent act. Second, even the Jesuits do not take “efficacy” in this distinction as mere eventual efficacy, but as efficacy specially intended and merited by the dying one himself. So Suarez (On 3, disp. 41, p. 629): Christ did not merit remission of sins for all as to efficacy, because he did not apply his merit so that all would infallibly gain that effect. To merit efficaciously is to apply his merit to certain persons with the intention that they infallibly obtain eternal life from it. More plainly (p. 635): Christ’s merit stands equally toward all as to sufficiency, not as to efficacy—understood not only in the effects (in one, not another) but also in the will by which Christ offered his merits differently for different persons. Scripture’s witnesses that join Christ’s death to a sure purpose of redeeming his sheep, gathering God’s sons, acquiring the Church, and cleansing a peculiar people show that the efficacy theologians speak of is drawn from the dying Christ’s will, not from contingent free choice. By a special intention in his offering Christ obtained that it be made efficacious for the elect; the elect did not make it efficacious for themselves by some free-choice apprehension.
Latin
Nam si quis eo torqueat hanc distinctionem, quasi sensus esset, Mortem Christi, quae sufficiens est pro omnibus, in eventu efficacem fieri aliquibus ex contingente actu arbitrii humani; Primo, ipsis verbis refellitur: siquidem, quando dicitur, Christus mortuus est efficaciter pro his aut illis, denotamus singularem efficaciam ex voluntate speciali morientis profluentem, non ex contingente actu credentis dimanantem. Secundo, ab ipsis Jesuitis haec efficacia (ut ita loquar) eventualis non intelligitur in hac distinctione, sed efficacia ab ipso moriente specialiter intenta & promerita. Sic Suarez, In 3. disp. 41. pag. 629. Christus non meruit omnibus remissionem peccatorum quoad efficaciam, quia non applicavit suum meritum, ut omnes infallibiliter talem effectum consequerentur. Mereri igitur efficaciter vel quoad efficaciam est, ea intentione suum meritum applicare aliquibus personis, ut infallibiliter inde effectum vitae aeternae consequantur. Paulo planius, pag. 635. Meritums Christi aequaliter se habet ad omnes quoad sufficientiam, non quoad efficaciam. Quod intelligendum est non tantum in effectibus, qui in uno sit & non in alio, sed etiam ex parte voluntatis, qua Christus ipse diverso modo obtulit sua merita pro diversis. Denique illa omnia testimonia Scripturarum, quae mortem Christi nobis proponunt complicatam cum certo proposito redimendi suas oves, Filios Dei congregandi, Ecclesiam acquirendi, populum peculiarem mundandi & servandi, atque id genus alia a nobis supra commemorata, aperte demonstrant hanc efficaciam de qua loquuntur Theologi, a voluntate morientis Christi esse arcessendam, non ex contingente actu arbitrii humani petendam. Christus speciali quadam intentione oblationis suae impetravit ut electis efficax redderetur; non autem electi in aliqua apprehensione ex libero arbitrio evagante eam sibi reddiderunt efficacem.