God wills the salvation of all, and therefore Jesus Christ died to save all
God loves all the things He has created: Diligis enim omnia, quae sunt, et nihil odisti eorum quae fecisti — "For You love all things that are, and hate none of the things You have made" (Wis. 11:25). Love cannot remain idle: Habet omnis amor vim suam, says St. Augustine, nec potest vacare — "All love has its own power, nor can it be idle." Hence love necessarily brings benevolence with it, so that the lover cannot fail to do good to the person loved whenever he can: Amor, quae bona illi esse credit quem amat, ea studet efficere — "Love strives to bring about the goods it believes to belong to the one it loves" — wrote Aristotle (Rhet. 1). If therefore God loves all men, He consequently wills that all should attain eternal salvation, which is the supreme and only good of man, since this is the only end for which He created them: Habetis fructum vestrum in sanctificationem, finem vero vitam aeternam — "You have your fruit unto sanctification, but the end is eternal life" (Rom. 6:22). This doctrine, that God wills the salvation of all and that Jesus Christ died for the salvation of all, is today a certain and Catholic doctrine of the Church, as the theologians commonly say — Petavius, Gonet, Gotti, and others along with Tournely, who adds that it is a doctrine proximate to faith. Hence the Predestinarians were rightly condemned, who, among other errors, as may be seen in Noris, Petavius, and more distinctly in Tournely, said that God does not will the salvation of all, as Hincmar, Archbishop of Reims, attested in his letter to Nicholas I, saying: Veteres Praedestinatiani dixerunt, quoniam non vult Deus omnes salvos fieri, sed tantum eos qui salvantur — "The ancient Predestinarians said that God does not will all men to be saved, but only those who are saved." These were condemned first by the Council of Arles in 475, where it was said: Anathema illi qui dixerit, quod Christus non pro omnibus mortuus sit, nec omnes homines salvos esse velit — "Anathema to him who says that Christ did not die for all, and that He does not will all men to be saved." And then by the Council of Lyon in 490, where Lucidus was forced to retract by declaring: Damno eum qui dicit quod Christus non mortem pro omnium salute susceperit — "I condemn him who says that Christ did not undergo death for the salvation of all." And likewise in the ninth century Gottschalk, who renewed the same error, was condemned by the Council of Quierzy, in which in art. 3 it was decreed: Deus omnes homines sine exceptione vult salvos fieri, licet non omnes salventur — "God wills all men without exception to be saved, although not all are saved." And in art. 4: Nullus est pro quo (Christus) passus non fuerit, licet non omnes ejus mysterio redimantur — "There is no one for whom (Christ) has not suffered, although not all are redeemed by His mystery." The same error was finally condemned in Propositions 12 and 30 of Quesnel. In one it was said: Quando Deus vult salvare Animam, effectus indubitabilis sequitur Voluntatem Dei — "When God wills to save a soul, an indubitable effect follows the will of God." In the other: Omnes quos Deus vult salvare per Christum, salvantur infallibiliter — "All whom God wills to save through Christ are infallibly saved." These propositions were justly condemned, precisely because they meant that God does not will the salvation of all; for by saying that those whom God wills to be saved are infallibly saved, it was deduced that God does not will the salvation of all the faithful, and still less of all men.
And this was also clearly expressed by the Council of Trent, Sess. 6, ch. 2, where it was said that Jesus Christ died Ut omnes adoptionem filiorum reciperent — "so that all might receive the adoption of sons." And in ch. 3: Verum, etsi ille pro omnibus mortuus est, non omnes tamen mortis ejus beneficium recipiunt — "But although He died for all, yet not all receive the benefit of His death." The Council therefore takes it for certain that the Redeemer died not only for the elect, but also for those who through their own fault do not receive the benefit of the Redemption. Nor is it valid to say that by this the Council meant only that Jesus Christ gave the world a price sufficient to save all; for in this sense it could be said that He died also for the demons. Moreover, here the Council of Trent intended to reprove the error of the Innovators, who did not deny that the Blood of Jesus Christ was sufficient to save all, but said that in fact it had not been shed and given for all; and this error the Council intended to condemn by saying that the Savior died for all. Furthermore, in ch. 6 it says that sinners dispose themselves to justification by hope in God through the merits of Jesus Christ: In spem eriguntur, fidentes Deum sibi propter Christum propitium fore — "They are raised to hope, trusting that God will be propitious to them for Christ's sake." Now if Jesus Christ had not applied the merits of His Passion for all, since no one could be certain (without special revelation) of being among the number of those to whom the Redeemer had willed to apply the fruit of His merits, no sinner could dispose himself with such hope, not having a certain and sure foundation (necessary for hope) that God wills the salvation of all, and wills to forgive all disposed sinners for the merits of Jesus Christ. And this, besides the error already condemned in Baius, who said that Jesus Christ died only for the elect, is also condemned in Jansenius in his fifth proposition: Semipelagianum est dicere, Christum pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuum esse, aut Sanguinem fudisse — "It is Semi-Pelagian to say that Christ died, or shed His Blood, for absolutely all men." And Innocent X in his constitution of the year 1653 expressly declared that to say Christ died only for the salvation of the elect is an impious and heretical proposition.
But, on the other hand, both the Scriptures and all the holy Fathers assure us that God sincerely, with a true will, wills the salvation of all and the conversion of all sinners while they live on this earth. Of this we have, first of all, the express text in St. Paul (1 Tim. 2:4): "Qui omnes homines vult salvos fieri, et ad agnitionem veritatis venire" ("Who wills all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth"). The statement of St. Paul is absolute and decisive: "Deus vult omnes homines salvos fieri" ("God wills all men to be saved"). These words, in their proper sense, declare that God truly wills all to be saved; and it is a certain rule, commonly received by all, that the words of Scripture must not be twisted to an improper sense, except in the sole case where the literal sense is repugnant to faith or to good morals. And this is just what St. Bonaventure meant to say, for our purpose, when he wrote: "Dicendum quod cum Apostolus dicat, quod Deus vult omnes homines salvos fieri, necesse habemus concedere, quod Deus velit" ("We must say that, since the Apostle says that God wills all men to be saved, we must necessarily grant that God so wills"). It is true that St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas report various interpretations that some have given to this text, but both these holy Doctors understood it of the true will that God has to save all without exception. And, speaking of St. Augustine, we shall see further on that this was the true mind of the Saint; hence St. Prosper rejects, as injurious to the holy Doctor, the assertion that St. Augustine ever supposed that the Lord does not sincerely will all, and each one of men, to be saved; wherefore St. Prosper himself, who was his most faithful disciple, wrote thus: "Sincerissime credendum atque profitendum est, Deum velle omnes homines salvos fieri; siquidem Apostolus (cujus haec sententia est) sollicite praecipit, ut Deo pro omnibus supplicetur" ("It must be most sincerely believed and professed that God wills all men to be saved; since the Apostle, whose saying this is, carefully enjoins that supplication be made to God for all"). The argument with which the Saint proves this is clear, since St. Paul in the place cited first says thus: "Obsecro igitur primum omnium. fieri obsecrationes... pro omnibus hominibus" ("I beseech, therefore, first of all, that supplications be made... for all men"). And then he adds: "Hoc enim bonum est et acceptum coram Salvatore nostro Deo, qui omnes homines vult salvos fieri" ("For this is good and acceptable before God our Savior, who wills all men to be saved"). St. Paul therefore wills that prayer be made for all, inasmuch as God wills all to be saved. And St. John Chrysostom made use of the same argument: "Si omnes ille vult salvos. fieri, merito pro omnibus oportet orare. Si omnes Ipse salvos fieri cupit, Illius et tu concorda voluntati" ("If He wills all to be saved, it is right to pray for all. If He Himself desires all to be saved, do you also conform your will to His"). And if in some place St. Augustine, disputing against the Semipelagians, seems to have held a different interpretation of the cited text, saying that God does not will each one of men to be saved, but only some; the most learned Petavius well observes that there the Saint spoke incidentally, and not of set purpose; or else he spoke of the grace of the absolute and conquering will, by which God absolutely wills some to be saved, the Saint having said in speaking of this: "Omnipotentis voluntas semper invicta est" ("The will of the Almighty is always unconquered").
Let us hear, by another way, how St. Thomas Aquinas reconciles the opinion of St. Augustine with that of St. John Damascene, who holds that God wills all, and each one of men, to be saved by the antecedent will: "Deus praecedenter vult omnes salvari, ut efficiat nos Bonitatis suae participes ut bonus; peccantes autem puniri vult ut justus" ("God antecedently wills all to be saved, so as to make us partakers of His goodness, inasmuch as He is good; but He wills sinners to be punished, inasmuch as He is just"). St. Augustine, on the contrary, seems in some place (as has been said) not to hold this. But St. Thomas Aquinas reconciles the two opinions, and says that St. Damascene spoke of the antecedent will of God, by which He truly wills all to be saved, and St. Augustine spoke of the consequent. St. Thomas Aquinas then goes on to explain, in the place cited, what this antecedent will of God is and what the consequent, and says: "Voluntas antecedens est, qua (Deus) omnes homines salvos fieri vult. Consideratis autem omnibus circumstantiis personae, sic non invenitur de omnibus bonum esse quod salventur; bonum enim est eum qui se praeparat, et consentit salvari, non vero nolentem et resistentem etc. Et haec dicitur voluntas consequens, eo quod praesupponit praescientiam operum, non tanquam causam voluntatis, sed quasi rationem voliti" ("The antecedent will is that by which God wills all men to be saved. But when all the circumstances of the person are considered, it is then not found to be good for all that they should be saved; for it is good that he who prepares himself and consents to be saved should be saved, but not one who is unwilling and resists, etc. And this is called the consequent will, inasmuch as it presupposes the foreknowledge of works, not as a cause of the will, but as it were the reason of the thing willed").
So St. Thomas Aquinas was also of the same mind — that God truly wills all, and each one of men, to be saved — and he confirms it in several other places; on the words, "Eum qui venit ad me, non ejiciam" ("Him who comes to Me I will not cast out"), adducing the authority of Chrysostom, he makes the Lord say: "Secundum Chrysostomum: Si ergo pro salute hominum incarnatus sum, quomodo debeo eos eicere? Et hoc est quod dicit: Ideo non ejicio, quia descendi de Caelo ut faciam voluntatem Patris, qui vult omnes salvos fieri" ("According to Chrysostom: If, therefore, I am incarnate for the salvation of men, how ought I to cast them out? And this is what He says: I do not cast them out because I came down from Heaven to do the will of the Father, who wills all to be saved"). In another place: "Deus voluntate sua liberalissima dat (gratiam) omni praeparanti se. I. Tim.. Qui vult omnes homines salvos fieri. Et ideo gratia Dei nulli deest, sed omnibus quantum in se est se communicat" ("God by His most liberal will gives [grace] to everyone who prepares himself. 1 Tim.: 'Who wills all men to be saved.' And therefore the grace of God is wanting to no one, but, as far as it is concerned, communicates itself to all"). Moreover, he declares it still more expressly in explaining the cited text of St. Paul (1 Tim. 2:4): "Qui vult omnes homines salvos fieri" ("Who wills all men to be saved"); the holy Doctor says: "In Deo salus omnium hominum secundum se considerata habet rationem ut sit volibilis, et sic ejus voluntas est antecedens; sed si consideretur bonum justitiae, et quod peccata puniantur, sic non vult, et haec est voluntas consequens" ("In God, the salvation of all men, considered in itself, is of such a nature as to be willed, and thus His will is antecedent; but if the good of justice be considered, and that sins should be punished, thus He does not will it, and this is the consequent will"). And here it is seen that St. Thomas Aquinas was firm in declaring what he meant by antecedent will and what by consequent; since here he confirms the same thing that he had already said on the Sentences, as we related a little before. He only adds in this place the similitude of the merchant, who antecedently wills to save all his merchandise; but when the storm comes on, he then no longer wills it to be saved, in order to save his life. And so likewise the Saint then says that God, considering the iniquity of some, wills them to be punished for the good of His justice, and consequently does not will them to be saved; but antecedently, with a true will (speaking in itself), He wills the salvation of all. So that, as he wrote before in another place, the Divine Will to save all is absolute on its own part, and is conditioned only on the part of the object willed, that is, if man wills to correspond, as the right order requires for attaining salvation: "Nec tamen (dice) est imperfectio ex parte Voluntatis Divinae, sed ex parte voliti quod non accipitur cum omnibus circumstantiis, quae exiguntur ad rectum ordinem in salutem" ("And yet [he says] there is no imperfection on the part of the Divine Will, but on the part of the thing willed, which is not accepted with all the circumstances that are required for the right order unto salvation"). And in the cited question 19 (art. 6 ad 1), St. Thomas Aquinas again and more distinctly declares what he means by antecedent will, and what by consequent, saying thus: "Iudex antecedenter vult omnem hominem vivere, sed consequenter vult homicidam suspendi. Similiter Deus antecedenter vult omnem hominem salvari, sed consequenter vult quosdam damnari, secundum exigentiam suae justitiae" ("A judge antecedently wills every man to live, but consequently wills the murderer to be hanged. Similarly God antecedently wills every man to be saved, but consequently wills some to be damned, according to the exigency of His justice").
I do not intend here to reprove the opinion that holds the predestination to glory before the prevision of merits; I only say that I cannot comprehend how those who hold that God, without any regard to merits, has elected some to eternal life and excluded others, can then persuade themselves that He wills all to be saved; unless perhaps they mean that this will of God is not true and sincere, but rather a hypothetical or metaphorical will. I do not understand, I say, how it can ever be asserted that God wills all men to be saved and partakers of glory, when by Him the greater part of them had already been excluded from this Glory antecedently to any demerit of theirs. Petavius says in defense of his contrary opinion: What did it avail, he says, that God had given all men the desire for eternal beatitude, when, antecedently to any demerit of theirs, He had excluded the greater part of them from it? What did it avail Jesus Christ to come and save all by His Death, when so many wretches had already been deprived of it by God beforehand? What did it avail to give them the means, if they had already been excluded beforehand from attaining the end? Wherefore the same Petavius adds (and this is a reflection of great weight) that if this had been so, we would have to say that God, who loves all the things He has created, in creating men did not love them all, but hated the greater part of them in the highest degree, by excluding them from the Glory for which He had created them. It is certain that the happiness of the creature consists in attaining the end for which it was created. It is certain, for its part, that God creates all men for eternal life. Now if God had created some men for eternal life, and then, without regard to their sins, had excluded them from it, in creating them He would have hated them in the highest degree and without cause, doing them the greatest harm they could ever incur, namely, being excluded from the attainment of their end, that is, from the Glory for which they had been created. Non enim (these are the words of Petavius, but abridged) medio quodam modo amorem inter et odium circa creaturas potest affici Deus, maxime circa homines, quos vel amat ad Vitam aeternam, vel odit ad damnationem. Est autem summum hominis malum alienari a Deo, ac reprobari. Quare, si cui Deus sempiternum vult exitium Animae, hunc non amat, sed odit odio illo, quod esse maximum potest in eo genere, quod naturalem ordinem excedit (For God cannot be affected toward creatures, most of all toward men, with either love or hatred in some middle way: He either loves them unto eternal life or hates them unto damnation. Now the greatest evil of man is to be alienated from God and reprobated. Wherefore, if God wills the eternal ruin of anyone's soul, He does not love him, but hates him with that hatred which can be the greatest of that kind which exceeds the natural order). And by that eternal ruin (sempiternum exitium) the Author does not mean the positive damnation that God destines for anyone, but the exclusion from Glory; since in fact, says Tertullian, what good would it do us that God did not create us for hell, if in creating us He had set us apart from the number of the elect? For to be separated from the elect necessarily entails losing salvation and being damned, since between the one and the other there is no middle ground. Quis erit enim (writes Tertullian) exitus segregatorum? nonne amissio salutis? (For what will be the end of those set apart? Will it not be the loss of salvation?) Hence Petavius concludes: Quamobrem, si omnem Deus amat hominem eo affectu, qui merita illorum antecedit, non eorum odit Animam, ac proinde non summum vult illis malum. (Wherefore, if God loves every man with that affection which precedes their merits, He does not hate their soul, and consequently does not will them the greatest evil.) If therefore
God loves all men, as is certain, we must hold that He wills all to be saved, and that He has never hated anyone to such a degree as to will him this great evil of excluding him from Glory before foreseeing his demerits.
Yet I do not say — and I repeat it again — that I can understand it; for in any case, this matter of Predestination is a mystery so profound that it made the Apostle exclaim: O altitudo divitiarum sapientiae et scientiae Dei, quam incomprehensibilia sunt judicia ejus, et investigabiles viae ejus! Quis enim cognovit sensum Domini? (Rom. 11:33: O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are His judgments, and how unsearchable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord?) We must submit ourselves to the will of the Lord, who has chosen to leave this mystery obscure in the Church, so that we may all humble ourselves beneath the lofty judgments of His Divine Providence. All the more so because divine grace, by which alone eternal life can be obtained by men, is without doubt dispensed by God more or less abundantly, altogether gratuitously and without any regard to our merits. Hence, to be saved, it will always be necessary for us to cast ourselves into the arms of the Divine Mercy, that He may assist us with His grace to obtain salvation, ever trusting in His infallible promises to hear and save those who pray to Him.
But let us return to our point, that God with a sincere will wills all to be saved. Let us see the other texts that prove the same. The Lord says through Ezekiel (33:11): Vivo ego, dicit Dominus: Nolo mortem impii, sed ut convertatur a via sua, et vivat (As I live, says the Lord: I do not will the death of the wicked, but that he turn from his way and live). He not only says that He does not will the death, but that He wills the life of the sinner; and He swears, as Tertullian observes, in order to be more readily believed in this: Jurans etiam, Vivo dicens, cupit sibi credi (Moreover, in swearing — saying, As I live — He desires to be believed).
Moreover David says: Quoniam ira in indignatione ejus, et vita in voluntate ejus (Ps. 29:6: For wrath is in His indignation, and life in His will). If He chastises us, He does so because our sins provoke Him to indignation; but as for His will, He wills not our death but our life: Et vita in voluntate ejus (And life is in His will). St. Basil, explaining this very text, says: Et vita in voluntate ejus. Quid ergo dicit? nimirum quod vult Deus omnes vitae fieri participes (And life in His will. What then does he say? Surely that God wills all to become partakers of life). Moreover the same Prophet says: Deus noster, Deus salvos faciendi: et Domini Domini exitus mortis
(Ps. 67:21: Our God is the God of salvation; and to the Lord, to the Lord belong the issues from death). Bellarmine comments: Hoc est Illi proprium, haec est ejus natura, Deus noster est Deus salvans, et Dei nostri sunt exitus mortis, id est liberatio a morte (This is proper to Him, this is His nature: our God is a God who saves, and to our God belong the issues from death, that is, deliverance from death). So that it is proper to God, and His very nature, to save all and to deliver all from eternal death.
Moreover the Lord says: Venite ad me omnes, qui laboratis, et onerati estis, et ego reficiam vos (Matt. 11:28: Come to Me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will refresh you). If He calls all to salvation, then He has a true will to save all. Moreover St. Peter says: Nolens aliquos perire, sed omnes ad poenitentiam reverti (2 Pet. 3:9: not willing that any should perish, but that all should return to penance). He does not will the damnation of anyone, but wills that all (omnes) do penance and be saved by it.
Moreover the Lord says: Sto ad ostium et pulso, si quis aperuerit, intrabo (Rev. 3:20: Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone opens to Me, I will come in). Quare moriemini domus Israel? revertimini, et vivite (Ezek. 18:31: Why will you die, O house of Israel? Return, and live). Quid est quod debui ultra facere vineae meae et non feci? (Isa. 5:4: What is there that I ought to have done more for My vineyard, and have not done?) Quoties volui congregare filios suos, quemadmodum gallina congregat pullos suos sub alas, et noluisti? (Matt. 23:38: How often would I have gathered your children, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not?) How could the Lord say that He stands knocking at the hearts of us sinners? How exhort us so earnestly to return to His arms? How reproach us, saying, What more ought I to have done to save you? How say that He willed to gather us as children, if He did not have a true will to save all? Moreover St. Luke relates that Jesus Christ, beholding Jerusalem from afar and considering the ruin of that people by reason of their sin, videns civitatem flevit super illam (Luke 19:41: seeing the city, He wept over it). Why then did He weep, says Theophylact with Chrysostom, on seeing the ruin of the Jews, if not because He truly desired their salvation? Now after so many attestations of the
Lord, by which the will He has to see all saved is made manifest, can it ever be said that God does not will the salvation of all? Quod si ista (Petavius goes on to say) Scripturae loca, quibus hanc suam voluntatem, tam illustribus ac saepe repetitis sententiis, imo lacrymis, ac jurejurando testatus est Deus, calumniari licet, et in contrarium detorquere sensum, ut (praeter paucos) Genus humanum omne perdere statuerit, nec eorum servandorum voluntatem habuerit, quid est adeo disertum in Fidei decretis, quod simili ab injuria et cavillatione tutum esse possit? (But if these passages of Scripture, by which God has attested this will of His with such illustrious and oft-repeated declarations, nay, with tears and with an oath, may be calumniated and twisted into a contrary sense, as though He had decreed to destroy the whole human race (except a few) and had no will to save them, then what is there so plainly expressed in the decrees of the Faith that can be safe from similar outrage and cavil?) To say that God does not truly will all to be saved, says this great Author, is an outrage and a cavil against the clearest decrees of the Faith. And Cardinal Sfondrati adds: Plane qui aliter sentiant, nescio an ex Deo vero Deum scenicum faciant, quales sint qui Reges in Theatro se fingunt, cum tamen nihil minus quam Reges sint (Plainly, those who think otherwise — I know not whether they make of the true God a stage-god, like those who play kings in the theater, when yet they are anything but kings).
This truth, moreover, that God wills all to be saved, is commonly confirmed by the holy Fathers. There is no doubt that on this point all the Greek Fathers were uniform in saying that God wills all men, and each one of them, to be saved: so St. Justin, St. Basil, St. Gregory, St. Cyril, St. Methodius, St. Chrysostom, all cited by Petavius. But let us see what the Latin Fathers also say of it. St. Jerome: Vult (Deus) salvare omnes, sed quia nullus absque propria voluntate salvatur, vult nos bonum velle, ut cum voluerimus, velit in nobis et Ipse suum implere consilium ((God) wills to save all; but because no one is saved without his own will, He wills us to will the good, so that when we have willed, He Himself may also will to fulfill His counsel in us). And elsewhere: Voluit itaque Deus salvare cupientes; et provocavit ad salutem, ut voluntas haberet praemium sed illi credere noluerunt (God therefore willed to save those who desire it; and He urged them on to salvation, that the will might have its reward; but they refused to believe). St. Hilary: Omnes homines Deus salvos fieri velit, et non eos tantum qui ad Sanctorum numerum pertinebunt, sed omnes omnino, ut nullas habeat exceptiones (God wills all men to be saved, and not only those who will belong to the number of the saints, but absolutely all, so as to admit no exceptions). St. Paulinus: Omnibus dicit Christus venite ad me etc. omnem enim (quantum in Ipso est) hominem salvum fieri vult, qui fecit omnes (To all Christ says, Come to Me, etc.; for, as far as in Him lies, He wills every man to be saved — He who made all). St. Ambrose: Etiam circa impios suam ostendere debuit voluntatem, et ideo nec proditurum debuit praeterire, ut adverterent omnes, quod in electionem etiam proditoris sui salvandorum omnium insigne praetendit... et, quod in Deo fuit, ostendit omnibus, quod omnes voluit liberare (Even toward the impious He had to show His will, and therefore He could not pass over even the betrayer, so that all might perceive that even in the choice of His betrayer He displayed the pledge of saving all... and, as far as in God lay, He showed to all that He willed to deliver all). The Author of the work that bears the title of the Commentaries of St. Ambrose (and who is believed to be Hilary the Deacon, as Petavius writes), commenting on the text of St. Paul, Qui vult omnes homines etc. (Who wills all men, etc.), asks thus: But since God wills all to be saved, being omnipotent, why are so many not saved? And he answers: Vult illos salvari, si et ipsi velint, nam utique qui legem dedit, neminem exclusit a salute... haec medicina non proficit invitis (He wills them to be saved if they themselves also will it; for He who gave the law has excluded no one from salvation... this medicine does not profit the unwilling). He says that the Lord has not excluded anyone from glory for any other reason, and that He gives grace to all to save them, but on the condition that they are willing to correspond, since His grace is of no avail to one who rejects it. St. Chrysostom similarly asks: Cur igitur non omnes salvi fiunt, si vult (Deus) omnes salvos esse? (Why, then, are not all saved, if (God) wills all to be saved?) And he answers: Quoniam non omnium voluntas illius voluntatem sequitur, porro ipse neminem cogit (Because the will of all does not follow His will; and moreover, He compels no one). St. Augustine: Vult Deus omnes homines salvos fieri, non sic tamen ut eis liberum adimat arbitrium (God wills all men to be saved, yet not so as to take away their free will). And St. Augustine is of the same mind in several other places, which we shall shortly cite below.
That Jesus Christ, moreover, died for all, and for each one of men, is also clear, both from the Scriptures and from what the holy Fathers say of it. Great indeed was the ruin that the sin of Adam brought upon the whole human race; but Jesus Christ, by the grace of the Redemption, repaired all the evils brought upon us by Adam. Hence the Council of Trent declared (Sess. 5, in the Decree on Original Sin, ch. 5) that baptism renders souls pure and immaculate; and that the fomes that remains in them is not left for their harm, but to enable them to gain a greater crown, if they resist and do not consent to it: In Renatis enim nihil odit Deus... innocentes, immaculati, puri, ac Deo dilecti effecti sunt etc. Manere autem in Baptizatis concupiscentiam vel fomitem, haec Sancta Synodus fatetur et sentit: quae cum ad agonem relicta sit, nocere non consentientibus non valet quinimo, qui legitime certaverit, coronabitur (For in the reborn God hates nothing... they are made innocent, immaculate, pure, and beloved of God, etc. But this holy Synod confesses and holds that concupiscence or the fomes remains in the baptized; which, since it is left for the struggle, cannot harm those who do not consent; nay rather, he who has striven lawfully shall be crowned). Nay rather, as St. Leo says, Ampliora adepti (sumus) per Christi gratiam, quam per Diaboli amiseramus invidiam (We have gained greater things through the grace of Christ than we had lost through the envy of the Devil). The gain we have made through the Redemption of Jesus Christ has been greater than the harm we suffered through the sin of Adam. And the Apostle well declared this, saying: Non sicut delictum, ita et donum. Ubi autem abundavit delictum superabundavit gratia (Rom. 5:15, 20: Not as the offense, so also is the gift. But where the offense abounded, grace abounded all the more). And our Savior Himself declared it: Ego veni, ut vitam habeant, et abundantius habeant (John 10:10: I came that they may have life, and have it more abundantly). And David and Isaiah had well foretold it beforehand. David said: Et copiosa apud eum redemptio (Ps. 129:7: And with Him is plentiful redemption). And Isaiah: Suscepit de manu Domini duplicia pro omnibus peccatis suis (Isa. 40:2: She has received from the hand of the Lord double for all her sins). On which words the interpreter wrote: Deus ita dimisit Ecclesiae iniquitates per Christum, ut duplicia (id est multiplicia bona) susceperit pro poenis peccatorum quas merebatur (God so forgave the Church her iniquities through Christ that she received double — that is, manifold goods — instead of the punishments for sins which she deserved).
Now that our Savior, as I said, died for all, and that for the salvation of each man He offered the work of His Redemption to the Eternal Father, the Divine Scriptures assure us: Venit Filius hominis salvare quod perierat (Matt. 18:11: The Son of Man came to save that which was lost). Qui dedit redemptionem semet ipsum pro omnibus (1 Tim. 2:6: Who gave Himself a redemption for all). Pro omnibus mortuus est Christus, ut et qui vivunt, non jam sibi vivant, sed ei qui pro ipsis mortuus est (2 Cor. 5:15: Christ died for all, that they who live may no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died for them). In hoc enim laboramus, et maledicimur, quia speramus in Deum vivum, qui est Salvator omnium hominum, maxime fidelium (1 Tim. 4:10: For to this end we labor and are reviled, because we hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of the faithful). Et ipse est propitiatio pro peccatis nostris; non pro nostris autem tantum, sed etiam pro totius mundi (1 John 2:2: And He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world). Caritas enim Christi urget nos, existimantes hoc, quoniam si unus pro omnibus mortuus est, ergo omnes mortui sunt (2 Cor. 5:14: For the charity of Christ urges us, judging this: that if one died for all, then all were dead). And speaking only of this last passage, I ask how the Apostle could ever deduce, from the fact that Jesus Christ died for all, that all were dead, if he did not hold it for certain that Jesus Christ truly died for all? All the more since St. Paul draws from this same truth an argument for the love that it kindles in us toward our Savior. But above all, to display the desire and will that God has to save all, what the same Apostle says avails (Rom. 8:32): Qui etiam proprio Filio suo non perpecit, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit illum (Who spared not even His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all). And the words that follow carry still greater force: Quomodo non etiam cum illo omnia nobis donavit? (How has He not also, with Him, given us all things?) If God has given us all things, how then should we fear that He has denied us the election to glory, save on the condition of our correspondence? And if He has given us the Son, says the learned Cardinal Sfondrati, how will He deny us the grace to save ourselves? Hic diserte nos instruit (the aforesaid author says, speaking of St. Paul) Deum nos certos facere, non negaturum minus, qui dedit majus, non negaturum gratiam ad salvandum, qui dedit Filium ut salvaremur (Here he expressly teaches us that God gives us assurance that He who gave the greater will not deny the lesser; that He who gave the Son that we might be saved will not deny the grace to save us). And in truth, how could St. Paul say that God, in giving us the Son, has given us all things, if the Apostle had believed that the Lord has excluded many from glory, which is the only good and the only end for which He created us? To these same many, then, has the Lord given all things, and then denied them the best — eternal beatitude, without which (since there is no middle way) they cannot but be eternally miserable? Unless indeed we wish to say another thing still more unseemly, as another learned author well observes — that God gives to all the grace to attain glory, but then denies many the entrance to enjoy it: He gives the means, but denies the end.
For the rest, all the holy Fathers agree in saying that Jesus Christ died to obtain eternal salvation for all. St. Jerome: Christus pro omnibus mortuus est: solus inventus est, qui pro omnibus, qui erant in peccatis mortui, offerretur (Christ died for all: He alone was found to be offered for all who were dead in sins). St. Ambrose: Venit (Christus) ut vulnera nostra curaret; sed quia non omnes medicinam expetunt... ideo volentes curat, non adstringit invitos (Christ came to heal our wounds; but since not all seek the remedy... therefore He heals the willing; He does not constrain the unwilling). In another place: Omnibus opem sanitatis detulit, ut quicumque perierit, mortis suae causas sibi adscribat, qui curari noluit, cum remedium haberet. Christi autem manifesta in omnes praedicetur misericordia, qui omnes homines vult salvos fieri (He brought the help of healing to all, so that whoever perishes may ascribe the cause of his death to himself, since he refused to be cured though he had the remedy; and that the mercy of Christ, who wills all men to be saved, may be proclaimed as manifest toward all). And in another place more clearly: Non ad unum quidem, non ad paucos, sed ad omnes testamentum suum scripsit Jesus, omnes scripti haeredes sumus; testamentum commune est, et jus omnium; haereditas universorum, et soliditas singulorum (Jesus wrote His testament not for one, not for a few, but for all: we are all written heirs; the testament is a common one and the right of all; the inheritance of all, and the entire possession of each). Mark the words, omnes scripti haeredes sumus (we are all written heirs); so the Redeemer has written us all as His heirs of Heaven. St. Leo: Sicut Christus nullum a reatu liberum reperit, ita liberandis omnibus venit (As Christ found no one free from guilt, so He came to set all free). St. Augustine, on those words of St. John (3:17), Non enim misit Deus Filium suum, ut judicet mundum, sed ut salvetur mundus per ipsum (For God did not send His Son to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him), says: Ergo, quantum in Medico est, sanare venit aegrotum (Therefore, as far as the Physician is concerned, He came to heal the sick man). Mark the words, quantum in Medico est (as far as the Physician is concerned); therefore God, as far as He is concerned, efficaciously wills the salvation of all, but cannot heal (as St. Augustine adds) one who does not will to be healed: Sanat omnino Ille, sed non sanat invitum (He heals entirely, but He does not heal the unwilling). Quid enim in te beatius, quam ut tanquam in manu tua vitam, sic in voluntate tua sanitatem habeas? (For what is more blessed in you than that, as life is in your hand, so you should have health in your will?) When the Saint says sanat (He heals), he speaks of sinners who are sick and unable to procure health by their own strength; in saying omnino (entirely), he declares that nothing is wanting on God's part for sinners to be healed and saved; and in then saying, in manu tua vitam, sic in voluntate tua sanitatem habeas (life is in your hand, so you have health in your will), he declares that God with a true will, for His part, wills all to be saved — otherwise it would not be in our power to obtain health and eternal life. In another place: Qui nos tanto pretio redemit, non vult perire, nec enim emit quos perdat, sed emit quos vivificet (He who redeemed us at so great a price does not will us to perish; for He did not buy those whom He would lose, but bought those whom He would bring to life). He has redeemed us all, to save us all. And hence he encourages all to hope for eternal beatitude with that celebrated sentence: Erigat se humana fragilitas; non dicat, non ero beatus... Plus est quod (Christus) fecit, quam quod promisit. Quid fecit? Mortuus est pro te. Quid promisit? quod vives cum Illo (Let human frailty lift itself up; let it not say, I shall not be blessed... Greater is what (Christ) has done than what He has promised. What has He done? He died for you. What has He promised? That you shall live with Him). Some have wished to say that Jesus Christ offered His Blood for all in order to obtain grace for them, but not salvation. But Petrocorensis, speaking against these, cannot abide this opinion, and exclaims: O contentiosam nugacitatem! Quomodo Dei Sapientia medium salutis voluit, et non finem salutis? (O contentious trifling! How could the Wisdom of God have willed the means of salvation, and not the end of salvation?) St. Augustine, moreover, speaking against the Jews, says: Agnoscitis latus quod pupugistis, quoniam et per vos, et propter vos apertum est (You acknowledge the side that you pierced, since it was opened both by you and for you). If Jesus Christ had not truly given His Blood for all, the Jews could have answered St. Augustine that it was indeed true that they had opened the side of the Lord, but not that it had been opened for them.
St. Thomas Aquinas likewise does not doubt that Jesus Christ died for all, and from this he concludes that He wills all to be saved: "Christus Jesus est mediator Dei et hominum, non quorumdam, sed inter Deum et omnes homines, et hoc non esset, nisi vellet omnes salvare" ("Christ Jesus is the mediator of God and men, not of some only, but between God and all men; and this would not be so, unless He willed to save all"). This is confirmed (as has already been said above) by the condemnation of the fifth Proposition of Jansenius, which stated: "Semipelagianum est dicere, Christum pro omnibus hominibus mortuum esse, aut sanguinem fudisse" ("It is Semipelagian to say that Christ died, or shed His blood, for all men"). The sense of this Proposition, according to the context of the other condemned Propositions and according to the principles of Jansenius, is this: Jesus Christ did not die to merit for all the graces sufficient for salvation, but only for the Predestined, as Jansenius himself clearly expressed it in a passage where he wrote thus: "Nullo modo ejus (scil. Augustini) principiis consentaneum est, ut Christus Dominus vel pro Infidelium in infidelitate morientium, vel pro Justorum non perseverantium aeterna salute mortuum esse, et Sanguinem fudisse sentiatur" ("In no way is it consistent with his [scil. Augustine's] principles to hold that Christ the Lord died and shed His blood either for the eternal salvation of unbelievers dying in their unbelief, or of the just who do not persevere"). The contrary Catholic sense, therefore, is this: it is not Semipelagian, but right, to say that Jesus Christ died to merit — not only for the Predestined, but for all, and even for the Reprobate — the graces for attaining eternal salvation according to the present providence.
Moreover, that God truly, on His part, wills all to be saved, and that Jesus Christ died for the salvation of all, is assured to us by the precept of hope, which the Lord imposes on all. The reason is clear. St. Paul calls Christian hope the anchor of the soul, sure and firm: "Qui confugimus ad tenendam propositam spem, quam sicut anchoram habemus animae tutam ac firmam" ("We who have fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before us, which we have as an anchor of the soul, secure and firm") (Heb. 6:18). Now where would we find this sure and firm anchor of our hope, if not upon the truth that God wills all to be saved? "Qua fiducia (says the Petrocoriensian author) Divinam Misericordiam sperare poterunt homines, si certum non sit quod Deus salutem omnium eorum velit? Qua fiducia Christi mortem Deo offerre, ut indulgentiam consequantur si incertum est, an pro ipsis oblata sit?" ("With what confidence will men be able to hope for the Divine Mercy, if it be not certain that God wills the salvation of them all? With what confidence can they offer the death of Christ to God to obtain pardon, if it is uncertain whether it was offered for them?"). And Cardinal Sfondrati says that if God had elected some to eternal life and excluded others, we should have greater reason to despair than to hope, seeing already in fact that the Elect are far fewer than the Damned: "Nemo firmiter (says the aforesaid author) sperare posset, dum ei plura desperandi quam sperandi fundamenta suppetunt; nam multo plures sunt Reprobi, quam Electi" ("No one could firmly hope while he has more grounds for despairing than for hoping; for the Reprobate are far more numerous than the Elect"). And if Jesus Christ had not died for the salvation of all, how could we have a certain foundation for hoping for salvation through the merits of Jesus Christ, without a special revelation? But St. Augustine did not doubt this, saying: "Omnis namque spes, et Fidei certitudo mihi est in pretioso Sanguine Christi, qui effusus est propter nos et propter nostram salutem" ("For all my hope and the certainty of my faith is in the precious Blood of Christ, which was shed for us and for our salvation"). So that the Saint placed all his hope in the Blood of Jesus Christ precisely because faith assured him that Jesus Christ had died for all. But we shall have to examine this argument from hope more fully in Chapter IV, when we speak of the principal Point, namely, that the grace of prayer is given to all.
But it remains here to answer the objection that is raised concerning children who are lost, dying before Baptism and before the use of reason. If God wills all to be saved (it is objected), how then do these little ones perish through no fault of their own, since they are deprived of every divine help for attaining eternal salvation? There are two answers, the one more correct than the other. I will state them briefly. First, it is answered that God, by His antecedent will, wills all to be saved, and for that reason has already given the universal means whereby all may be saved; but these means sometimes fail of their effect, either by reason of the will of those who refuse to avail themselves of them, or by reason that others cannot avail themselves of them on account of secondary causes (such as the natural deaths of children), whose course God is not bound to impede, having disposed all things according to the just judgments of His general Providence. All this is gathered from what St. Thomas Aquinas says: Jesus Christ offered His merits for all, and for all He instituted Baptism. The application of this remedy of salvation, then, in the case of children who die before they are capable of reason, is not impeded by the direct will of God, but by His merely permissive will; for, being the universal Provider of all things, He must not disturb the general order in order to provide for the particular.
The second answer is that not to be blessed is not the same thing as to perish; for eternal beatitude is an entirely gratuitous gift, and hence the privation of it has not the character of a punishment. Very just, moreover, is the opinion of St. Thomas Aquinas, that children who die in their infancy suffer neither the pain of sense nor the pain of loss: not the pain of sense, says the holy Doctor, "Quia poena sensus respondet conversioni ad creaturam, et in peccato originali non est conversio ad creaturam" (there being no personal fault),
"et ideo peccato originali non debetur poena sensus" ("because the pain of sense corresponds to the turning toward the creature, and in original sin there is no turning toward the creature, and therefore the pain of sense is not due to original sin"), since original sin involves no act. To this, opponents object the doctrine of St. Augustine, who in a certain passage shows that he held that children are condemned also to the pain of sense. But in another place the Saint declares that on this point he was himself greatly perplexed; these are his words: "Cum ad poenam ventum est Parvulorum, magnis (mihi crede) angustiis arctor, nec quidquid respondendum penitus invenio" ("When it comes to the punishment of little children, I am, believe me, in great straits, and I find nothing at all to answer"). And in another place he writes that it can well be said that such children receive neither reward nor punishment: "Non essim timendum est, ne non potuerit esse sententia media inter praemium et supplicium cum sit vita media inter peccatum et recte factum" ("For it is not to be feared that there could be no middle sentence between reward and punishment, since there is a middle life between sin and right action"). And this
St. Gregory Nazianzen then wrote assertively: "Parvuli nec caelesti Gloria, nec suppliciis a justo Judice afficientur" ("Little children will be affected neither by heavenly glory nor by punishments from the just Judge"). And of the same opinion was St. Gregory of Nyssa: "Immatura mors Infantium demonstrat neque in doloribus et maestitia futuros eos, qui sic vivere desierunt" ("The untimely death of infants shows that those who thus ceased to live will be neither in pains nor in sorrow").
As for the pain of loss, although children are excluded from glory, nevertheless St. Thomas Aquinas, who has reflected more deeply on this point, teaches that no one grieves over the privation of a good of which he is not capable; hence, just as no man grieves that he cannot fly, or that, being a private person, he is not emperor, so children do not grieve at being deprived of a glory of which they have never been capable, since they could lay claim to it neither by the principles of nature nor by their own merits. St. Thomas Aquinas adds, in another place, another reason for this, saying that the supernatural knowledge of glory is had only by means of actual faith, which surpasses every natural knowledge; and hence it is that children can suffer no pain from the privation of glory, since they have never had any supernatural knowledge of it. Moreover, he says in the place first cited that such children will not only not grieve at being deprived of eternal beatitude, but will moreover enjoy their natural goods, and will in some manner also enjoy God, insofar as natural knowledge and natural love imply: "Immo magis gaudebunt de hoc quod participabunt multum de Divina Bonitate, et perfectionibus naturalibus" ("Nay rather, they will rejoice the more in this, that they will partake greatly of the Divine Goodness and of natural perfections"). And he adds further that, although such children are separated from God as regards the union of glory, nevertheless "Illi conjunguntur per participationem naturalium bonorum, et ita etiam de Ipso gaudere poterunt naturali cognitione, et dilectione" ("they are united to Him through the participation of natural goods, and so they will also be able to rejoice in Him by natural knowledge and love").
q Nodus Praedest. part. I. § I.
aa S. Aug. de Spirit. et litt. cap. 3.
ab S. Leo Serm. I. de Ascens.
ac Apud Corn. a Lapide in loco cit. Isaiae.
ad Nod. praedest. vide p. I. § 2. n. I.
ae S. Hier. Comment. in 2. ad Cor. cap. 5.
af S. Ambr. in Ps. 72.
ag Idem lib. 2. de Abel cap. 3.
ah Idem in Psalm. 118. v. 111.
ai S. Leo. Serm. I. de Nativ. Dom. c. I.
al S. Aug. tr. 12. in Jo. circa fin.
am Idem Serm. 109. de Temp.
an Petrocor. tom. I. lib. 3. cap. 4.
ao S. Aug. lib. 2. de Symb. ad Cat. cap. 8.
ap S. Thom. ad I. Tim. 2. Lect. I.
aq Jans. lib. De gratia Christi, cap. 21.
ar Petroc. to. I. c. 3. qu. 4.
as S. Thom. I. p. q. 22. a. 2. ad 2.
at S. Thom. de Malo q. 5. a. 2.
au S. August. lib. 5. contra Jullian. cap. 8, et Epist. 28 ad Hieron.
av Idem lib. 3. de lib. arb. cap. 23.
az S. Greg. Naz. Serm. in S. Lavacr.
ax S. Greg. Nyss. de Infant.
ba S. Thom. 2. Sent. Dist. 33. q. I. a. 2.
bb Idem de Malo q. 5. a. 2.
bc Idem 2. Sent. dist. 33. q. I. a. 2.
bd S. Thom. loco cit. infra ad 5.