COMMENTARY
ON THE DIVISION OF THE DIVINE WILL
INTO FIRST AND SECOND
AND ON THE UNIVERSAL EXTENT OF THE RESTORED ORDER
ARGUMENT
The subject matter of the treatment I: - Chrysostom’s doctrine concerning the division of the divine will into first and second II-XIV: - the names, origin, and attributes of the first will IV-VIII: - the names, origin, and attributes of the second will, and the relation of the latter to the first VIII-X: - the universal amplitude of the first will XII-XIII: the heads of doctrine which are elicited by this division XV: - the concordant opinion and manner of speaking of John Damascene XVII-XXI: - the testimonies of Theophylact pertaining to the same matter XXI-XXIV: - what is intended by the difference between the appellations by which each will is distinguished XXII: - concerning the heavenly gifts of which God is the principal and sole cause, and of which he is the principal cause in such a way as to require subordinate causes XXIII: - the formulas and rationale by which Oecumenius sets forth and explains the same division of the divine will XXIV: - what the Latin writers thought concerning it XXV-XXXIV: - and what in particular Anselm of Canterbury thought XXV-XXVIII: - Anselm of Laon XXVIII: - Rupert of Deutz XXIX: - and Bernard XXX-XXXII: - a comparison of the formulas which the Greeks and Latins employed XXXII: - a most similar, indeed the same, doctrine, although in different formulas, handed down by both XXXII: - the principal heads of this doctrine XXXII-XXXIV.
These things are confirmed by the suffrage of other witnesses XXXIV: - and first of Atto of Vercelli XXXIV: - then indeed of Hincmar of Reims XXXV-XXXVIII: - of Paschasius Radbertus XXXVIII: - of Paulinus of Aquileia XXXIX: - of Venantius Fortunatus XL: - of Salvian XLI: - of the author of the Praedestinatus XLI: - of Gennadius of Marseilles XLI: - of Avitus of Vienne XLII: - of Isidore of Seville XLII: - of Cassiodorus XLIII-XLVI: - of Fastidius XLVI: - of Gaudentius of Brescia XLVI.
The doctrine of the author of On the Calling of All Nations is examined more accurately XLVII-LXII: - he sets down in order that it must be believed that God wills all men without exception to be saved XLVII-XLIX: - that Christ died for all XLIX-LI: - and that the helps of grace necessary for attaining salvation have always been present to all men LI-LIII: - Quesnel’s opinion that the Anonymous establishes no universal grace other than external grace LIII: - it is refuted, and first the hypotheses upon which it rests are refuted LIV: - then the thesis itself is refuted LV-LXII: and the connection by which interior gifts are joined with exterior gifts is established LVIII-LX: whence it is inferred that the belief and doctrine of the Anonymous come to this: that there is in God a universal and fruitful salvific will, from which the universal order of reparation must be derived LXI.
Prosper’s agreement in the same sense LXII-LXXII: - according to him, it must most sincerely be professed that God wills all men to be saved LXII-LXIV: - it must then be professed that this salvific will flows from the fountain of merciful benignity, that it is efficacious, and that it is the supreme cause of universal reparation through Christ LXIV-LXX: - which reparation nevertheless can rightly be called circumscribed and particular if it is considered passively, not actively, and is referred not to the will of saving, but to the purpose of fulfilling this will LXX-LXXII.
The opinion of the Alexandrian Church concerning the salvific will of God and the universal order of reparation is confirmed by the testimonies of Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Didymus, Athanasius, both Macarii, Paphnutius, Isidore, Synesius, Cyril, Theophilus, Serapion, Orisiesius, Antony, Peter, Theonas, and Phileas LXXII-XCIX: - it comes to this: that there is in God a universal and fruitful salvific will; that the necessary helps of grace are granted to all; that the threefold order, natural, preternatural, and supernatural, is so tempered by God that each is directed toward the salvation of men; that even the order of temporal punishments is referred to this salvation; and that all men are situated in the state of nature raised up and restored through Christ, in the same place.
There is the concordant suffrage of the African Church, whose witnesses are Tertullian, Cyprian, Minucius Felix, Arnobius, Lactantius, Marius Victorinus, Optatus, Facundus, and Primasius XCIX-CXII: - by this suffrage we are taught that universal reparation through the second Adam succeeded universal ruin through the first Adam; that the principal cause of this universal reparation consists in God’s innate benevolence toward the human race; that from this benevolence there has always flowed, and continues to flow, an extraordinary abundance of graces by which men, recreated, can and ought to strive from the most wretched condition of children of wrath toward the dignity of adoptive filiation and obtain it; and that consequently no others are conquered by sins and deprived of everlasting beatitude except those who have despised heavenly mercy and rejected the salvation offered to them, in the same place.
The Churches of Spain support all these things, as is established by the wholly explicit words of Dracontius, Orosius, Marius Mercator, Prudentius, and Pacian CXIII-CXVI.
The Churches of Gaul also support them; their faith is exhibited by Irenaeus, Hilary, Phoebadius, Sedulius, Caesarius, Valerian, Apollinaris, Avitus, Salvian, and both the Council of Orange and the Council of Arles CXVII-CXXXIII: - the principal heads of this faith are that punishments are decreed from eternity for no one, and that punishments destined never to cease are inflicted upon no one at his final hour unless God has foreknown him as a despiser of mercy and he has in fact despised mercy even to the end; that both the everlasting decree of punishment and its temporal execution pertain to that will which has foreknowledge as its companion and which is called the second will; that the order of mercy and reward pertains to the first and antecedent will; and that no others fall away from this order except those who, contrary to the benevolent will of God, have by their free action constructed destruction and ruin for themselves, in the same place.
The Fathers of Italy follow: Hippolytus, Ambrose, Zeno, Jerome, Chromatius, and Paulinus, whose voice is this: those are greatly deceived who teach that the primeval stain was so fatal that it introduced the necessity of perishing; who teach that the blood of the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world has not always profited all men; who teach that so great a destruction flowed into the human race from its original separation from God that there have been those who thereafter could not aspire to divine fellowship; who teach that there was some time at which God neglected the care of the human race and did not provide with paternal piety for the wounds inflicted upon it; and who, finally, teach that at some time there have existed, or that even now there exist, some for whom the kingdom of heaven must be considered closed by a supernal and absolute destination CXXXV-CLVI.
The Roman pontiffs Clement, Innocent, Celestine, and Leo agree; according to these authors, it must be held that the state of the human race, which, if the works of men were considered, would be a state of ruin and damnation, is, through the intervention of God’s clemency and goodness, a state of reparation and salvation, and indeed of a reparation that is altogether universal and active CLVI-CLXV.
The doctors of the Patriarchate of Antioch hand down things most similar: Barnabas, Ignatius, Theophilus, Titus of Bostra, Jacob of Nisibis, Ephrem, Isaac, Nemesius, Eustathius, Basil of Seleucia, Theodoret, and Anastasius, whose undoubted opinion is this: that, as far as the matter itself is concerned, the divine plan concerning the salvation of men was not one thing before the transgression of humanity and another after it; for just as God willed the salvation of men before the transgression, so after the transgression he willed that not even one should perish; that nevertheless this difference intervened between the two divine plans: before the transgression the plan was one of goodness, but after the transgression it was one of benign and just mercy in Christ; that Christ came, satisfied justice by the blood poured out for all, again united with God in himself man who had been torn away from God, and recalled dead humanity to both kinds of life, that of the soul and that of the body CLXV-CLXXXI.
Nor do the most noble lights of the Churches of Asia, Pontus, and Thrace determine otherwise: Polycarp, the author of the Epistle to Diognetus, Athenagoras, Gregory of Neocaesarea, Amphilochius, Caesarius, both Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa, Basil, and Photius. From their works which still survive we understand that, corresponding to the twofold stage of human life, a twofold order of providence must be distinguished, the one of mercy and piety, the other of severity and justice; that the order of mercy and piety pertains to the stage of the present mortality, while the order of severity and justice pertains to the stage of eternity; that the cause of this distinction must be derived from the fact that God, moved by his goodness, most sincerely wills that the power of attaining heavenly beatitude be present to absolutely all men for as long as they live their mortal life; that by this will of goodness God selected for the present life the order of mercy and salvation, and sent the Only-begotten, who would bring back what had gone astray and fashion anew what had been corrupted and depraved; and that he would fashion it anew by a manifold operation and by various helps of grace, with which individual men, enriched according to necessity and opportunity, might dispel ignorance, overcome infirmity, recover the lost likeness of God, and again be joined in a most blessed fellowship with supreme truth, supreme goodness, and supreme beauty CLXXXII-CXCVIII.
Those who illustrated the Churches of Palestine by their wisdom close the column: Justin, Tatian, Methodius, Eusebius, Cyril, and Aeneas of Gaza. They unanimously profess that the salvific will of God and the reparation accomplished by the merits of Christ are universal and fruitful in those gifts by which a ready faculty of attaining salvation is bestowed upon all CXCVIII-CCV.
The corollaries connected with the things which we have laid down thus far CCV: - first, those by which the way is made level CCVI-CCXIV: - then those in which the sum of the doctrine is contained CCXIV-CCLIX: - and finally those by which perverse and absurd opinions are refuted CCLIX-CCLXXV: - a difficulty raised against the universal amplitude of the restored order from the fact that very many infants have always met their last day before the means of reparation could be conferred upon them CCLXXV: - a manifold response and seven hypotheses in all, by which a fact of this kind is not ill reconciled with the thesis which we have demonstrated CCLXXVI-CCLXXIX.
Concerning the principal testimony of the Scriptures in which the doctrine of Tradition set forth concerning the first and second will and universal reparation is contained CCLXXIX: - it is found at I Tim. II. 1-7 CCLXXX: - it is recited and its true reading is established CCLXXX: - by internal and external arguments it is established that this testimony must be regarded as principal CCLXXXI: - the connection by which its clauses cohere is explained CCLXXXII: - the interpretation of the first clause, from which it follows that prayer must be made for the salvation of absolutely all men CCLXXXII-CCLXXXV: - an illustration of the interpretation from a similar saying of Christ CCLXXXV: - concerning the second clause and the bond by which it is joined with the preceding one CCLXXXVI-CCLXXXVIII: - Grotius’s opinion concerning the relation between the third clause and the preceding clauses CCLXXXVIII: - it is refuted by suitable arguments CCLXXXVIII-CCXC: - what is intended by the expression, τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ, “of God our Savior,” CCXC-CCXCII: - those things which contribute to the exposition of the proposition, ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι, καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν, “who wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,” are examined CCXCII-CCXCV: - there is added a parallel passage from II Pet. III. 9, CCXCV-CCXCVII: - this is followed by another found at Ezech. XVIII. 23 and XXXIII. 11, CCXCVII: - the origin of the salvific will is disclosed, and its infinite amplitude and singular power are shown CCXCIX: - the same things are confirmed by Paul’s words from the Epistle to the Romans II. 4-6, in the same place: - there follows the clause, εἷς γὰρ θεός, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, “for there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” which is explained article by article CCC-CCCVI: - the universal scope of the salvific will is established CCCVI: - it is established that its principal origin is nothing other than the merciful love of God the Father through Jesus Christ, the common mediator and intermediary of all CCCVI-CCCVIII: - concerning the final clause, ὁ δοὺς ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων, “who gave a ransom for all,” CCCVIII: - the force of τοῦ ἀντιλύτρου, “ransom,” is defined, in the same place: - and the extension of the words ὑπὲρ πάντων, “for all,” is likewise defined CCCIX: - this extension is shown to be altogether universal both by other names and by the harmony and concord of the Scriptures, in the same place: - that not all are saved cannot be derived from the fact that the faculty of attaining salvation is denied to some, but from the fact that not all make use, as would be fitting, of the faculty divinely received CCCX.