Therefore, to speak in the words of the Apostle1, God has not appointed us unto wrath, but unto the acquisition of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, who is our life and the vivifier of us all. For, as excellently—
—Marius Mercator2 disputes against Julian3:
Whether you will or not, Christ is the vivifier. Here I shall ask: of both soul and body? Although unwilling, you will confess it is so. I shall repeat the question: of absolutely every age? You will answer: of every age. I shall press more closely: of the infant also? You will say: even of him. But hear; I shall tell you how he also vivifies, and, so to speak, by what art. “But God,” says Paul the Apostle4, his herald and vessel of election, “who is rich in mercy, on account of the great charity with which he loved us in Christ, by whose grace we have been saved.” What do you now judge? Did he number and name infants also, or are they outside that compassion and love because they are not dead in sins, and do they await you, most vain doorkeeper, that you may then admit them to mercy to be vivified when he shall have ceased from pitying sinners, so that he may vivify them otherwise than the others?
This opinion plainly underlies these words: the mercy of the benevolent divine will and the function of Christ the vivifier extend as far as death itself and the misery of men extend. But both embrace absolutely all begotten carnally from Adam, pass over no one, and invade all. Who, therefore, does not perceive that the mercy of God must also be believed universal, and the action of Christ the vivifier—
—must be believed universal? Marius Mercator proceeds to confirm this5, adding:
But let us pass from here, out of a desire for brevity, to another word which is thus written concerning the Savior in the Gospel6: “Today a Savior is born to you in the city of David.” Whence he is also properly called Jesus in Greek speech; and to Zacchaeus he says7: “Today salvation has been wrought for this house, because he also is a son of Abraham.” Likewise8: “The Son of man came to seek and to save that which had perished.” Do you hear what he says? “That which had perished,” he says. You, without doubt, because you pronounce that the flocks of infants have not perished, say they are not saved and are not sought. Hear this also concerning the lost sheep, sought and found9; and this concerning the drachma or handful which had perished10. Likewise the Apostle11: “Human is the saying12, and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the first.” Remove from him, then, you distinguished master, the troops of infants, that they may not run to him who came to save that which had perished; who came13 not to call the just but sinners to penance; who baptizes14 unto the remission of sins; who seeks the sheep which strayed; who seeks the drachma, that is, the handful which had perished; who died15 for sinners; who poured forth his blood16 unto the remission of sins; who was handed over for the sins of men; who was wounded17 on account of our iniquities; who bore our sins18 in his body upon the wood;—
—who was offered19 like a sheep for slaughter for our sins; who blotted out the handwriting of debts20; who, according to the Apostle Peter21, the just suffered for the unjust that he might lead us to God; whose blood, according to John the Evangelist22, cleanses us from every offense; who, when we were weak23, according to the time died for the impious, as Paul the Apostle says; who in the likeness of the flesh of sin condemned sin in the flesh because of sin24, as the same Paul bears witness; who reconciled us from offense to God the Father25, as the same Apostle again says; who gave himself for our sins26, and one died for all, that he might rescue us from the present evil age.
Those in no way attain the force and rationale of this disputation who do not understand that Mercator defends the universal reparation acquired by the death and blood of Christ. For since it is fixed for him to demonstrate that infants themselves also, infected and ruined by the original stain, he takes his argument from the fact that Jesus is and is believed to be the Savior also of infants. For in almost this manner he attacks Julian and reduces him to extremity:
Jesus is the Savior no more of adults than of infants. But he is the Savior only of those who have perished, who have contracted iniquity, and who are rightly numbered among sinners. Therefore infants themselves also have perished, and they too come into the light bound by iniquity and sin.
In this rationale of inferring and concluding there is assuredly nothing which does not disclose even unto evidence that no answer more fitting or more true can be given to one who asks how far the amplitude of reparation extends than this: it extends as far as destruction and sin have been diffused.
Prudentius speaks excellently27:
But to bring forth the Word belongs to the Father; the remaining things belong to the Word: To bear the man assumed28, to repair him who was destroyed, To reconcile him to the Father and place him in the seat at his right hand. The Spirit of God completes these things: God himself, ready To diffuse his charism among faithful peoples, Transfers the power both of the Father and of Christ into bodies.
And again, after he said29:
The Word of the almighty Father always descends To the aid of man by saving him; in his own love he always took care To mingle mortal things with himself, That the flesh to be joined and filled with the everlasting Lord Might change by the Master’s example the degenerate life which it then lived as animal, And through like members might become accustomed to behold a sharer of earthly form, And to know by sight, as by a pledge, its own participant, And little by little to approach the consanguineous Christ,
He immediately adds30:
Therefore the man once animal, now the Spirit transferred him To the nature of the seed from above, by infusing God himself, who vivifies mortal things. Now a new matter, strengthened by a breath beneath the skin, Yet nevertheless our matter, drawn from the Virgin, Cast off the corrupt beginnings of the ancient life, Receiving immortal good by its own breath.
Footnotes
-
I Thess. V.9 ff. ↩
-
In the Commonitory, p. 621, in Gallandius, vol. VIII. ↩
-
When Catholics inveighed gravely against the Pelagians because they denied that Christ was the redeemer of infants, and when this accusation, as was fitting, vehemently moved the minds of the faithful, the crafty deceivers, that they might remove so great an odium from themselves, did not shrink from employing the word “redeemer”; indeed, they confessed that infants are baptized unto the remission of sins. Nevertheless, lest they should appear to have abandoned their cause, they denied that it could be deduced from that confession that the infants who were baptized were bound by the fault of origin. Garnier proves these things in his commentary on the eighth chapter of the Subnotations of Marius Mercator by perspicuous testimonies of Pelagius, Caelestius, and Julian. To these this other testimony must be added from the books of Julian in Marius Mercator’s Commonitory, p. 620, Gallandius edition, vol. VIII:
↩Because we say that the grace of baptism is not to be changed according to causes, since it dispenses its gifts according to the capacity of those approaching; and therefore Christ, who is the redeemer of his own work, increases benefits toward his image with continual bounty, and those whom he made good by creating, he makes better by renewing and adopting.
-
Eph. II.4. ↩
-
In the Commonitory, p. 621. ↩
-
Luke II.11. ↩
-
Luke XIX.9. ↩
-
Luke XIX.10. ↩
-
Luke XV.4–8. ↩
-
Mercator reads δραγμα, not, as is found in the commonly received codices, δραγμην, whence he also translates it “handful.” ↩
-
I Tim. I.15. ↩
-
In Greek, πιστός, faithful, or certain and true. ↩
-
Matt. IX.13. ↩
-
Acts II.38. ↩
-
Rom. V.6. ↩
-
Matt. XXVI.28. ↩
-
Isa. LIII.5. ↩
-
I Pet. II.24. ↩
-
Isa. LIII.7. ↩
-
Col. II.14. ↩
-
I Pet. III.18. ↩
-
I John I.7. ↩
-
Rom. V.6. ↩
-
Rom. VIII.3. ↩
-
Rom. V.10. ↩
-
Gal. I.4. ↩
-
Preface to the Apotheosis, vv. 7–12, pp. 396–397, Rome edition, 1788. ↩
-
Compare canon I of the Fourth Council of Toledo. ↩
-
Apotheosis, vv. 155–164, pp. 415–416. ↩
-
Ibid., vv. 164–171, p. 416. ↩