I am so struck by the perspicuity and evidence of these things that I hold it certain there will be no one who calls into doubt the universal amplitude of reparation. For what, I ask, can not absurdly be required in order that it be considered plainly universal? Is it a) that by affirmative judgments all be said to have been repaired and all redeemed? But we have heard it everywhere inculcated that redemption is general, pertains to all, is common, embraces the human race, embraces the—
—world, and within its compass contains all the infirm, the crushed, and those about to perish.
Is it b) that by negative judgments no one be taught to be excepted from reparation and no one alien to redemption? But the use of such judgments is most frequent, and it is repeatedly asserted that no one is excluded from the benefit of reparation and no one is found for whom the piety of the Savior did not provide.
Is it c) that by distributive judgments all and each of the classes of men be shown enriched by those goods and raised up by those aids of which reparation consists? But there is no class to which the benefits proceeding from reparation are not attributed. For they are attributed to the gentiles, attributed to sinners, attributed to the slayers of Christ, and are attributed even to him to whom the infamous name of betrayer adhered from his betrayal.
Is it d) that the same universal amplitude be proposed by comparative judgments? But it is proposed by these also, whether when reparation through Christ is compared with the ruin which the fall of Adam introduced, or when the same limits are assigned to reparation and to original transgression.
Is it e) that by judgments affected by an exception, all and only those be declared deprived of the benefit of reparation who have obstructed for themselves the way of salvation and impeded the return to the heavenly fatherland? But we have received these judgments also as employed once and again.
Is it f) that the supreme destruction of men be especially proved from this: that it cannot be separated and torn away from a certain incredible contempt of divine benefits? But not even this is passed over, when Judas is accused especially on this account: that he destroyed himself contrary to the will of God; that, in order not to spare himself, he sold his own Redeemer; and that he strangled himself with a noose, although nothing of benevolence was lacking to him for correction and no occasion remained for crime.
Finally, is it g) that an origin and cause of reparation be disclosed which suffers no limits and receives no bounds? But the origin which is disclosed and the cause of reparation which is shown are the infinite mercy of God and of his Christ, which extends as far as human misery extends itself. Either, therefore, nothing can be effected by witnesses—
—and nothing demonstrated by testimonies, or it must be judged altogether demonstrated from the profession and doctrine of the Apostolic See that the condition and benefit of reparation pertain to the universal human race and to absolutely all men.