Preliminary I

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 (Wis. 11:25). Love cannot remain idle: Habet omnis amor vim suam, says St. Augustine, nec potest vacare. Hence love necessarily carries with it benevolence, 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, wrote Aristotle. If then God loves all men, He consequently wills that all should acquire eternal salvation, which is the supreme and only good of man, since this is the sole end for which He created them. Habetis fructum vestrum in sanctificationem, finem vero vitam aeternam (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 theologians commonly say: Petavius, Gonet, Gotti, and others, along with Tournely, who adds that it is a doctrine proximate to the Faith. Hence the Predestinarians were rightly condemned, who among other errors (as can be seen in Noris and Petavius, and more distinctly in Tournely) said that God does not will the salvation of all, as Hincmar, Archbishop of Reims, attested in his Epistle to Nicholas I, saying: Veteres Praedestinatiani dixerunt, quoniam non vult Deus omnes salvos fieri, sed tantum eos qui salvantur. These were condemned first by the Council of Arles in 475, where it was declared: Anathema illi qui dixerit, quod Christus non pro omnibus mortuus sit, nec omnes homines salvos esse velit. And then by the Council of Lyons in 490, where Lucidus was compelled to retract, declaring: Damno eum qui dicit quod Christus non mortem pro omnium salute susceperit. And likewise in the ninth century Gottschalk, who renewed the same error, was condemned by the Council of Quiersy, in which Article 3 decreed: Deus omnes homines sine exceptione vult salvos fieri, licet non omnes salventur. And in Article 4: Nullus est pro quo passus non fuerit, licet non omnes ejus mysterio redimantur. The same error was lastly condemned in Propositions 12 and 30 of Quesnel. In one it was said: Quando Deus vult salvare Animam, effectus indubitabilis sequitur Voluntatem Dei. In the other: Omnes quos Deus vult salvare per Christum, salvantur infallibiliter. These propositions were justly condemned precisely because they signified that God does not will the salvation of all; for by saying that those whom God wills to save are infallibly saved, it was deduced that God does not will the salvation of all the faithful, and much less of all men.

And this was also clearly expressed by the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 2, where it said that Jesus Christ died Ut omnes adoptionem filiorum reciperent. And in Chapter 3: Verum, etsi ille pro omnibus mortuus est, non omnes tamen mortis ejus beneficium recipiunt. The Council therefore supposes as certain that the Redeemer died not only for the elect but also for those who do not receive the benefit of redemption through their own fault. Nor is it valid to say that by this the Council merely wished to say that Jesus Christ gave the world a price sufficient to save all, since in that sense it could be said that He died even for the demons. Moreover, here the Tridentine wished 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 is the error the Council wished to condemn by saying that the Savior died for all. Furthermore, in Chapter 6 it says that sinners dispose themselves for justification by hope in God through the merits of Jesus Christ: In spem eriguntur, fidentes Deum sibi propter Christum propitium fore. Now if Jesus Christ had not applied His merits for all, since no one could be certain (without a special revelation) of being among the number of those to whom the Redeemer had wished to apply the fruit of His merits, no sinner could dispose himself with such hope, having no certain and sure foundation (necessary for hope) that God wills the salvation of all and wills to pardon all repentant sinners through the merits of Jesus Christ. And this, besides the error already condemned in Baius — who said that Jesus Christ died only for the elect — was condemned also in Jansenius in his Fifth Proposition: Semipelagianum est dicere, Christum pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuum esse, aut Sanguinem fudisse. 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, desires the salvation of all and the conversion of all sinners while they live on this earth. Of this we have first the express text of St. Paul (1 Tim. 2:4): Qui omnes homines vult salvos fieri, et ad agnitionem veritatis venire. The Apostle's statement is absolute and decisive: Deus vult omnes homines salvos fieri. These words in their proper sense declare that God truly wills the salvation of all; and it is a certain rule, commonly received by all, that the words of Scripture are not to be twisted to an improper sense except in the sole case that the literal sense is repugnant to the Faith or to good morals. And precisely this, in connection with our subject, St. Bonaventure meant when he wrote: Dicendum quod cum Apostolus dicat, quod Deus vult omnes homines salvos fieri, necesse habemus concedere, quod Deus velit. It is true that St. Augustine and St. Thomas cite 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 as for St. Augustine, we shall see below that this was the true sentiment of the Saint; hence St. Prosper rejects as an injustice to the Holy Doctor the attempt to say that St. Augustine ever supposed that the Lord does not sincerely will the salvation of all and each of men. And so St. Prosper, 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. The argument by which the Saint proves it is clear, since St. Paul in the place cited first says: Obsecro igitur primum omnium fieri obsecrationes... pro omnibus hominibus. And then adds: Hoc enim bonum est et acceptum coram Salvatore nostro Deo, qui omnes homines vult salvos fieri. Therefore the Apostle wills that we pray for all precisely because God wills the salvation of all. And of the same argument St. John Chrysostom availed himself: Si omnes ille vult salvos fieri, merito pro omnibus oportet orare. Si omnes Ipse salvos fieri cupit, Illius et tu concorda voluntati. And if in some place St. Augustine, disputing against the Semi-Pelagians, seems to have held a different interpretation of the cited text, saying that God does not will the salvation of each of men but only of some, Petavius rightly observes that there the Saint spoke incidentally, not purposely; or else he spoke of the grace of the absolute and victorious will, by which God absolutely wills the salvation of some, the Saint having said in this regard: Omnipotentis voluntas semper invicta est.

Let us hear by another way how St. Thomas reconciles the opinion of St. Augustine with that of St. John Damascene, who holds that God wills the salvation of all and each of men with an antecedent will: Deus praecedenter vult omnes salvari, ut efficiat nos Bonitatis suae participes ut bonus; peccantes autem puniri vult ut justus. St. Augustine on the other hand in some place (as has been said) seems not to hold this. But St. Thomas reconciles the two positions and says that St. Damascene spoke of the antecedent will of God, by which He truly wills the salvation of all, and St. Augustine spoke of the consequent will. St. Thomas then explains in the cited place 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.

So that St. Thomas also was of the same sentiment, that God truly wills the salvation of all and each of men; and he confirms it in many other places. On the words Eum qui venit ad me, non ejiciam, citing the authority of Chrysostom, he has 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. 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. Furthermore, he declares it more expressly in explaining the cited text of St. Paul (1 Tim. 2:4): Qui vult omnes homines salvos fieri; 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.

And here it is seen that the Angelic Doctor was firm in declaring what he meant by the antecedent will and what by the consequent; for here he confirms the same thing he had already said on the Sentences, as we have just reported. He adds only in this place the comparison of the merchant, who antecedently wills to save all his merchandise, but when the storm comes, then he no longer wills to save it, in order to save his life. And so likewise the Saint says that God, considering the iniquity of some, wills them punished for the sake of His justice, and consequently does not will them saved; but antecedently, with a true will (speaking in itself), He wills the salvation of all. So that, as he wrote earlier elsewhere, the Divine will to save all on His part is absolute; it is conditioned only on the part of the object willed — that is, if man will correspond, as the right order for attaining salvation requires: Nec tamen est imperfectio ex parte Voluntatis Divinae, sed ex parte voliti quod non accipitur cum omnibus circumstantiis, quae exiguntur ad rectum ordinem in salutem. And in the cited Question 19 (Article 6, ad 1) the Angelic Doctor again and more distinctly declares what he means by the antecedent will and what by the 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.

I do not intend here to reprove the opinion that holds predestination to glory to be prior to the prevision of merits; I say only that I cannot understand 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 the salvation of all — unless they understand this will of God not as true and sincere, but rather as a hypothetical or metaphorical will. I cannot understand, I say, how it can ever be asserted that God wills all men saved and sharers of glory, when the greater part of them had been by Him already antecedently to every demerit of theirs excluded from that glory. Petavius says in defense of his contrary opinion: What was the use, he says, of God having given all men the desire of eternal beatitude, when antecedently to every demerit of theirs He had excluded the greater part from it? What use was it for Jesus Christ to come to save all by His death, when already beforehand so many wretches had been deprived by God? What use was it to give them the means if they had already been excluded from attaining the end? Therefore the same Petavius adds (and this is a reflection of great weight) and says that if this had been the case, we would have to say that God, who loves all the things He has created, in creating men did not love them all, but for the most part hated them to the utmost, excluding them from the glory for which He had created them. It is certain that the happiness of a creature consists in attaining the end for which it is created. It is certain on the other hand that God creates all men for eternal life. Now if God had created some men for eternal life and then without regard to their faults had excluded them from it, in creating them He would have gratuitously hated them to the utmost, doing them the greatest harm that could ever befall them — namely, exclusion 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. And by that eternal ruin (sempiternum exitium) the author does not mean the positive damnation that God destines for someone, but the exclusion from glory, since in fact, says Tertullian, what good would it do us not to have been created for hell, if in creating us He had separated us from the number of the elect? For being separated from the elect necessarily means 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? 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. If then God loves all men, as is certain, we must hold that He wills the salvation of all, and that He has never hated anyone to such a degree as to wish him the great evil of excluding him from glory before foreseeing his demerits.

I say, however, and I always repeat, that I cannot understand it; for since this matter of predestination is so profound an arcanum 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), we must submit ourselves to the will of the Lord, who has wished to leave this mystery obscure in the Church, so that all of us may humble ourselves beneath the lofty judgments of His Divine Providence. All the more so since Divine grace, by which alone men can acquire eternal life, is without doubt dispensed more or less abundantly by God entirely gratuitously and without any regard to our merits. Hence to save ourselves it will always be necessary for us to throw ourselves into the arms of Divine mercy, so that it may assist us with its grace to acquire salvation, always trusting in its infallible promises to hear and save those who pray.

But let us return to our point, that God with a sincere will desires the salvation of all. Let us see the other texts that confirm the same. The Lord says through Ezekiel (33:11): Vivo ego, dicit Dominus: Nolo mortem impii, sed ut convertatur a via sua, et vivat. 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 easily believed: Jurans etiam, Vivo dicens, cupit sibi credi.

Furthermore David says: Quoniam ira in indignatione ejus, et vita in voluntate ejus (Ps. 29:6). If He punishes us, He does so because our sins provoke Him to indignation, but as to His will, He does not will our death but our life: Et vita in voluntate ejus. St. Basil, explaining precisely this text, says: Et vita in voluntate ejus. Quid ergo dicit? nimirum quod vult Deus omnes vitae fieri participes. Furthermore, the same prophet says: Deus noster, Deus salvos faciendi: et Domini Domini exitus mortis (Ps. 67:21). 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. So that it is proper and natural to God to save all and to free all from eternal death.

Furthermore, the Lord says: Venite ad me omnes, qui laboratis, et onerati estis, et ego reficiam vos (Matt. 11:28). If He calls all to salvation, then He has a true will to save all. Furthermore, St. Peter says: Nolens aliquos perire, sed omnes ad poenitentiam reverti (2 Pet. 3:9). He does not will the damnation of anyone, but wills that all (omnes) should do penance and thereby be saved.

Furthermore, the Lord says: Sto ad ostium et pulso, si quis aperuerit, intrabo (Rev. 3:20). Quare moriemini domus Israel? revertimini, et vivite (Ezek. 18:31). Quid est quod debui ultra facere vineae meae et non feci? (Isa. 5:4). Quoties volui congregare filios suos, quemadmodum gallina congregat pullos suos sub alas, et noluisti? (Matt. 23:38). How could the Lord say that He stands knocking at the hearts of us sinners? How could He so insistently exhort us to return to His arms? How could He reproach us, saying: What more ought I to have done to save you? How could He say He wished to gather us as children, if He did not have a true will to save all? Furthermore, St. Luke relates that Jesus Christ, looking from afar at Jerusalem and considering the loss of that people on account of their sin, videns civitatem flevit super illam (Luke 19:41). Why did He weep then, says Theophylact with Chrysostom, on seeing the ruin of the Jews, if not because He truly desired their salvation? Now how then, after so many attestations of the Lord by which He manifests His will to see all saved, can it ever be said that God does not will the salvation of all? Quod si ista (Petavius resumes) 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?

To say that God does not truly will the salvation of all, says this great author, is an injury 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.

This truth, that God wills the salvation of all, is then confirmed commonly by the Holy Fathers. It is not doubted that in this all the Greek Fathers were uniform in saying that God wills the salvation of all and each of men: thus 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. 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. And in another place: Voluit itaque Deus salvare cupientes; et provocavit ad salutem, ut voluntas haberet praemium, sed illi credere noluerunt. St. Hilary: Omnes homines Deus salvos fieri velit, et non eos tantum qui ad Sanctorum numerum pertinebunt, sed omnes omnino, ut nullas habeat exceptiones. St. Paulinus: Omnibus dicit Christus venite ad me etc. omnem enim (quantum in Ipso est) hominem salvum fieri vult, qui fecit omnes. 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. The author of the work that bears the title of commentaries of St. Ambrose (and is believed to be by Hilary the Deacon, as Petavius writes), speaking on the text of St. Paul Qui vult omnes homines etc., asks thus: But since God wills the salvation of all, being omnipotent, why are not all 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 says that the Lord has not otherwise excluded anyone from glory, and gives grace to all to save them, but on the condition that they be willing to correspond, since His grace does not profit those who refuse it. St. Chrysostom similarly asks: Cur igitur non omnes salvi fiunt, si vult Deus omnes salvos esse? And he answers: Quoniam non omnium voluntas illius voluntatem sequitur, porro ipse neminem cogit. St. Augustine: Vult Deus omnes homines salvos fieri, non sic tamen ut eis liberum adimat arbitrium. And St. Augustine holds the same in many other places, which we shall cite shortly below.

That Jesus Christ then died for all and for each of men, and that for the salvation of each man He offered to the Eternal Father the work of His redemption, is likewise clear both from the Scriptures and from what the Holy Fathers say of it. Great certainly was the ruin that the sin of Adam caused to the whole human race; but Jesus Christ by the grace of redemption repaired all the damage brought upon us by Adam. Hence the Tridentine declared (Session 5, Decree on Original Sin, Chapter 5) that baptism renders souls pure and immaculate, and that the concupiscence which remains in them does not remain for their harm but to enable them to acquire a greater crown if they resist consenting 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. Indeed, as St. Leo says, Ampliora adepti sumus per Christi gratiam, quam per Diaboli amiseramus invidiam. The gain we have made through the redemption of Jesus Christ has been greater than the loss 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). And our Savior Himself declared it: Ego veni, ut vitam habeant, et abundantius habeant (John 10:10). And before Him David and Isaiah well foretold it. David said: Et copiosa apud eum redemptio (Ps. 129:7). And Isaiah: Suscepit de manu Domini duplicia pro omnibus peccatis suis (Isa. 40:2). On which words an interpreter wrote: Deus ita dimisit Ecclesiae iniquitates per Christum, ut duplicia (id est multiplicia bona) susceperit pro poenis peccatorum quas merebatur.

Now that our Savior, as I said, died for all, and that for the salvation of each man He offered to the Eternal Father the work of His redemption, the Divine Scriptures assure us: Venit Filius hominis salvare quod perierat (Matt. 18:11). Qui dedit redemptionem semet ipsum pro omnibus (1 Tim. 2:6). Pro omnibus mortuus est Christus, ut et qui vivunt, non jam sibi vivant, sed ei qui pro ipsis mortuus est (2 Cor. 5:15). In hoc enim laboramus, et maledicimur, quia speramus in Deum vivum, qui est Salvator omnium hominum, maxime fidelium (1 Tim. 4:10). Et ipse est propitiatio pro peccatis nostris; non pro nostris autem tantum, sed etiam pro totius mundi (1 John 2:2). Caritas enim Christi urget nos, existimantes hoc, quoniam si unus pro omnibus mortuus est, ergo omnes mortui sunt (2 Cor. 5:14). And speaking only of this last passage, I ask how the Apostle, from the reason that Jesus Christ died for all, could deduce that all were dead, unless he held it as certain that Jesus Christ truly died for all? All the more so since St. Paul from the same reason deduces the love that this truth kindles in us toward our Savior. But above all, to express the desire and will that God has to save all, there avails what the same Apostle says (Rom. 8:32): Qui etiam proprio Filio suo non pepercit, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit illum. And the words that follow carry even greater force: Quomodo non etiam cum illo omnia nobis donavit? If God has given us everything, how then can we fear that He has denied us election to glory, on the condition however 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 (says the aforesaid author, speaking of St. Paul) Deum nos certos facere, non negaturum minus, qui dedit majus, non negaturum gratiam ad salvandum, qui dedit Filium ut salvaremur. And in truth, how could St. Paul say that God, in giving us the Son, has given us everything, if the Apostle had believed that the Lord had excluded many from glory — which is the only good and the sole end for which He created us? To these very many, then, the Lord has given everything, and then denied them the best — namely, eternal beatitude — without which (since there is no middle way) they can only be eternally unhappy? Unless we wish to say something else even more unbecoming, as another learned author rightly reflects — that God gives all the grace to attain glory but then denies many the entrance to enjoy it: 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. St. Ambrose: Venit Christus ut vulnera nostra curaret; sed quia non omnes medicinam expetunt... ideo volentes curat, non adstringit invitos. 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. 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. Let it be noted: omnes scripti haeredes sumus — 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. 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 — says: Ergo, quantum in Medico est, sanare venit aegrotum. Let it be noted: quantum in Medico est — therefore efficaciously, as far as concerns Himself, God wills the salvation of all, but He cannot heal (as St. Augustine adds) those who do not wish to be healed: Sanat omnino Ille, sed non sanat invitum. Quid enim in te beatius, quam ut tanquam in manu tua vitam, sic in voluntate tua sanitatem habeas? In saying sanat, the Saint speaks of sinners who are sick and unable by their own strength to procure salvation; in saying omnino, he declares that nothing is lacking on God's part for sinners to be healed and saved; in then saying in manu tua vitam, sic in voluntate tua sanitatem habeas, he declares that God with a true will desires to save all on His part, otherwise it would not be in our hands to acquire 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 has redeemed us all in order to save us all. And hence he encourages all to hope for eternal beatitude with that celebrated saying: 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. Some have wished to say that Jesus Christ offered His Blood for all in order to obtain grace for them, but not salvation. But the Petrocorian, speaking against these, cannot endure this opinion and exclaims: O contentiosam nugacitatem! Quomodo Dei Sapientia medium salutis voluit, et non finem salutis? St. Augustine furthermore, speaking against the Jews, says: Agnoscitis latus quod pupugistis, quoniam et per vos, et propter vos apertum est. If Jesus Christ had not truly given His Blood for all, the Jews could have replied to St. Augustine that it was indeed true they had opened the Side of the Lord, but not that it had been opened for them.

St. Thomas similarly does not doubt that Jesus Christ died for all, and from this he deduces that He wills the salvation of all: Christus Jesus est mediator Dei et hominum, non quorumdam, sed inter Deum et omnes homines, et hoc non esset, nisi vellet omnes salvare. This is confirmed (as has already been said above) by the condemnation of the Fifth Proposition of Jansenius, which said: Semipelagianum est dicere, Christum pro omnibus hominibus mortuum esse, aut sanguinem fudisse. The sense of this proposition, according to the context of the other condemned propositions and according to Jansenius's principles, 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 in a place 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. The contrary Catholic sense, then, is this: It is not Semi-Pelagian, but just, 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.

Furthermore, that God truly on His part wills the salvation of all, 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 an anchor of the soul, sure and firm: Qui confugimus ad tenendam propositam spem, quam sicut anchoram habemus animae tutam ac firmam (Heb. 6:18). Now where would we have this sure and firm anchor of our hope, if not in the truth that God wills the salvation of all? Qua fiducia (says the Petrocorian) 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? And Cardinal Sfondrati says that if God had elected some to eternal life and excluded others, we would have greater reason to despair than to hope, seeing 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. 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. So that the Saint placed all his hope in the Blood of Jesus Christ, because faith assured him that Jesus Christ had died for all. But we shall have occasion to better examine this argument from hope in Chapter IV, when we speak of the principal point — namely, that the grace of prayer is given to all.

But here there remains to answer the objection raised concerning children who are lost, dying before baptism and before the use of reason. If God wills the salvation of all (the objection runs), how then do these children perish without any fault of their own, since they are deprived of every Divine help for attaining eternal salvation? There are two answers, the one more just than the other. I summarize them briefly. First, it is answered that God with His antecedent will desires the salvation of all, and therefore has already given the universal means for all to save themselves. These means sometimes do not have their effect, either by reason of the free will of those who do not wish to avail themselves of them, or because others cannot avail themselves of them on account of secondary causes (such as the natural deaths of children), the course of which causes God is not bound to impede, having arranged everything according to the just judgments of His general Providence; all this is gathered from what St. Thomas says. Jesus Christ offered His merits for all and for all instituted baptism. The application, then, of this remedy of salvation, as regards children who die before they are capable of reason, is not impeded by the direct will of God but by a merely permissive will; for being the General Provider of all things, He ought not to disturb the general order to provide for the particular.

The second answer is that not being blessed is not the same as perishing, since eternal beatitude is an entirely gratuitous gift, and therefore the privation of it does not have the nature of punishment. Very just, then, is the opinion of St. Thomas that children who die in infancy have neither the pain of sense nor the pain of loss: not that 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, since original sin does not involve an act. The opponents object to this with the doctrine of St. Augustine, who in some place seems to hold that children are condemned also to the pain of sense. But in another place the Saint declares that on this point he was very perplexed; here are his words: Cum ad poenam ventum est Parvulorum, magnis (mihi crede) angustiis arctor, nec quidquid respondendum penitus invenio. And in another place he writes that it may well be said that such children receive neither reward nor punishment: Non enim timendum est, ne non potuerit esse sententia media inter praemium et supplicium cum sit vita media inter peccatum et recte factum. And this was then assertively written by St. Gregory Nazianzen: Parvuli nec caelesti Gloria, nec suppliciis a justo Judice afficientur. 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.

As for the pain of loss, although children are excluded from glory, nevertheless St. Thomas teaches — who on this point has reflected best — that no one grieves over the privation of a good of which he is not capable; hence just as no man grieves at not being able to fly, or at not being emperor when he is a private person, so children do not grieve at being deprived of the glory of which they were never capable, since they could not claim it either by the principles of nature or by their own merits. St. Thomas adds in another place a further reason for this, saying that supernatural knowledge of glory is had only through actual faith, which surpasses all natural knowledge; hence children cannot have pain from the privation of glory, since they have never had any supernatural knowledge of it. Furthermore, he says in the place first cited that such children will not only not grieve at being deprived of eternal beatitude, but will moreover rejoice in their natural goods and will enjoy God in some way, through what natural knowledge and natural love import: Immo magis gaudebunt de hoc quod participabunt multum de Divina Bonitate, et perfectionibus naturalibus. And he adds shortly after that although such children are separated from God by the union of glory, nevertheless Illi conjunguntur per participationem naturalium bonorum, et ita etiam de Ipso gaudere poterunt naturali cognitione, et dilectione.