William Ames on Arminians and Atonement

In Ames' The Marrow of Theology, John Dykstra Eusden writes (in the Introduction):


"Ames wrote his Marrow not as a scholarly treatise but as a useful compendium for laymen and students...The text is divided into two books with chapters in numbered sections, providing even a neophyte a chance to discover quickly the Amesian answer on a particular point. More than a theological checklist, however, the book was a declaration of the Puritan position that theology was an art with its own rules and practice -- an art for every man, not reserved for the expert or the perfectiones. Theology was for all men because it spoke not only to the intellect, but to the common sensus, or man's feeling and emotions" (p. 2).
---------

In "A Brief Forewarning of the Author concerning His Purpose," Ames writes:

"I do not assume that I know all the thoughts of my critics. Yet, the age being what it is, I foresee several points which will be brought against my well-intentioned endeavor, and I propose now briefly to meet the chief objections.

Some people, including those not unlearned, dislike this whole manner of writing, that is, of placing the main body of theology in a short compendium. They ask for great volumes in which they may establish themselves or wander about as they will. But I intend this for all those who have neither the ample leisure nor the great skill to hunt the partridge in mountain and forest. ... And I confess that I share that heresy which bids me, when teaching, not to say in two words what may be said in one and which allows me to choose the key which best opens the lock. The key may well be of wood if the golden key does not work" (William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, pp. 69-70).


Eusden writes:

"Finally it should be noted that Ames did not call down the usual orthodox vituperation on his opponents. In the Conscience he asks if the Remonstrants are heretics and gives this answer:

'The position of the Remonstrants, as held by most that favor it, is not properly a heresy but a dangerous error in the faith, tending to heresy.'

He goes on to say, however, that when the Remonstrant view on the role of the will is pushed too far, it does become a heresy-- 'a Pelagian heresy, because it denies the effectual operation of internal grace to be necessary for the effecting of conversion and faith.' [15]  Here the line must be drawn" (pp. 7-8).

15. Conscience: Its Law or Cases, Five Books, IV, iv, 10. My translation. Hereafter cited as Ames, De conscientia

 --------------

William Ames (who advised at the Synod of Dort) will not call the Arminian/Remonstrant view "properly a heresy," but only something that "tends" toward heresy. Ames does EVENTUALLY draw a line. But NOT at the efficacious atonement of Jesus Christ, but at the sinner's will. To Ames, one can despise the precious blood of Christ until their fat, self-righteous heart is sufficiently sated and content. Apparently, Ames is not overly concerned  about a boast in a salvation that is conditioned on the sinner's self-righteousness-establishing efforts (cf. Romans 10:1-4)  -- just so long as you acknowledge this self-righteous enablement by an (alleged) "divine operation of internal grace." 

Here is a quote from William Ames on the "Application of Christ":


"8. The application plainly has the same latitude as redemption itself, i.e., redemption applies to all those and only to those for whom it was obtained by the intention of Christ and the Father. Yet because of them the same temporal benefits of Christ overflow also to others.
9. As for the intention of application, it is rightly said that Christ made satisfaction only for those whom he saved, though in regard to the sufficiency in the mediation of Christ it may also rightly be said that Christ made satisfaction for each and all. Because these counsels of God are hidden to us, it is the part of charity to judge well of every one, although we may not say of all collectively that Christ equally pleads the cause of each before God" (William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, p. 150).

 Let us focus on this last paragraph (Ames' point 9.). Consider: 

"As for the intention of application, it is rightly said that Christ made satisfaction only for [Peter, Paul, and Moses--CD], though in regard to the sufficiency in the mediation of Christ it may also rightly be said that Christ made satisfaction for [Peter, Paul, and Moses; as well as Judas, Pharaoh, and Esau--CD]. Because these counsels of God are hidden to us, it is the part of charity to judge well of every one, although we may not say of all collectively that Christ equally pleads the cause of each before God."  
 From Ames' perverted perspective, what exactly does it mean to "judge well of every one"? According to Ames, in what sense does Christ plead the cause of the non-elect (i.e., reprobate)?