DOGMATIC THEOLOGY
THE POHLE-PREUSS SERIES OF DOG MATIC TEXT-BOOKS
1. God: His Knowability, Essence and At
tributes, vi & 479 pp., $2.00 net.
2. The Divine Trinity, iv & 297 pp., $1.50
net.
3. God the Author of Nature and the Su
pernatural, v & 365 pp., $1.75 net.
4. Christology. iii & 310 pp., $1.50 net.
5. Soteriology.
6. Mariology. (In Press.)
OTHER VOLUMES TO FOLLOW IN COURSE OF TIME :
7. Grace: Actual and Habitual.
8. The Sacraments in General.
Baptism. Confirmation.
9. The Holy Eucharist.
10. The Sacrament of Penance.
11. Extreme Unction. Holy Or
ders. Matrimony. 12. Eschatology.
&— ii. 3 "
Mau, fjl
SOTERIOLOGY
A DOGMATIC TREATISE ON THE REDEMPTION
BY
THE REVEREND JOSEPH POHLE, PH.D., D.D.
FORMERLY PROFESSOR OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOLOGY IN THE
CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA, NOW PROFESSOR OF
DOGMA IN THE UNIVERSITY OF BRESLAU
AUTHORIZED ENGLISH VERSION, BASED ON THE FIFTH
GERMAN EDITION, WITH SOME ABRIDGEMENT
AND ADDED REFERENCES
BY
ARTHUR PREUSS
ST. LOUIS, MO., 1914
PUBLISHED BY B. HERDER
17 SOUTH BROADWAY
FREIBURG (BADEN) GERMANY
LONDON, W. C. 68, GREAT RUSSELL STR.
!MAY 2 1 1943
NIHIL OBSTAT. Sti. Ludovici, die 25. Sept., 1913. F. Q. HOLWECK,
Censor Librorum.
IMPRIMATUR. Sti. LuJovici, die 26. Sept., 1913.
f JOANNES J. GLENNON,
Archiepiscopus Sti. Ludovici.
Copyright, 1913,
by
JOSEPH GUMMERSBACH.
All rights reserved.
— BECKTOLD—
PRINTING AND BOOK MFG. CO. ST. LOUIS, MO.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION i
PART I. THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 3 if
Prefatory Remarks „ 3
CH. I. Christ's Mediatorship as a Condition of Our Re- 5
demption 5
§ i. The Possibility of the Redemption 5
§ 2. Congruity and Necessity of the Redemption . 13
§ 3. Predestination of the Redeemer 24
CH. II. The Redemption of the Human Race Through
Christ's Vicarious Atonement 35
§ i. The Reality of Christ's Vicarious Atonement . . 35 ART. i. Vicarious Atonement Defined .... 35 ART. 2. The Dogma of Christ's Vicarious Atone ment Proved From Revelation 41
§ 2. The Properties of Christ's Vicarious Atonement 60
ART. i. Intrinsic Perfection of the Atonement . 60 ART. 2. Extrinsic Perfection or Universality of the
Atonement 75
'§ 3. The Concrete Realization of Christ's Vicarious
Atonement 84
ART. i. Christ's Death on the Cross 85
ART. 2. Christ's Descent Into Hell 91
ART. 3. The Resurrection 101
PART II. THE THREE OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER . . . .no S
CH. I. Christ's Priesthood in
§ i. Christ's Death a True Sacrifice in
§ 2. Christ a True Priest 127
CH. II. Christ's Prophetical Office 140
CH. III. Christ's Kingship 149
INTRODUCTION
Christology deals with the Person of our Di vine Redeemer; Soteriology (*& rf* <TOTW«« Aoyos) considers the object for which He came into this world. This object was the Redemption of the human race.
Christ became our Redeemer or Mediator solely by His vicarious atonement, therefore, re demption (mediation) and vicarious atonement are interchangeable terms.
The fallen race of Adam was not simply re stored as a whole to its original state of bliss. In order to share in the graces of the Redemption each individual human being must co-operate with the Redeemer. To be able to do this man needs ( i ) a teacher, who authoritatively instructs him in the truths necessary for salvation; (2) a priest who effectively applies to him the merits of the atonement; and (3) a king or shepherd, who, by the promulgation of suitable laws and pre cepts, guides him on the way to Heaven.
Hence our Divine Lord exercises a threefold function or office, namely (i) that of Teacher, (2) that of High Priest, and (3) that of King
1 /
,P
2 INTRODUCTION
or Shepherd. Cfr. John XIV, 6: "I am the way (King), and the truth (Teacher), and the life (Priest)."
Soteriology, therefore, naturally falls into two main divisions: I. The Work of Redemption; II. The Three Offices of the Redeemere
PART I THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
PREFATORY REMARKS
The Redemption could not have been effected by a mediator who was either mere God or mere man. It required one who was both God and man. Christ, alone, being both God and man, was in a position to act as natural and moral mediator and to reconcile the human race to its Creator.
We have shown in a previous treatise that Christology 1 is founded on the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union. Similarly, Soteriology turns on the pivotal concept of the mediatorship of Christ and may be said to be implicitly contained in 2 Cor. V, 19: "God indeed was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself."
We have, therefore, to consider: (Ch. I), the mediatorship of Christ, the possibility of the Re demption, its congruity and necessity, and, by way of a corollary, the highly interesting question whether or not the Incarnation was absolutely
i Pohle-Preuss, Christology, A Dogmatic Treatise on the Incarnation, St. Louis 1913.
4 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
•
preordained; (Ch. II), the fact of the Redemp tion, its reality, its properties, and the concrete mode of its realization. In connection with the last-mentioned point we shall also treat (Ch. Ill) of Christ's Descent into hell and His Resurrec tion from the soteriological point of view.
CHAPTER I
CHRIST'S MEDIATORSHIP AS A CONDITION OF OUR REDEMPTION
SECTION i
THE POSSIBILITY OF THE REDEMPTION
I. DEFINITION OF THE TERM "MEDIATOR." — A mediator (mediator, i*<rinp) is one who holds a neutral position between parties at variance, and is therefore apt to interpose between them as the equal friend of each.
a) Thus, in the political domain, a neutral government sometimes intervenes between quar relling powers by proffering its friendly offices as arbitrator.
The notion of a mediator, therefore, comprises two distinct elements, viz.: (i) The exist ence of two extremes in contrary opposition, and (2) a quality or characteristic proper to him who interposes, which enables him to reconcile the parties at variance.
This is the true Catholic notion of mediatorship. There is also an heretical one, which appears in the religious
5
6 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
systems of the Gnostics and the Arians. To exalt the Creator of the universe as far as possible above mere matter, which they regarded as intrinsically evil, the Gnostics invented a series of " intermediate beings," which they called aeons, and which were supposed to bridge the gap between the Godhead and the material world. The last of these in a descending line was the so-called Demiurge, who as creator of the material uni verse was believed to be the proper mediator between the absolute Being and the physical cosmos.2 The Arians regarded the Logos as the most exalted of creatures and as creator of all the rest, and ascribed to him the office of mediator between God the Father and the universe created by the Logos. We have already disproved this error by showing, in our treatises on the Divine Trinity 3 and the Incarnation,4 that, so far from being a creature, the Logos is true God, consubstantial (fyoowios) with the Father.
b) A duly qualified mediator may exercise his functions either in the moral or in the ontological order.5 In some manner or other moral always presupposes ontological mediation, and hence the one cannot be conceived apart from the other.
To perform the part of a moral mediator one must be able, either by one's natural powers, or through the instrumentality of grace, to reconcile opposing extremes in the order of being. Hence the distinction between
2 For a refutation of this dualistic Trinity, pp. 49 sqq., St. Louis 1912. error see Pohle-Preuss, God the An- 4 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christ ology, thor of Nature and the Supernatural, pp. 10 sqq.
pp. 17 sq., St. Louis 1912. 5 In ordine morali sive ethico; in
3 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Divine ordine ontologico sive essendi.
MEDIATORSHIP 7
mediator naturalis and mediator per gratiam. Moses,6 the Levites, the Prophets, and the Apostles were medi ators by grace. So is every Catholic priest in virtue of his ordination. As regards natural mediatorship, Christ is our only Mediator in the moral order, because He is the sole natural Mediator between God and man. ' The fact of Christ's existence is in itself a mediation, a bond between the Creator and His creatures. By uniting our humanity to His Divinity, He united us to God and God to us. He is of God and in God, but He is also of us and in us." 7 Being consubstantial with man as well as with God,8 Christ is the born mediator be tween God and man (mediator naturalis).
This unique natural mediatorship constitutes the foun dation of an equally unique moral mediatorship. The offended Deity exacted adequate atonement for the sins of mankind, and therefore redemption or moral mediation was impossible except on the basis of a natural mediatorship.9
c) It follows, by way of a corollary, (i) that mankind has but one mediator, because there is no natural mediator between God and man other than the Godman Jesus Christ; (2) that all other so-called "mediators" are such merely by grace. They owe their mediatorial power solely and entirely to Christ, and can consequently be called mediators only in a subordinate and sec ondary sense.
6Cfr. Deut. V, 5: " Medius fui Catholic Theology, Vol. II, p. 140,
inter Dominum et vos — I stood and ed., London 1901.
between the Lord and you." 8 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology.
1 Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of Q V. infra, Sect. 2.
8 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
No further argument is required to disprove the Prot estant objection that Catholics obscure and degrade the unique mediatorship of Christ by admitting a host of priests and saints as co-mediators between God and man. " It is an essential function of the office of a mediator," says Aquinas, "to join together and unite those between whom he is to interpose; for it is in the middle that extremes meet. Now, to unite men with God perfectively belongs to Christ, through whom men are reconciled to God. . . . And therefore Christ alone is a perfect mediator between God and men, inasmuch as, by His death, He reconciled the human race to God. . . . There is, however, nothing to forbid others from being called mediators between God and men under a certain respect (secundum quid), in so far, namely, as they co operate in uniting men with God, either by disposing them for such a union (dispositive), or by assisting them in the process of unification (ministerialiter)" 10
2. THE DOGMA. — Theologically speaking, Me diation is synonymous with Redemption. That Christ was our natural Mediator is an article of faith, defined by the Council of Trent. "Si quis hoc Adae peccatum [originate] . . . per aliud remedium assent tolli quam per meritum unius mediations Domini nostri lesu Christi, qui nos
10 " Ad mediatoris officium proprie reconciliavit. , . . Nihil tamen pro-
pertinet coniungere et unire eos, in- hibet aliquos alias secundum quid
ter quos est mediator; nam extrema did mediatores inter Deum et ho-
uniuntur in media. Unire autem mines, prout soil, cooperantur ad
homines Deo perfective quidem con- unionem hominum cum Deo disposi-
venit Christo, per quem homines five vel ministerialiter." S. Theol.,
sunt reconciliati Deo. . . . Et ideo 33, qu. 26, art. i. — Cfr. Franzelin,
solus Christus est perfectus Dei et De Verbo Incarnato, thes. 46, Rome
hominum mediator, inquantum per 1881. suam mortem humanum genus Deo
CHRIST OUR MEDIATOR 9
Deo reconciliavit in sanguine suo . . . anathema sit." Anglice : " If any one asserts that this sin of Adam [original sin], ... is taken away . . . by any other remedy than the merit of the one Mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in His own blood, ... let him be anathema."
a) Moral mediation, or the Redemption proper, according to Holy Scripture, consists in the shedding of the blood of Him who was the sole, because the natural, Mediator be tween God and man. Consequently, Christ's moral mediatorship is based upon His natural mediatorship. Cfr. Col. I, 19 sq. : "Quia in ipso [scil. Christ o] complacuit omnem plenitudi- nem inhabitare [ = mediatio ontologica natu- ralis] et per eum reconciliare omnia in ipsum pacificans per sanguinem crucis eius [= mediatio moralis] — Because in him it hath well pleased the Father, that all fulness should dwell; and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, making peace through the blood of his cross." 12 Both the ontological and the moral mediatorship of Christ are pregnantly summed up by St. Paul in i Tim. II, 5 S(l- : " Unus enim Deus, unus
11 Cone. Trid., Sess. V, can. 3 12 For a full explanation of this
(in Denzinger's Enchiridion Synt- text cfr. J. N. Schneider, Die Ver-
bolorum, Definitionum et Declara- sbhnung des Weltalls durch das Blut
tionum in Rebus Fidei et Morum, Jesu Christi nach Kol. I, 20, Ratis-
ed. Bannwart, n. 790, Friburgi bon 1857. 1908).
io THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
et mediator Dei et hominuin,13 homo Christus lesus, qui dedit redemptionem semetipsum pro omnibus 14 — For there is one God, and one me diator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a redemption for all."
The Redemption of the human race began with the conception of Jesus Christ and was consummated in the shedding of His precious Blood on the Cross.15 Hence the functions of His moral mediatorship comprise all His human-divine (theandric) acts from the manger to Calvary. His mediatorial act par excellence was the institution of the New Covenant. " Et ideo Novi Testa- menti mediator 16 est, ut morte intercedente in redemp- tionem earum praevaricationum, quae erant sub priori Testamento, repromissioncm accipiant — And therefore he is the mediator of the New Testament : that by means of his death, for the redemption of those transgressions which were under the former testament, they that are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance." 17 In fact everything that Christ did and does for us must be regarded as the result of His mediatorship, e. g., the institution of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the establishment of His Church, the mission of the Holy Ghost, the sanctification of souls,18 etc.
b) We meet with a profound conception of Christ's mediatorship in the writings of St. Au gustine. This Father may be said to have antici pated the objections of such later heretics as
13 ets /cat {jLeaiTys 6eou /cat 15 Cfr. Heb. X, 5 sqq. &vdp<air<j)V' ic diadrjK'rjs KOLVTJS
14 6 dobs eavrbv avTikvTpov virep 17 Heb. IX, 75. TT&VTUV. 18 Cfr. John XIV, 6.
CHRIST OUR MEDIATOR 11
Calvin, who held that Christ is our mediator only according to His Divinity, and the older Lu theran theologians, who attributed His mediato rial action exclusively to His human nature.19
The truth lies between these extremes. It is the God- man as such who is our Mediator, but only in His hu man nature. " He is the mediator between God and man," says St. Augustine, " because He is God with the Father, and a man with men. A mere man could not be a mediator between God and man ; nor could a mere God. Behold the mediator : Divinity without humanity cannot act as mediator; nor can humanity without Di vinity ; but the human Divinity and the Divine humanity of Christ is the sole mediator between Divinity and hu manity." 20 And again : " Christ is the mediator [be tween God and man] not because He is the Word; for the Word, being immortal and happy in the highest de gree, is far removed from the miseries of mortal men; but He is the mediator as man." 21
c) The Schoolmen went into the matter even more deeply by resolving the concept of media tion into its constituent elements.
10 Cfr. Bellarmine, De Christo, V, et divina humanitas Christi." Serm.,
1-10. 47, c. 12, n. 21.
20 " Mediator Dei et hominum, 21 " Non ob hoc mediator est
quia Deus cum Patre, quia homo Christus, quia Verbum; maxima
cum hominibus. Non mediator homo quippe immortale et maxime beatum
praeter deitatem, non mediator Deus Verbum longe est a mortalibus\ mi-
praeter humanitatem. Ecce media- seriis; sed mediator est secundum
tor: divinitas sine humanitate non quod homo." De Civ. Dei, IX, 15.
est mediatrix, humanitas sine divini- For additional Patristic texts see
tate non est mediatrix, sed inter di- Petavius, De Incarn., XII, 1-4;
vinitatem solam et humanitatem Vasquez, Comment, in S. Theol.,
solam mediatrix est humana divinitas III, disp. 83, c. i.
12 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
They had to meet this logical difficulty: The idea of natural mediation essentially implies three distinct ele ments, vis.: the two extremes God and man, and a mediator who must be both God and man, i. e., God- man (0€av6po)7ro<s) . Christ, being God according to His Divine Nature, is identical with the first of these two extremes. Consequently, He cannot be a true and nat ural mediator, for it is impossible to conceive Him as a go-between between Himself and man. Cfr. Gal. Ill, 20: " A mediator is not of one."
The Scholastics retorted that Christ is the mediator between God and man not qua Logos, but qua Word Incarnate, i. e. as man. Cfr. I Tim. II, 5 : " One mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus." The God man Christ Jesus is not only numerically distinct from all other men, He is likewise hypostatically distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost, being a different Person than either. Hence His mediatorship involves three dis tinct factors: God, man, and Christ. It is true that, regarded in His Divine Nature, as God, Christ is the mediator between Himself and mankind. But his media tion is not effected by the Godhead as such, it is effected solely by His manhood, which is hypostatically united with the Second Person of the Trinity. This gives rise to seeming paradoxes, e. g.: As man He adores, as God He is adored; as man He gives satisfaction, as God he receives it; as man He offers sacrifices, as God He accepts them. But this two-sidedness does not destroy the reality of Christ's natural and moral mediation. It simply constitutes its substratum. To postulate a numer ical distinction between the Divine Nature of Christ and the Godhead of the Father and the Holy Ghost, would be to base the possibility of the atonement on Tritheism.22
22 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol, 33, qu. 26, art. 2.
SECTION 2
CONGRUITY AND NECESSITY OF THE REDEMPTION
i. CONGRUITY OF THE REDEMPTION. — Inasmuch as an end can be best attained by congruous means, i. c,, means specially adapted to that particular end, the " congruous " may be said to be " morally necessary." But it is never necessary in the strict metaphysical sense of the term. Failure to employ a merely congruous means does not necessarily frustrate the end to be attained; nor does it argue a moral fault. A wise man knows how to attain his ends by various means, none of which may be posi tively "incongruous." It is in this light that we must regard certain profound arguments by which Fathers and theologians have tried to show the congruity of the In carnation for the purpose of Redemption. Here are the more notable ones.
a) God in His exterior operation aims solely at the manifestation of His attributes for the pur pose of His own glorification. What more ef fective means could He have chosen for this end than the Incarnation?
In the Incarnation the seemingly impossible was ef fected. The Creator was inseparably united with the creature, the Infinite with the finite, omnipotence with
13
i4 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
mercy; Heaven and earth were locked together, as it were, by the bond of the Hypostatic Union. Man is a microcosm reflecting the whole created universe. No doubt this is what Tertullian had in mind when he wrote : " The Son of God was born ; I am not ashamed, because men must needs be ashamed [of it]. And the Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd. And after having been buried, He rose again ; the fact is certain, because it is impossible." :
(a) God's justice and mercy are glorified in the In carnation, because, despite their diametric contrariety, they both meet in it, in such manner that either attri bute works itself out to the full extent of its infinity without disturbing the other.2 When, moved by infinite mercy, the Son of God satisfied infinite justice by expiat ing the sins of mankind on the Cross, " justice and peace kissed " in very truth.3
(/?) God's love, too, triumphantly manifested itself in the Incarnation of the Logos. " God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son." 4 The mystery of the Incarnation gives the lie to Aristotle, who held that, owing to the impassable gulf separating man from God, anything like "friendship " is impossible between them. " Both he that sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified, are all of one; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren." 5
(y) Divine wisdom also reached its climax in this sublime mystery. " If any one will diligently consider the mystery of the Incarnation," says St. Thomas, " he
•L" Natus est Dei Films: non 2 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His
pudet, quia pudendum est; est mor- Knowability, Essence, and Attri*
tuus Dei Filius: prorsus credibile, butes, pp. 466 sqq., St. Louis 1911.
quia ineptum est; et sepultus resur- SPs. LXXXIV, II.
rexit; cerium est, quia impossibile." 4 John III, 16.
De Carne Christi, c. 5. 5 Heb. II, u.
CONGRUITY OF THE REDEMPTION 15
will find [therein] a profundity of wisdom' exceeding all human understanding. . . . Hence it is that he who piously meditates on this mystery, will constantly dis cover [therein] new and more wonderful aspects." 6
b) Why did the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity become incarnate, rather than the First or the Third? There is a profound reason for this.
We have pointed out in Christology 7 that nothing in the personal traits of the Father or of the Holy Ghost would forbid either of these Divine Persons to assume human flesh. But there is that in the personal character of the Son which makes it more appropriate for Him to become incarnate than either the Father or the Holy Ghost. It was through the Logos that the universe was created ; 8 and what is more fitting than that it should also be repaired by His agency ? 9 Moreover, as the Logos alone is " the [perfect] image of God," 10 it was highly appropriate that He should restore to its pristine purity God's likeness in men, which had been destroyed by sin.11 " The Divine Logos Himself came into this world," says St. Athanasius, " in order that, being the image of the Father, He might restore man, who was created to His image and likeness." 12 It also befit-
6 " Si quis autem diligenter incar- 8 Cfr. John I, 3.
nationis mysterium consider ct, in- 9 Pope St. Leo the Great says:
veniet tantam sapientiae profundita- ". . . ut, quoniam ipse est, per quern
tern, quod omnem humanam cogni- omnia facta sunt et sine quo factum
tionem excedat. . . . Unde fit, ut est nihil, . . . cuius erat conditor,
pie consideranti semper magis ac etiam esset reformator." (Serm.,
magis admirabiles rationes huiusmodi 64, Migne, P. L., LIX, 358.) mysterii manifestentur." Contr. ilO Cfr. z Cor. IV, 4.
Gent., IV, 54. 11 Cfr. Gen. I, 26.
7 Pohle-Preuss, Christology, pp. 12 Or. de Incarn. Verbi, 13. I3S sq.
16 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
ted the hypostatic character of the Son of God that, as the true son of the Virgin Mary, He should become the " Son of man," in order to reconstitute all men " sons of God " as by a new birth.13 The second of these momenta is well brought out by St. Augustine when he says : " That men might be born of God, God was first born of them. For . . . He through whom we were to be created, was born of God, and He by whom we were to be re-created, was born of a woman." 14 St. John of Damascus emphasizes the first-mentioned point when he observes : " The Son of God also became the son of man ; He took flesh from the Blessed Virgin, but did not cease to be the Son of God." 15
c) It strikes us as an admirable manifestation of divine wisdom that the Son of God assumed human nature rather than that of the angels. Heb. II, 16: "Nusquam eniin angelos appre- hendit, sect semen Abrahae apprehendit 1G — For nowhere doth he take hold of the angels: but of the seed of Abraham he taketh hold/'
By assuming flesh, the Son of God wished to recon struct human nature upon its own foundations and to propose to man for his imitation a pattern exemplar in the "Following of Christ," — neither of which objects could have been attained had the Divine Logos assumed the nature of an angel.
13 Cfr. John I, 12; Gal. IV, 4 sq. 15 " Filius Dei etiam filius hominis
14 " Ut homines nascercntur ex fit, qui ex s. virgine incarnatus est, Deo, primo ex ipsis natus est Deus. nee tamen a filiali proprietate disces- Christus enint . . . natus ex Deo, sit." De Trinitate, i. — Cfr. St. per quern efficeremur, et natus ex Thomas, 5. Theol., 3a, qu. 3, art. 8. femina, per quern reficeremur." 16
Tract, in loa., 2, n. 15.
CONGRUITY OF THE REDEMPTION 17
One of the most telling reasons why it was more ap propriate for the Son of God to assume the nature of man than that of the angels 17 is that none but a God^ man could endow the created universe with the highest degree of perfection of which it was capable. By the hypostatic incorporation into the Godhead of a nature composed of a material body and a spiritual soul, the physical universe was linked with the realm of pure spirits. " In no other way," says Lessius, " could the whole universe have been so appropriately perfected . . . for by the assumption of man the whole universe was after a fashion assumed into and united with the God head." 18 Thus Christ is in very deed both the natural and the supernatural keystone of the cosmos, the be ginning and the end of all things, the pivot of the universe. Cf r. i Cor. Ill, 22 : " Omnia enim vestra simt . . . vos autem Christi, Chrlstus autem Dei — For all things are yours, . . . and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's."
d) It is a further proof of divine wisdom that the Son of God chose to come into this world as the child of a virgin rather than as a full-grown man.
A sweet infant is more apt to win our affection than a mature man. The virgin birth represented the real ization of the last of the four possible modes in which a human being can come into existence. Three of these had already been realized in Adam, Eve, and their de scendants. Adam was created immediately by God (sine
17 On the possibility of the 18 De Perfect. Moribusque Divinis,
Logos' assuming the nature of an XII, 4. angel, see Suarez, DC Incarn., disp. 14, sect. 2.
i8 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
mare et femina) ; Eve sprang from the male without fe male co-operation (ex mare sine femina) ; their descend ants are propagated by sexual generation (ex mare et femina) ; Jesus Christ alone originated from a woman without male co-operation (ex femina sine mare). This fact guarantees the reality and integrity of our Lord's human nature, as has been shown in Christology.10
By His incorporation into the race of the " first Adam," our Blessed Redeemer became the " second Adam " 20 in a far higher sense than if He had appeared on earth in a celestial body. There is a similar an tithesis between Eve and the Blessed Virgin Mary. In Christ the male was elevated, ennobled, and consecrated ; in Mary, the female. " He did not despise the male," says St. Augustine, " for he assumed the nature of a man, nor the female, for he was born of a woman." 21
2. NECESSITY OF THE REDEMPTION. — Neces sity is twofold: absolute or hypothetical. The latter may be subdivided into a number of special varieties. Hence in treating of the necessity of the Redemption we shall have to distinguish between several hypotheses.
a) Wyclif asserted that the Redemption was an absolute necessity. This proposition is un tenable.22
19 Pohle-Preuss, Christology, pp. Blessed Virgin Mary, ' cfr. Saint 41 sqq. Thomas, S. Theol., 3a, qu. i, art. 5-
20 Cfr. Rom. V, 14 sqq.; i Cor. 6. — On the whole subject of this XV, 45. subdivision cfr. De Lugo, De Myst.
21 " Nee mares fastidivit, quia Incarn., disp. i, sect. 2; Suarez, De
marem suscepit; nee feminam, quia Incarn., disp. 3, sect. 3; Chr. Pesch,
de femina factus est." Ep., 3. On Praelect. Dogmat., Vol. IV, 3rd ed.,
the propriety of Christ's beconi* pp. 209 sqq.
ing incarnate at the particular 22 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, En-
time when He was conceived by the chiridion, n. 607.
NECESSITY OF THE REDEMPTION 19
Whatever is absolutely necessary involves the same kind of certainty as that two and two are four. To as cribe such mathematical necessity to the Incarnation would be to deny the liberty of the Redemption as well as that of the Creation, for the^reation_of the world was jm indispensable condition of the Incarnation. Further more, Revelation~clearty teacRes~that the Redemption of the human race was in the strictest and most perfect sense of the word a work of divine grace, mercy, and love. Wyclif is wrong in holding that the Incarnation satisfies a legitimate demand of human nature, for in that hypothesis reason would be able to demonstrate with mathematical certainty the possibility and existence of the Hypostatic Union, which we know is not the case. So far is the human mind from being able to understand this mystery, that it cannot even demonstrate it after it has been revealed.23 Hence the Incarnation, if it was at all necessary, could be necessary only in an hypothetic sense, that is, on some condition or other. What may this condition be?
b) Raymond Lull, Malebranche, Leibniz, and other champions of absolute Optimism contend that when God determined to create the universe, He of necessity also decreed the Incarnation, be cause it is inconceivable that He should have wished to deprive His work of its highest per fection. In other words, the concept of "the best possible world" includes the Incarnation.
This theory, which destroys the liberty of the Creator, is refuted in our dogmatic treatise on God the Author
23 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, pp. 45 sq.
20 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
of Nature.2* Here we merely wish to point out two facts: that the Creator Himself, without regard to the future Incarnation, described His work as " very good," 25 and that the Incarnation would not be pre eminently a free grace if it corresponded to a strict claim of nature.
The champions of moderate or relative Optimism -* maintain that the present order, capped by the Incarna tion, represents the " best possible world," not because the Incarnation was a metaphysical necessity, but because it was morally necessary in view of God's superabundant goodness. These writers forget that, while the Incarna tion represents the apogee of divine glorification and the highest perfection of the universe, it involves at the same time an equally great humiliation and self-abasement (<?.r- inanitio, iccWrw) of God's Majesty, which is inconceivable in any other hypothesis except as a free decree of His love.27
c) The further question arises : Did God owe it to fallen man to redeem him by means of the Incarnation ? The answer is that the restoration of the state of grace which man had enjoyed in Paradise was just as truly a free gift of God's mercy and benevolence as that state itself, nay, even more so.
That God was under no obligation to redeem His creatures is evidenced by the fate of the fallen angels. Cfr. also Wisd. XII, 12: " Quis tibi imputabit, si peri-
24 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God the An- Dei, disp. 9), Sylvester Maurus (De thor of Nature and the Supernatural, Deo, disp. 51), and Viva (De In- pp. 45 sq. earn., qu. 2, art. 2).
25 Gen. I, 31. 27 Cfr. De Lugo, De Myst. Incarn.,
26 E. g., Didacus Ruiz (De Volunt. disp. 2, sect. 1-2.
NECESSITY OF THE REDEMPTION 21
erint nationes, quas tu fecisti? — Who shall accuse thee, if the nations perish, which thou hast made?" St. Augustine may have held harsh and exaggerated views on the subject of predestination, but he was certainly right when he said : " The entire mass incurred pen alty; and if the deserved punishment of condemnation were rendered to all, it would without doubt be right eously rendered." 28
To say that the Incarnation, though the result of a free decree, was the only means God had of redeeming the human race,29 would be unduly to restrict the divine attri butes of mercy, wisdom, and omnipotence in their essence and scope.30 God might, without injustice, have left the human race to perish in its iniquity, and there is nothing repugnant either to faith or right reason in the assump tion that He might, with or without the intervention of some appointed saint or angel as representative of the
28 " Universa massa poenas dabat, sition see Stentrup in the Zeit-
ft si omnibus damnationis supplicium schrlft filr katholische Theoloyie,
redderetur, non iniuste procul dubio pp. 653 sqq., Innsbruck 1892. B.
redderetur." (De Nat. et Grat., c. Funke, Grundlagen und Voraussetz-
5.) ungen dcr Satisfaktionstheorie des
29 This opinion was held by St. hi, Anselm, Minister 1903, furnishes
Anselm (Cur Deus Homo? I, 4; II, a notable contribution in support of
12), Richard of St. Victor (De In- Dorholt's thesis. Cfr. also L. Hein-
carn. Verbi, c. 8), and Tournely (De richs, Genugtuungstheorie des hi.
Deo, qu. 19, art. i; De Incarn., qu. Ansclmus, Paderborn 1909; and
4 sqq.). It is absolutely without Pohle-Preuss, God: His Knowability,
Scriptural warrant. De Lugo says of Essence, and Attributes, pp. 462
it: *' Mihi videtur satis ad err or em sqq.
accedere, eo quod, licet non omnino 30 " Sunt stulti qui dicunt : Non
dare, fere tamen dare ex Scriptura poterat aliter sapientia Dei homines
colligatur opposition, accedente prae- liberare, nisi susciperet hominem et
sertim expositions communi Pa- nascerctur de femina. . . . Quibus
trum." (Op. cit., disp. 2, sect, i, dicimus: Poterat omnino, sed si
n. 6). Lately an attempt has been aliter facer et, similiter vestrae stulti-
made to interpret St. Anselm's tiae displiceret." (St. Augustine,
opinion more mildly (Dorholt, Die De Agone Christi, XI, 12). For
Lehre von der Genngtuung Christi, other Patristic texts consult Peta-
pp. 201 sqq,, Paderborn 1891). vius, De Incarn., II, 13. For a criticism of Dorholt's po-
22 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
whole race, have restored penitent sinners to His grace without demanding any equivalent whatever, or on the basis of an inadequate satisfaction. Hence, according to Suarez,31 the universal teaching of theologians that God in His omnipotence might have repaired human nature in a variety of other ways,32 is so certain that " it cannot be denied without temerity and danger to the faith."
d) The Incarnation can be conceived as a necessary postulate of the Redemption only on the assumption that God exacted adequate (i. e., in finite) satisfaction for the sins of men. In that hypothesis manifestly none but a natural media tor, that is to say, a Godman, was able to give the satisfaction demanded.
Sin involves a sort of infinite guilt and cannot be adequately atoned for except by an infinite satisfac tion.33 The Fathers held that not even the human nature of Christ, as such, considered apart from the Hypostatic Union, could make adequate satisfaction for our sins ; much less, of course, was any other creature, human or angelic, equal to the task. For, in the words of St. Augustine, " we could not be redeemed, even by the one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, if He were not also God." 34
Though this was the most difficult mode of redemption,
31 De Incarn., disp. 4, sect. 2, n. 3. 34 St. Augustine, Enchir., c. 108:
32 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. TheoL, aa, " Neque per ipsum Hberaremur unum qu. i, art. 2: " Deus per suam mediatorem Dei et hominum, homi- omnipotentem virtutem poterat hu- nem lesum Christum, nisi esset et manam naturam multis aliis modis Deus."— For additional texts from reparare." the writings of the Fathers consult
33 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. TheoL, 33, Vasquez, disp. 4, c. 3; Thomassin, qu- 2, ad 2. De Incarn., I, 4.
NECESSITY OF THE REDEMPTION 23
it was the one actually chosen by God. The Incarnation of the Logos satisfied the full rigor of His justice, but it also gave free play to His boundless love. The fact that the atonement was decreed from eternity explains such Scriptural phrases as John III, 14 : " Exaltari oportet 35 F ilium hominis — The Son of man must be lifted up" (as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert), and Luke XXIV, 26: " Nonne haec oportuit pati3Q Christum — Was it not necessary for Christ to have suffered these things ? " 37
35 v\f/o8ijvai Set. Praelectiones Dogmaticae, Vol. IV,
36 25et iraQetv. 3rd ed., pp. 201 sqq., Friburgi 1909;
37 Cfr. Heb. IX, 22. — On the sub- De Lugo, De Myst. Incarn., disp. 2, ject of the foregoing paragraphs con- 3, 5; Billuart, De Incarn., diss. 3, suit J. Kleutgen, Theologie der Vor- art. 2; B. Dorholt, Die Lehre von zeit, Vol. Ill, pp. 336 sqq., 381 sqq., der Genugtuung Christi, pp. 171 sqq., 430 sqq., Munster 1870; Chr. Pesch, Paderborn 1891.
SECTION 3
PREDESTINATION OF THE REDEEMER
i. STATE OF THE QUESTION. — Would the Son of God have appeared in the flesh if Adam had not sinned? In other words, was the Incarnation absolutely predetermined? This is a most inter esting question, and the famous theological con troversy to which it gave rise, throws so clear a light on the dogma of the Redemption and the sublime dignity of the Redeemer, that we must give an account of it here.
The underlying problem may be briefly stated as follows: The Incarnation was dictated by two principal motives, namely, (i) compassion for the misery of mankind, and (2) the glorifi cation of God and His Christ.1 Which of these motives outweighed the other? This question must receive an answer before we can determine whether the fall of Adam was an indispensable condition of the Incarnation, or whether the Di vine Logos assumed human flesh irrespective of the existence or non-existence of a sinful race of
iCfr. John XVII, 4 sqq.; 2 Thess. I, 12. J KO^-v-t Arvt-v-^V* lk*Jt fcvw XO*Mt -J
, r . UT ^f^ /_
PREDESTINATION OF THE REDEEMER 25
v^} "»**•• i~
men. The former view is held by the Thomists, the latter by the Scotists. Sc,
The Scotists conceive the divine decrees appertaining to the Redemption in the following order. First of all comes the absolute predistination of Christ and His divine kingdom, consisting of angels and men. In the second place, the permission of the sin of Adam ; and in the third place, the mission of Christ in His capacity of passible Redeemer.
The Thomists, on the other hand, hold that God created the universe without regard to Christ; that He subse quently decreed to permit sin, and lastly determined on the Incarnation of the Logos for the purpose of redeem ing the human race.
As may be seen from this enumeration, the Scotists put the Incarnation first, while the Thomists put it last. From the Scotist point of view God's predominant mo tive in decreeing the Incarnation was the dignity and glorification of Christ. The universe was created for Christ's sake. The Thomists, on the other hand, ascribe the Incarnation of the Logos primarily to God's mercy. In the Scotist hypothesis the Incarnation is altogether independent of the Fall ; the Thomists regard the latter as an indispensable condition of the former.
Against the Scotist view there lies this objection: If Christ was not predestined to atone for the sins of men, why did He appear on earth as a passible Redeemer rather than, as we should have every reason to expect, in the capacity of an impassible, glorified Godman? The Scotists meet this difficulty by saying that the first and absolute decree touching the Incarnation was modified in view of the Fall ; that after the Fall, Christ, who originally
26 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
was to have appeared among men as homo gloriosus, de cided to assume human flesh and become homo passibilis. In general terms the two theories may be characterized as follows: The Scotistic theory is inspired by a tran scendent idealism, whereas the Thomist view conforms to the facts as we know them. To enable the reader to form his own estimate we will briefly state the leading arguments adduced by both schools.
2. THE THOMISTIC THEORY. — That the Fall of Adam was the chief motive which prompted God to decree the Incarnation, is held by all Thomists,2 and also by a large number of theo logians belonging to other schools, e. g., Gregory of Valentia, Vasquez, Petavius, Cardinals To- letus and De Lugo, and even by the "ideal" Lessius.3 Among modern theologians this the ory has been espoused by Kleutgen,4 Stentrup,5 Tepe,6 and many others.
Toletus and Petavius absolutely reject the Scotist hypothesis. Chr. Pesch 7 and L. Janssens 8 prefer the Thomist view, but admit the other as probable. In this they follow St. Thomas himself 9 and St. Bonaventure.10 The Angelic Doctor both in his Commentary on the Liber Sententiarum and in the Summa Theologica expresses
2 Cfr. Billuart, De Incarn., diss. 7 Praelect. Dogm., Vol. IV, 3d ed., 3, art. 3. pp. 216 sqq.
3 De Praedest. Christi (Opusc., t. 8 De Deo-Homine, II: Soteriologia, II, pp. 483 sqq., Paris 1878). pp. 44 sqq.
4 Theologie der Vorzeit, Vol. Ill, 9 Comment, in Quatuor Libras pp. 393 sqq. Sent., Ill, dist. i, qn. i, art. 3.
5 Soteriologia, thes. 2. 10 Comment, in Quatuor Libras Qlnstit. TheoL, Vol. Ill, pp. 663 Sent., Ill, dist. i, art. 2, qu. 2.
sqq., Paris 1896.
THE THOMISTIC THEORY 27
himself with cautions reserve. St. Bonaventure says : " He who was macle flesh for us, alone knows which of the two theories is the better. Which is to be preferred it is difficult to say, because both are Catholic and sustained by Catholic authors." 1X
The Thomistic conception is based upon arguments which, though not cogent, are perfectly sound.
a) St. Thomas himself argues as follows: "Some claim that the Son of God would have assumed human flesh even if man had not sinned. Others assert the contrary, and their teaching seems to have a greater claim to our assent. The reason is this. Whatever proceeds solely from the Divine Will, transcending every exi gency of nature, must remain unknown to us, except it be revealed by Sacred Scripture. . . . Now, Sacred Scripture invariably assigns the sin of Adam as the motive of the Incarnation. It is more befitting, therefore, to regard the Incarna tion as ordained by God for the cure of sin, so that if there had been no sin there would have been no Incarnation." l2
As a matter of fact, whenever Sacred Scripture speaks of the motive of the Incarnation, it invariably points to
11 I- c. innotescere non possunt, nisi qua-
125". Theol., 33, qu. i, art. 3: tenus in S. Scriptura traduntur. . . .
" Quidam dicunt, quod etiamsi homo Unde quum in S. Scriptura ubique
non peccasset, Dei Filius incarnatus incarnationis ratio ex peccato primi
fuisset. Alii -vero contrarium as- hominis assignetur, convenientius
serunt, quorum assertioni tnagis as- dicitur, incarnationem opus ordina-
sentiendum zndetur. Ea enim quae turn esse a Deo in remedium contra
a sola Dei voluntate proveniunt peccatum, ita quod peccato non exi-
supra omne debitum naturae, nobis stente incarnatio non fuisset."
2& THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
the sin of Adam. It is because He was sent to redeem the fallen race of men that Christ received the name of "Jesus," i. e., Saviour or Redeemer (salvator, o-wr^/p). Cf r. Matth. I, 21 : " Et vocabis nomen eius lesum; ipse enim 13 salvum faciet populum suum a peccatis eorum — And thou shalt call his name Jesus ; for he shall save his people from their sins." 14 Jesus Himself never even hints at any other motive. Cfr. Luke XIX, 10: " Venit enim Filius hominis quaerere et salvum facere, quod perierat — For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost." It seems perfectly legitimate to conclude, therefore, that the redemption of man was the main motive which prompted God to send His Son. Had there been a higher and more com prehensive motive, it would be strange to find no hint of it in the Scriptures.
The weight of this argument must not, however, be overrated. For, in the first place, the texts upon which it is based are purely affirmative, but not exclusive, so that the argument based upon them is at bottom merely one ex silentio. And, secondly, the Scriptural passages in question all refer to the actual order of salvation, not to its hidden background. Although the Incarna tion and the Redemption are causally correlated, Sacred Scripture does not define the nature of their mutual relationship, and tells us nothing at all concerning the question whether the Incarnation is subordinate to the Redemption, or vice versa.
b) Owing to their larger knowledge of the writings of the Fathers, modern theologians are
Rom. Ill, 25; Gal. IV, 4; i Tim. 14 Similarly Matth. IX, 13; Mark I, 15; j John III, 5. II, 17; Luke I, 31; John III, 17;
THE THOMISTIC THEORY 29
able to construct a far more convincing Patristic argument than was possible in the time of St. Thomas. Holy Scripture merely intimates by its silence that there would have been no Incarnation if Adam had not sinned. The Fathers enunciate this proposition in explicit terms.
" I am persuaded," writes Cardinal Toletus, " that, had the old Scholastic doctors been acquainted with the many Patristic testimonials which I now adduce, they would have admitted that the contrary view is absolutely de void of probability." 15 We will cite a few of these tes timonials. St. Athanasius says : " The assumption of human nature [on the part of the Logos] presupposes a necessity, apart from which He would not have put on flesh." 16 St. Ambrose asks : " What was the cause of the Incarnation if not this, that the flesh which had sinned by itself, should by itself be redeemed?"17 And St. Augustine declares that " the Lord Jesus Christ came in the flesh . . . for no other reason than ... to save, liberate, redeem, and enlighten [those who are engrafted members of His body]."18 We may also refer to the Creed : " Who for us men and for our salvation de scended from Heaven," and to the Easter hymn : " O happy fault, which deserved to have so great and glorious a Redeemer ! "
To sum up the argument: Tradition, so far as we
15 In S. TheoL, h. I. per se redimereturf " De Incarn.,
16 Or. contr. Arian., 2, 54. Sim- c. 6, n. 56.
ilarly Gregory of Nazianzus (Or., 18 De Pccc. Her. et Rem., I, 26,
30, n. 3) and Cyril of Alexandria 39. — Additional Patristic texts in
(Thesaur., V, 8). Lessius, De Praedest. Christi, sect.
17 " Quae erat causa incarnationis, i, n. 5; Stentrup, Soteriologia, thes. nisi ut caro, quae per se peccaverat, i sq. Cfr. Petavius, De Incarn.,
II, 17.
30 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
are able to ascertain it, is against the absolute predesti nation of Christ, but holds that, if man had not sinned, the Son of God would never have become incarnate.
To escape this argument, the Scotists urge their above- mentioned distinction between " Christus gloriosus " and " Christus passibilis" God's original decree concerning the Incarnation, they say, was from all eternity mod ified by the Fall of man, which necessitated a pas sible redeemer; and it is to this particular aspect _jof the Incarnation alone that the Patristic texts apply; at least it is possible so to interpret them. But even if they could be interpreted in the wider sense in which they are understood by the Thomists, we should still be dealing with a mere theory, which no rule of faith constrains us to adopt. In support of this view the Scotist theologians i point to the modification which the Patristic theory of '• " satisfaction " has experienced in course of time with out detriment to its substance.
3. THE SCOTISTIC THEORY. — If the question at issue had to be decided purely on the author ity of theologians, we should be unable to arrive at a unanimous decision, so evenly is authority balanced against authority. The Scotistic theory originated with Abbot Rupert of Deutz.19 It was adopted by Albert the Great 20 and developed by Duns Scotus,21 in whose school it eventually obtained the upper hand.22 It has also found many ardent defenders outside the Scotistic
19 De Gloria et Hon. Filii Hominis 21 Comment, in Quatuor Libros Libri XIII; De Trinit., Ill, 20. Sent., Ill, dist. 7, qu. 3.
20 Comment, in Quatuor Libros 22 Cfr. Mastnus, Disp. Theol., Sent., Ill, dist. 20, art. 4. disp. 4, qu. i.
THE SCOTISTIC THEORY 31
camp, among them Ambrose Catharinus,23 Ysam- bert, St. Bernard of Siena, St. Francis de Sales,24 and especially Suarez.25 For a while its defend ers were few, but of late the theory is again com ing into favor. Among its modern champions we may mention: Faber, Gay, Bougaud, Schell, Fr. Risi, and Du Cappucce.'26
The arguments for the Scotist position are un deniably strong.
a) Their Scriptural basis is the oft-repeated statement of St. Paul that the Incarnation of Christ was pre-ordained by an eternal and abso lute divine decree without regard to the Fall.
The Apostle declares that all things are by Christ and for Christ, i. e., tend towards Him as their final end and object. Cfr. Heb. II, 10: " Propter quern omnia et per quern omnia — For whom are all things and by whom are all things." 2r Col. I, 16 sqq. : " Omnia per ipsum et in ipso 28 creata sunt . . . et ipse est ante omneszo et omnia in ipso constant; et ipse est caput cor ports Ecclesiae, qui est principium,30 primogenitus ex mortuis, ut sit in omnibus ipse primatum tenens 31 — In him were all things created . . . and he is before all, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the first born from the dead; that in all things he may hold the
A!*
^l
23 De Praedestin. Eximia Christi, 27 §t> #„ T& Lugduni 1542. Traj/ra.
24 De I' Amour de Dieu, II, 4. 28 efr avrov
25 De Incarn-> disp. 5. 29 26"Primaute de Notre-Seigneur
Jesus-Christ," in the Etudes Fran- 31 ciscaines, 1890, 1900.
32 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
primacy." If Christ holds first place in the divine economy of the universe, and the world of angels and men was reserved to the last, so runs the Scotist argument, the Incarnation cannot have been subordinate to the Creation and Redemption, but, on the contrary, must rank far above it. Without Christ there could have been no cre ation. Hence Christ is " before all," " the first-born of every creature." 32 He is the centre and pivot of the uni verse, not in consequence of the Fall, but absolutely and from all eternity. He has not been added to the created universe By~ accident, but rules it as Tr/xorevW, and is the Alpha and Omega of all things from the beginning.33
b) Though this theory cannot be strictly dem onstrated from the writings of the Fathers, yet the Patristic interpretation of several passages in the Sapiential Books of the Old Testament seems to lend it weight. The fact that the Fathers were unable to gauge the full bearing of their interpretation does not forbid us to push to their legitimate conclusions the principles which they asserted.
We have pointed out in our treatise on the Trinity 34 that certain of the Fathers applied Proverbs VIII, 22 : " The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he made anything from the beginning," 35 to the temporal birth of the Logos, that is, the Incarnation. This can only mean that Christ was predestined to be
32 Col. I, 15; cfr. Rom. VIII, 29. 34 Pohle-Preuss, The Divine Trin-
33 The objections urged against ity, p. 157.
this interpretation may be read in 35 " Dominus possedit (efcrwe) me
De Lugo, De Myst. Incarn., disp. in initio viarum suarum, antequam 7, sect. 2. quidquam faceret a principio."
THE SCOTISTIC THEORY 33
the First and that all things were created for His sake.39 On the strength of Gen. II, 24 and Eph. V, 31 sqq. several Fathers held that the nature of matrimony, as an image of " Christ's union with His Church," was re vealed to Adam in Paradise. If this be true, our Lord's appearance on earth cannot be conceived as conditioned by the Fall. " Even if man had not sinned, but had remained in the state of innocence," says St. Augus tine,37 " matrimony would still be the symbol of Christ's union with His Church." 38
When it comes to theological arguments, the Scotists can allege in their favor all the reasons which we have given above for the congruity of the Incarnation as such, especially the fact that, in the words of Lessius,39 "by the assumption of man the whole universe was, after a fashion, assumed into and united with the Godhead." Strangely enough, Lessius subsequently under mined his own position by saying: "If any created nature was to be assumed primarily for the sake of perfecting the universe, it would have been the most perfect, i. e., that of the highest angel." 40 This conclusion does not fol low. Unlike man, an angel is not a "microcosm." Besides, there is something sublime and over-
36 Cfr. Suarez, De Incarn., disp. 38 For the Thomist reply to this 5, sect. 2. argument see Lessius, De Praedest.
37 " Coniugium etiam in statu in- Christi, n. 23 sqq.
nocentiae, si homo non peccasset, 39 De Perfect. Mor. Div., XII, 4.
futurum sacramentum coniunctionis 40 De Praedest. Christi, n. 9.
Christi cum Ecclcsia." (De Nupt. el Concup., I, 21.)
34 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
whelming in the thought that, as Scot ism con sistently teaches, not only all men but all angels, not only fallen and sinful man, but likewise man as constituted in Paradise, owe their original sanctity entirely to the merits of an absolutely predestined Redeemer; that all grace radiates from Christ, the "sun of justice/' who sanctifies angels and men and disperses the shadows of death.
Perhaps the weightiest argument adduced for the Scotist position is the one developed by Su- arez : The end cannot be inferior to the means devised for its attainment. This would be the case if the Incarnation merely served the pur pose of the Redemption. No sensible hunter would shoot a cannon to bring down a sparrow. Christ is not only the crown of the created uni verse, He is also the climax of divine glorification. Without Him the universe would be meaningless. He who is highest and most perfect in the order of being, must also be first in the plan of creation, and the fulness of divine glory cannot have been dependent on the accident of the Fall.
The Scotistic theory recommends itself byjits sublimity. It groups angels and men around the Godman as the center of the universe, the highest and final revelation, the beginning and end of all things.41
41 Cfr. Jos. Pohle in the Katholik, Mainz 1886, II, 461 sqq., 578 sqq.
CHAPTER II
THE REDEMPTION OF THE HUMAN RACE THROUGH CHRIST'S VICARIOUS ATONEMENT
SECTION i
THE REALITY OF CHRIST'S VICARIOUS ATONEMENT
ARTICLE I VICARIOUS ATONEMENT DEFINED
This Chapter deals with the concrete fact of Christ's vicarious atonement (satisfactio vicaria) rather than with the abstract notion of Redemption, which even heretics do not entirely deny ; hence we must be careful to define our terms.
i. EXPLANATION OF THE TERM "ATONE MENT." — a) By atonement we understand the reparation of any wrong or injury, either ma terial (damnum) or moral (offensa, iniurid). Material injury demands restitution; moral in jury can be repaired only by satisfaction or atone ment in the strict sense of the term. The Roman Catechism defines "satisfaction" as "nothing else than compensation for an injury offered to an other." Satisfaction in the sense of discharging
35
36 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
a penance enjoined in confession will be treated in connection with the Sacrament of Penance.
b) Atonement, in the sense in which the term is used in Soteriology, presupposes an offence committed against, or an injury done to, God. It is for our sins that God demands satisfaction. Sin and satisfaction are consequently correlative terms, or, to put it more accurately, they are an titheses clamoring for reconciliation.
The concept of sin contains a twofold element : guilt (r eat us culpae) and punishability (reatus poenae). Guilt and punishability are insepara ble. Their gravity depends partly on the dignity of the person offended (gravitas for malls) and partly on the character of the offence committed (gravitas materialis). God is infinite in dig nity and majesty; therefore every grievous sin, morally considered, involves an infinite offence. "A sin committed against God," says St. Thomas, "partakes in a manner of infinity, through its re lation to the infinite majesty of God; for an of fence is the more serious, the greater the person offended." 1
Considered as a moral delinquency on the part of man, sin is a merely finite evil. In respect of God, however, it is infinite. "Iniuria est in iniuri- ato." This applies, of course, only to mortal sin, which seriously disturbs the sinner's relation to
1 S. TheoL, 33, qu. i, art. 2, ad 2.
VICARIOUS ATONEMENT 37
God. This relation, if justice be given free scope, cannot be restored except by means of ade quate satisfaction (emptio, redemptio).
c) Grievous sin, as we have said, involves an infinite offence, for which no creature, least of all the sinner himself, can render adequate satis faction. Adequate in this case means infinite satisfaction, and infinite satisfaction can be given only by one who is infinite in dignity. Hence none but a Godman could redeem the hu man race. Hence also the necessity of a vica rious atonement.
2. DEFINITION OF "VICARIOUS ATONEMENT." — The notion of vicariatio does not imply that he who acts as substitute or representative for an other takes upon himself the other's guilt or sin as such. No one can be the bearer or subject of another's sins. In this erroneous sense vicar ious atonement involves a contradiction, because no mediator can give satisfaction for another's sins unless he is himself sinless. Vicarious atone ment, therefore, can only mean the voluntary as sumption of a punishment due to sin, — not in deed the reatiis poence, which implies real guilt, but the penance imposed by God. In other words, the Godman renders infinite satisfaction in our stead, and this satisfaction by its objective worth counterbalances our infinite offence and is ac-
38 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
cepted by God as though it were given by our selves.
To illustrate the case by an analogy. The human race is like an insolvent merchant. Christ voluntarily assumes our obligations and is com pelled to pay the whole debt. The sum of this debt is His Precious Blood, (i Pet. I, 18 sq.)
3. OBJECTIONS REFUTED. — The Socinians, and modern Rationalists generally, reject the Cath olic dogma of Christ's vicarious atonement on the pretext that it involves manifest contradictions, (a) with regard to God, (b) with regard to Christ, and (c) with regard to man. We will briefly examine these alleged contradictions.
a) The doctrine of the atonement is held to be con tradictory in respect of God for the reason that forgive ness of sins is sometimes attributed to pure mercy and sometimes to strict justice, whereas these two attributes are mutually exclusive.
If the simultaneous manifestation of God's infinite mercy and justice really involved an intrinsic contradic tion, St. Paul would have been the first to incur this charge, for he says in his Epistle to the Romans : " You are justified freely by his grace,2 through the redemp tion 3 that is in Christ Jesus." 4 In exacting satisfaction for our sins from His own Son instead of us poor sin ners, God exercised in an eminent manner both His mercy and His justice. There is no contradiction in volved in this proposition. This would be the case only if the sinner were held to give adequate satisfaction in
2 5a>peai> Ty avrov ^dpiTt. 3 §ta 7-775 dTroXvTpuffeus- * Rom. Ill, 24.
VICARIOUS ATONEMENT 39
person and his performance subsequently stamped as a grace. Holy Scripture is perfectly consistent in teach ing, on the one hand, that " God so loved the world as to give his only-begotten Son," 5 and, on the other, thai; " by sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh, and of sin, [God] hath condemned sin in the flesh." G
b) The doctrine of the atonement is declared to be contradictory for the further reason that it involves the punishment of an innocent person in lieu of the guilty criminal. It is downright murder, however disguised, for God to exact the blood of His own guiltless Son in expiation for the sins of others, say the Rationalists.
God would indeed be unjust had He imposed the guilt and punishment of others upon His innocent Son as though He were the guilty criminal. But this is by no means the teaching of the Church. Not having per sonally sinned, Christ could not be punished as a sin ner. Hence His death was not a punishment in the proper sense of the word, but merely a satisfactio laboriosa. Furthermore, it was not imposed on Him against His will. He Himself declares : " I lay down my life for my sheep. ... I lay it down of myself,7 and I have power to lay it down : and I have power to take it up again."8 Volenti non fit iniuria (No wrong arises to one who consents). Hence the atonement cannot be said to involve a violation of commutative justice. Nor does it run counter to distributive justice, for Christ's dolorous passion and death, besides redounding to the ad vantage of the human race, also brought Him personal reward and glory. Cf r. Luke XXIV, 26 : " Ought not
5 John III, 16. 7 air'
6 Rom. VIII, 3.— Cfr. Pohle- 8 John X, 15, 18. Preuss, God: His Knowability, Es
sence, and Attributes, pp. 466 sqq.
40 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into his glory ? "
c) In regard to man, the doctrine of the atonement is denounced as repugnant on the score that one who is guilty of a crime should, as a point of honor, give the necessary satisfaction himself, and not shift this painful duty to another. Our Rationalist adver saries add that the idea of a man's appropriating to himself the fruits of another's labor is preposterous. They overlook the fact that man was absolutely unable to render adequate satisfaction for sin. God manifested His infinite love and mercy precisely in deigning to accept a "vicarious atonement. It cannot be proved that this involves an injustice. The objection will lose much of its force if we take into consideration the fact that Christ represented the human race in the order of grace in much the same manner in which Adam had vicari ously represented it upon the occasion of the Fall. Hence the Scriptural antithesis between the " first Adam " and the " second Adam." Christ is no stranger to us ; He is " bone of our bone," our " brother " as well as our spir itual head. His merits constitute as it were a family heirloom, in which each of us has a share.
The privilege of participating in the merits of Christ's vicarious atonement does not relieve us of the duty of personally atoning for our sins. That Christ has ren dered adequate satisfaction for the sins of the whole race, does not mean that each individual human being is eo ipso subjectively redeemed. This is the teaching of " orthodox" Lutheranism, not of the Catholic Church. We Catholics believe that the individual sinner must feel sorry for his sins, confess them, and render satisfaction for them, — though, of course, no satisfaction can be of
THE DOGMA PROVED 41
any avail except it is based on the merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.9
ARTICLE 2
THE DOGMA OF CHRIST'S VICARIOUS ATONEMENT PROVED FROM REVELATION.
i. VARIOUS HERESIES AND THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH. — The heretical opinions that have arisen in course of time with regard to the dogma of Christ's vicarious atonement owe their in spiration either to Rationalism or to Pantheism. The Rationalist error that the idea of individual liberty absolutely excludes original sin, found its embodiment in Pelagianism and Socinianism, two heretical systems which, though not con- temporaneous, agreed in denying original sin and the atonement. Pantheism, which merges all individuals into one Absolute Being and regards sin as a function of the Godhead, gave birth to Gnosticism and modern Theosophy.
a) All these heresies are based on a radically wrong conception of the nature of sin. a) Pelagianism rests on the fundamental fallacy
9 Cfr. Cone. Trident., Sess. XIV, specious objections (see that writer's
cap. 8 (Denzinger-Bannwart, En- book, Die Krisis des Christentums
chiridion, n. 904). An excellent in der modernen Theologie, pp. 10
treatise on the philosophical aspects sqq., Berlin 1882) are effectively
of the atonement is G. A. Pell's refuted by B. Dorholt, Die Lehre
Das Dogma von der Sunde und Er- von der Genugtuung Christi, pp.
losung im Lichte der Vernunft, Rat- 160 sqq.. Paderborn 1891. isbon 1886. Edw. von Hartmann's
42 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
that sin is essentially the free act of an individual and cannot be conceived as moral guilt incurred by propa gation (original sin). In consequence of this basic error, the Pelagians wrongly held that the grace of Christ has for its object not the redemption of the whole human race by the effacement of an inherited sin of nature, but the setting up of an ideal or pattern of virtue in accordance with which the individual is obliged to regulate his per sonal conduct. Christ gave us " a good example " to counteract the " bad example " set by Adam. Pelagian- ism credited the sinner with sufficient strength to arise after falling, nay to attain to a state of perfect sinless- ness 1 without supernatural aid, and hence denied the ne cessity of grace and unduly exaggerated the moral ca pacity of human nature.2
The soteriological consequences implied in Pelagius' system were expressly drawn by Socinianism. This her esy originated towards the close of the sixteenth century by way of a reaction against " orthodox " Protestantism. Its founders were Laelius Socinus and his nephew Faustus, both natives of Siena, Italy. Faustus Socinus (I539~I6o4) systematized and developed the teachings of his uncle in several works: De Christo Servatore, De Officio Christi, and Brevis Discursus de Ratione Salutis
1 Impeccantia, ava/J,apTr]ffia. bitrio, De Correptione et Gratia, De
2 Cfr. Blunt's Dictionary of Sects, Praedestinatione Sanctorum, De Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties, and Dono Per sever aniiae, Contra lulia- Schools of Religious Thought, pp. num Pelagianum, De Gestis Pelagii, 415 sqq., New Impression, London De Octo Dulcitii Quaestionibus, Com- 1903; also the Preface to P. ment. in Psalmos, Serm., x and xiv, Holmes' translation of The Anti- and in his Epistles to Paulinus, Op- Pelagian Works of Saint Augustine, tatus, Sextus, Celestine, Vitalis, and Vol. I, pp. i sqq., Edinburgh 1872. Valentine. Cfr. also the Varia St. Augustine treats at length of Scripta et Monumenta ad Pelagia- Pelagianism in the following books: norum Historiam Pertin -tia at the De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia, Contra close of Vol. X of the Benedictine Duas Epistolas Pelagianorum, En- edition of St. Augustine's works. chiridion, De Gratia et Libero Ar-
GNOSTICISM
43
Nostrae ex Sermonibus Fausti Socini.3 Socinianism denied the Trinity, the Divinity of Jesus Christ, the necessity of supernatural grace, and the dogma of the vicarious atonement. Its champions alleged that Christ is properly speaking ngith£Ji_Qur Saviour nor a true high. grigsjLr- but merely a^isajcJaer pointing the way to salva^. tion. The chief object of His coming was to_inculcate the " Our Father." To the Socinians have succeeded the modern Unitarians, who are distinguished from their predecessors principally by the denial of the mi raculous conception of our Lord and the repudiation of His worship. The Socinian theology also had consid erable influence in forming the modern Rationalist school.4
Hermes and Gunther 5 held an intermediate position between the Catholic dogma and these heretical vagaries.
(3) Diametrically opposed to the soteriological teach ing of the Pelagians and Socinians is that of the Gnostics and Theosophists.
Gnosticism was at bottom a Manichsean heresy. Its votaries held that, since the human soul is part of that principle (hyle) which is essentially bad, sin cannot be a moral delinquency, and for a man to be redeemed from sin implies no more than that his soul is freed from the shackles of the material body. The human nature o|_ Christ was regarded by the Gnostics as purely fictitious^ jand apparitional, because the Divine Logos could not pos- "sWy unite Himself with matter, which is essentially evil.
3 These writings are collected in 4th ed., pp. 784 sqq., Freiburg 1910. the Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum, 5 On the teaching of Hermes Vols. i and 2, Irenopoli 1656. (-f 1831) and Giinther (+ 1863),
4 Blunt, Dictionary of Sects, etc., cfr. J. Kleutgen, S. J., Theologie p. 568. For a detailed analysis of der Vorzeit, Vol. Ill, pp. 457 sqq., the Socinian teaching see A. Har- Miinster 1870.
tiack, Dogmengeschichte, Vol. Ill,
44 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
In such a system, needless to say, there was no room for the Redemption, much less for a vicarious atonement.
Theosophy is subject to similar delusions. Being radically Pantheistic, it regards sin_as_a cosmic factor of equal necessity and importance with virtue. Good and evil to the Theosophist are Two world-powers endowed with equal rights. Sinjs__merejvja limitation of_jnfinity. The Absolute Being alone, conceived as an impersonal spirit, is unbounded and sinless. Each individual human soul is part and parcel of the Absolute, and as such its own God. In other words, ta£jD^dJ^_bejcomes_incar- nate in every human being. The human race may 'be said to have beenTedeemeTByTJhrist only in the sense that He was the first to enlighten men on the true relationship between the finite and the infinite, between good and evil. The real redemption of man consists in Ji^re^absorption into the infinite ocean of being, out of which he has tem-
pprarily_emerged like a
b) Though the Church has never formally (in terminis) defined the doctrine of the vicarious atonement,7 she has nevertheless inculcated the substance of it so often and so vigorously that it may be said to be one of the cardinal dogmas of the Catholic religion. The Third General Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) solemnly defined: "If any one therefore says that [Christ] offered Him-
e On modern Theosophy cfr. E. R. Hull, S. J., Studies in The-
Madame Blavatky's Isis Unveiled, osophy, 2nd ed., Bombay 1905; J
The Secret Doctrine, and Key to T. Driscoll in the Catholic Encyclo-
Theosophy; also the numerous writ- pedia, Vol. XIV, pp. 628 sqq.
ings of Annie Besant, especially her 7 Cfr. K. Martin, Cone. Vatican.
Esoteric Christianity; A. P. War- Document. Collcctio, p. 37. Fader-
rington, art. "Theosophy" in the born 1873. Encyclopedia Americana, Vol. XV;
THE DOGMA 45
self up as a sacrifice for Himself, and not solely for us,8 let him be anathema." 9 Still more clearly the Council of Trent: "If any one as serts that this sin of Adam ... is taken away ... by any other remedy than the. merit of the one Mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in His own blood, made unto us justice, sanctification and redemption, ... let him be anathema." In another place the same Council says: "[Christ] by His most holy pas sion on the wood of the Cross merited justifica tion for us and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father/'11 The last-quoted phrase closely resembles the technical terminology of the Schools.
2. PROOF FROM SACRED SCRIPTURE. — The vi carious atonement is clearly inculcated both by the Old and the New Testament, though not, of course, in the technical terms of modern theology.
a) Isaias gives graphic expression to it in the
8 Kal oi>xl 5r] virep pbvuv im&v. D. N. lesu Christi, qui nos Deo Here is the whole passage in Latin: reconciliavit in sanguine suo, factus " Si quis ergo dicit, quod pro se nobis iustitia, sanctificatio et redemp- obtulisset [Christus] semetipsum tio, . . . anathema sit." Cone. Tri- oblationem et non potius pro nobis dent., Sess. V, can. 3 (Denzinger- solis, anathema sit." Bannwart, n. 790).
9 Cone. Ephes., can. 10 (Denzin- 11 " Qui . . . sua sanctissima Pas- ger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 122). sione in ligno crucis nobis iustifi- — Cfr. the Decretum pro lacobitis cationem meruit et pro nobis Deo (ibid., n. 711). Patri satisfecit." Cone. Trident.,
10 " Si quis hoc Adae peccatum Sess. VI, cap. 7 (Denzinger-Bann- . . . per aliud remcdium asserit tolli wart, n. 799). We use Water-. quam per meritum unius mediatoris worth's translation.
46 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
famous prophecy which describes the suffering of the "Servant of God/'
The Messianic character of this prophecy is sufficiently established by such New Testament texts as Mark XV, 28, Luke XXII, 37, Acts VIII, 33, I Pet. II, 22 sqq.12 We quote its salient passages : " Surely he hath borne pur infirmities, and carried our sorrows, and we have thought him as it were a leper, and as one struck by God and afflicted. But he was wounded for our ini quities, he was bruised for our sins ;. the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his bruises we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray, every one hath turned aside into his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was offered 13 be cause it was his own will,14 and he opened not his mouth ; he shall be led as a sheep to the slaughter. . . . For the wickedness of my people have I struck him. . . . Be cause his soul hath labored, he shall see and be filled; by his knowledge shall this my just servant justify many, and he shall bear their iniquities ... he hath borne the sins of many, and hath prayed for the trans gressors." 15 The vicarious character of the " Ser vant's " suffering is asserted no less than eight times in this passage : ( i ) " He hath borne our Infirmities ; " (2) He has "carried our sorrows;" (3) "He was wounded for our iniquities ; " (4) " He was bruised for our sins;" (5) The "chastisement of our peace was
12 The argument is well developed 14 On certain textual difficulties by A. J. Maas, S. J., Christ in connected with the Hebrew word Type and Prophecy, Vol. II, pp. na'aneh, see Maas., /. c., p. 241* 231 sqq., New York 1895. note.
13 The Masoretic text has, he was 15 Is. LIII, 4-12. called upon. (Cfr. Maas, /. c., p.
240, note.)
SCRIPTURAL PROOF tf
upon him;"16 (6) "By his bruises we are healed;" (7) " The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all;" (8) "He was offered because it was his own will."17 The passage furthermore embraces all the es sential elements of Christ's vicarious atonement, to wit: (a) the substitution of the innocent Messias for guilty sinners; (b) the resulting remission of punishment and healing of the evil-doers; (c) the manner in which He made satisfaction, i. e., His sacrificial death.18
b) The New Testament inculcates the dogma of the vicarious atonement both directly and in directly.
«) The texts which teach it directly nearly all employ the phraseology of, and are dependent upon, Isaias. Take, e. g., the exclamation of John the Baptist recorded in John I, 29: "Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sin of the world/' The passage reads as fol lows in the original Greek : " "I8e 6 d^o? TOV ®eo£i
6 atpwv rriv afiapriav TOV KOO/WW." The afjiapria TOV Ko'oyxou
is original sin. The verb cfyew, like the Hebrew words Kto and k? employed by Isaias,19 besides tollere, i. e., to take away, also means ferre or portare, i. e., to assume or bear for another. St. Peter no doubt had the prophecy of Isaias
16 That is: The punishment which inferred from the nature of the suf- was to procure our peace with God fering. Cfr. Maas, Christ in Type and with men, was inflicted on him. and Prophecy, Vol. II p 240 note
17 In this clause the prophet rather 18 Cfr. F. Feldmann, Der Knecht describes the detail of the Servant's Gottes in Isaias, Ch. 40-55, Frei- sufferings than insists on its vicari- burg, 1907.
ous character; but this, too, may be 19 Is. LIII, 4 and n.
48 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
in mind when he wrote : "Who his own self bore our sins 20 in his body upon the tree ... by whose stripes you were healed. For you were as sheep going astray ; but you are now converted to the shepherd and bishop of your souls." 21 This text clearly inculcates Christ's vicarious atonement and describes its concrete realization (His death on the Cross).
St. Paul is equally clear. Cfr. 2 Cor. V, 21 : "Him, who knew no sin, he hath made sin for us, that we might be made the justice of God in him." The graphic phrase ^p ypvv a/xapn'av tTrolrjffev avrov either means: He hath made him who was sinless a sinner, or, more probably, He hath made him who was sinless a sacrifice for sin.22 In either case St. Paul asserts the dogma of Christ's vicarious atonement.
Special importance attaches to the many New Testament texts which speak of man as being "bought" or "purchased" by the Precious Blood of Christ. Cfr. I Cor. VI, 20: "For you are bought with a great price."23 I Pet. I, 18 sq. : ". . . you were not redeemed 24 with corruptible things as gold and silver, . . . but with the pre cious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled." These terms are borrowed from
20 avriveyicev, 23
21 i Pet. II, 24 sq. 24 Redempti esiis,
22 &fjLaprla = sacrificium pro pec- Cfr. also Rom. Ill, 24, Eph. I, 7, cato. Cfr. Gal. Ill, 13. i Tim. II, 6.
SCRIPTURAL PROOF 49
legal and mercantile usage; they mean that men who groaned in the bondage of sin were re garded as free or redeemed by God as soon as Christ had offered His Precious Blood for them. All of which proves ( i ) the reality of the atone ment and (2) its vicarious character.
ft) Indirectly the Bible teaches the vicarious atonement in all those passages in which Christ is called the "second Adam" and contrasted with the progenitor of the human race. Cfr. Rom. V, 14 sqq. : "Death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of him who was to come. But not as the offence, so also the gift. For if by the offence of one, many died; much more the grace of God, and the gift, by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. . . . For if by one man's offence death reigned through one; much more they who receive abun dance of grace, and of the gift, and of justice, shall reign in life through one, Jesus Christ. Therefore, as by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life," etc. i Cor. XV, 22 sqq.: "As in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive," etc.
Adam, the physical and juridical head of the human race, sinned vicariously, because he was the representa-
50 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
tive of all ; in a similar manner Jesus Christ represented the whole race when He restored it to justice. St. Paul's parallel would be meaningless if our Saviour had not acted as the representative of the entire human race when he died on the Cross. If His role as Redeemer had been confined to preaching and giving a good example, as the Socinians allege, what need was there of His suffering a cruel death ? And if He . died, not in our stead, but merely " for our benefit," why do not the Socinians acclaim the holy martyrs as so many redeemers? Christ became our " mediator " and " redeemer " in the Scrip tural sense of these terms only by complementing His teaching and example by an act of true and adequate satisfaction for our sins. It is only in this sense that St. Peter, "filled with the Holy Ghost," was able to exclaim : " Neither is there salvation in any other name," 25 and St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians : " Is Christ divided? Was Paul then [who was also a teacher of nations_and a martyr] crucified for youT^or were you baptized in the name of Paul ? " 26 It is only
(in this way that the name " Jesus " receives its full significance as " Redeemer " or " Saviour " of the human race.
In view of the texts quoted it is incomprehensible how the Modernists can allege that " the doctrine of the sacri ficial death of Christ is not evangelical, but originated with St. Paul." (See the Syllabus of Pius X, prop. 38).
3. PROOF FROM TRADITION. — The Fathers nearly all couched their teaching on the vicarious atonement in Scriptural terms.
a) They did not treat purely soteriological
25 Acts IV, 12. 26 i Cor. I, 13.
PROOF FROM TRADITION 51
questions ex professo, but merely adverted to them upon occasion. That the Socinians made no attempt to base their teaching upon Patristic texts, was due to the fact that Hugo Grotius had triumphantly demonstrated the vicarious atone ment from the writings of the Fathers.27 We will quote but two of the many available texts. "In accordance with the will of God," says St. Clement of Rome, "our Lord Jesus Christ gave His blood for us, and His flesh for our flesh, and His soul for our souls/7 28 And St. Polycarp : "Let us ever cling to our hope and the pledge29 of our righteousness, which is Christ Jesus, who bore our sins in His own body on the tree, . . . and endured everything for our sakes, that we might live in Him/' 30
b) On its philosophical side the dogma of the vicarious atonement underwent a process of de velopment, as is evidenced by the part which some of the older Fathers and ecclesiastical writers as signed to the Devil.
:c The question arose as follows : God and Satan are as it were two masters who contend for the possession of mankind. Hence men by departing from God fell
27 H. Grotius, Defensio Fidei Ca- tavius, De Incarn., XII, 9 and tholicae de Veritate Satisfactions, Thomassin, Dogm. Theol., IX, 7. published in 1614. Cfr. also Dorholt, Die Lehre von
28 Ep. ad Cor., I, 49, 6. der Genugtuung Christi, pp. 62 sqq.,
29 TU> dppapwvt. Paderborn 1891 and J. F. S. Muth,
30 Ep. ad Phil., 8.— Many addi- Die Heilstat Christi als stellvertre- tional proofs from the writings of tende Genugtuung, pp. 169 sqq., the Fathers are to be found in Pe- Ratisbon 1904.
52 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
under Satan's power, by whom they are now kept in bondage. As, moreover, men had fallen into his power, not unwillingly, but of their own choice, may we not say that the Devil has over them a real right, a right of property and a right of conquest? Hence, when God decided to free Satan's captives, was He not bound in justice to recognize and take into consideration the Devil's rights? Many of the Fathers answered this question affirmatively." 31 St. Irenaeus was the first to insist on the Devil's alleged rights.32 Origen did not hesitate to say that Christ " ransomed us with His own blood from the power of Satan." 33 This, in itself bias- \ phemous conception, which logically leads to the conclu- I sion that Christ gave His blood, nay His very soul to ' the Devil, was rejected by Adamantius (about 300), ( who indignantly branded it as " all nonsense and bias- i phemy." 34 Saint Gregory of Nyssa followed in Origen's footsteps. But by pushing the theory to its logical conclusions, he unconsciously demonstrated its absurdity.35 Origen's notion was formally rejected by Gregory of Nazianztis, who declared that Christ's death on the Cross effectively destroyed the tyranny of Satan. He says : " For man to be sanctified by the humanity of God, it was necessary that He Himself should free us from the tyrant, who had to be overcome by violence, and bring us back to Himself through the mediation of His
31 J. Riviere, Le Dogme de la Doctrine of the Atonement, Vol. II,
Redemption, Paris, 1905, (English pp. 113 sqq.
translation by L. Cappadelta, in 2 33 In Matth., 18, 8; In loan., 6,
vols., London 1909). The above 35.
passage is quoted from Vol. II, pp. 34 TroXXr? P\a<r<t>rjfJios avoid. De
in sq. of the English translation. Recta in Deum Fide, I, 27 (Migne,
Over one-half of the second volume P. G., XI, 1756 sq.).
is devoted to a discussion of " The 35 Cfr. Riviere-Cappadelta, The
Devil's Rights." Doctrine of the Atonement, Vol. II,
32 Cfr. Riviere-Cappadelta, The pp. 124 sqq.
THE ROLE OF THE DEVIL 53
Son." 3G There was a modicum of truth in Origen's the ory. By the sin of our first parents Satan had become, not indeed the absolute master of the human race, but the instrument of divine wrath.37 But when Jesus Christ, who was the Mediator between God and the human race, gave adequate satisfaction to the offended Deity, the^reign of the Devil ceased. Very properly, therefore, does St. Augustine 38 attribute our release from the captivity of Satan to the sacrificial character of Christ's death on the Cross and His triumph over Satan to righteous ness rather than might. " It pleased God," he says, " that in order to the rescuing of man from the power of the Devil, the Devil should be conquered, not by might, but by righteousness. . . . What, then, is the righteous ness by which the Devil was conquered? What, except the righteousness of Christ? In this redemption the blood of Christ was given, as it were, as a price for us, by accepting which the Devil was not enriched, but bound, that we might be loosed from his bonds." :!1) Hence, the redemption of man from the clutches of Satan did not " enrich " our arch-enemy but enslaved him, since the demands of righteousness were fulfilled. It was St. Bernard of Clairvaux who first developed this thought into the formal notion of vicarious atonement. ' The prince of this world came and found nothing in the Saviour," he writes ; " and when he nevertheless laid hands upon the innocent one, he rightly lost those who were his captives, when He who owed nothing to death, accepting the injury of death, rightly released him who was guilty of sin, both from the debt of death and
36 De Agno Paschali, 22. teaching of St. Augustine cfr.
37 Cfr. John XII, 31; XIV, 30; a Riviere-Cappadelta, op. cit., II, 146 Cor. IV, 4; Heb. II, 14. sqq.
38 De Trinit., IV, 13. — On the 39 De Trinit., XIII, 13, 14, 15.
54 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
the power of the Devil. By what justice could this have been exacted from man, since it was man who owed and man who paid the debt? For ' if one died for all,' [says the Apostle, 2 Cor. V, 14], ' then all were dead': that, namely, the satisfaction of one be imputed to all ... be cause the one head and body is Christ. The head there fore gave satisfaction for the members, Christ for His bowels." 40 Abelard, and especially St. Anselm, at length delivered theology from " a decaying1 doctrine which was now superfluous, if not actually dangerous." 41 The abuse-of-power theory made way for St. Anselm's for ensic theory of satisfaction, which, after having been purged of its harsher features by St. Thomas, became the common teaching of the Schoolmen.
Theology has a right, nay the duty, to subject this theory, both in its original Patristic form and in the shape which it assumed under the hands of the medieval Scholastics, to respectful criticism. We do not deny that the theory may be defensible within certain carefully de fined limits. But as onesidedly developed by the Scholas-\ tics, it does not embody the whole truth which we are able \ to gather from Divine Revelation. Revelation contains certain seed-thoughts which the Fathers and Schoolmen failed to appreciate at their full value. The sacrifice of the Divine Logos was dictated by infinite love and mercy as well as by strict justice. Cfr. John III, 16: "God
40 " Venit princeps huius tnundi Nam si unus (inquit) pro omnibus
ct in Salvatore non invenit quid- mortuus est, ergo omnes mortui sunt
quam. Et quum nihilominus inno- (2 Cor. V , 14) : ut videlicet satisfac-
centi manus iniecit, iustissime quos tio unius omnibus imfiutetur . . .
tenebat amisit, quando is qui morti quia caput et corpus unus cst
nihil debebat, accepta mortis iniuria Christus. Satisfecit ergo caput pro
iure ilium, qui obnoxius erat, et membris, Christus pro visceribus
mortis debit o et diaboli sohit do- suis." De Erroribus Abaelardi, cap.
minio. Qua enim iustitia id secundo 6.
ab homine exigeretur? Homo si- •*! Riviere-Cappadelta, op. cit., II,
quidem qui debuit, homo qui sohit. 220.
SATISFACTION AND MERIT 55
so loved the world as to give his only begotten Son." 42 God must not be conceived as an angry tyrant, who un mercifully slays his Son in order to avenge himself on the human race and thereby, as it were, to gratify the Devil, who gloats over the misfortune of others. God is just, but He is also a loving Father, who punishes His wayward children in the person of His beloved Son to show them the malice of sin by a terrible example. In other words, we cannot harmonize all the revealed ele ments of the atonement unless we give due emphasis to the ethical factor. The purely forensic theory of satis faction must be supplemented and deepened by the " ethi cal theory of reconciliation," which accentuates God's love for Christ and the human race, and also the moral purpose of the Redemption, i. e., the internal redemption of man by regeneration in God. Thus only shall we be able to refute the objections — more or less well founded — which Harnack 43 and Pfleiderer 44 have raised against the theory of satisfaction championed by the Scholas tics, notably St. Anselm.
4. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN "SATISFAC TION" AND "MERIT." — Entitatively considered, an act of satisfaction may also be a meritorious act. Nevertheless there is both a logical and a real distinction between satisfaction and merit as such. Satisfaction, in the narrower sense of the term, is reparation made for an offence, while merit may be defined as a good work performed
42 Cfr. also Eph. I, 3 sqq., II, 4 44 Religionsphilosophie, Vol. II, sqq.; Tit. Ill, 4 sq., and i Pet. I, 3. 2nd ed., Berlin 1884, pp. 467 sqq.
43 Grundriss der Dogmengeschich- te, 4th ed., pp. 304 sqq.
56 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
for the benefit of another and entitled to a re ward.45 Satisfaction supposes a creditor who insists on receiving his just dues, merit a debtor bound to give a reward. If the reward is a matter of justice, we have a meritum de condigno, if it is merely a matter of equity, a meritum de congruo.
The merits of Christ may be regarded from a fourfold point of view : ( i ) As to their reality, (2) as to the time when they were acquired, (3) as to their object or purpose, and (4) as to the scope of their application.
a) It is an article of faith that the Redeemer gained merits for us.
Christ, says the Tridentine Council, " merited justifi cation for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the Cross." The same sacred Council employs the phrase : "Per meritum unius mediatoris Domini nostri les-n Christi" and anathematizes those who say, "Homines sine Christi iustitia, per quam nobis mentit iustificari, aut per earn ipsam formaliter iustos esse!' 40 Isaias regarded the Redemption as a meritorious work. Is. LIII, 10 : "And the Lord was pleased to bruise him in infirmity: if he shall lay down his life for sin, he shall see a long-lived seed [i. e., spiritual progeny] and the will of the Lord shall be prosperous in his hand." Here satisfaction and merit are so nearly alike as to be
45" Meritum est opus bonum in Sess. V, can. 3; Sess. VI, can. 10.
favorem alterius mercede vel praemio Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiri-.
dignum." dion, n. 799. 790, 820.
wConc.Trid., Sess. VI, cap. 7;
THE MERITS OF CHRIST 57
materially identical; the Redeemer laid God under ob ligation while satisfying His just claims. But since He merited not only grace for us, but likewise extrinsic glory for Himself, His merits exceed the limits of the satisfaction which He gave to His Heavenly Father, be cause He did not need to give any satisfaction for Him self.
b) When did Christ perform His meritorious actions? In attempting to answer this question we must distinguish between the terminus a quo and the terminus ad quern.
Our Lord performed no meritorious actions (in the technical sense of the term) outside of the period of His earthly pilgrimage (status viae). Hence the terminus ad quern was the moment of His death.47 That this is the teaching of Holy Scripture may be gathered from such texts as John IX, 4 sq. ; Heb. IX, 12, X, n sqq. True, St. Paul teaches that the glorified Redeemer continues to " make intercession for us in Heaven." 48 But the in tercession He makes for us in Heaven is based on the merits which He gained on earth and aims solely at the application of these merits to individual men.
Which was the terminus a quo of our Lord's merito rious actions? A man cannot perform any meritorious deeds before he has attained to the full use of reason and free-will, which generally occurs about the seventh year. In the Godman Jesus Christ, human consciousness awoke when the Godhead became hypostatically united with manhood, that is to say, at the instant of His concep-
47 The question whether this limi- to an intestine necessity, is purely
tation of Christ's meritorious action speculative, and will be discussed in
is based upon a positive and free Eschatology. decree of God, or whether it is due 48 Rom. VIII, 34; Heb. VII, 25.
58 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
tion.49 Hence the terminus a quo of His meritorious actions was the first moment of His existence as God- man.50
c) The principal object of Christ's meritorious actions was the justification of sinners.
It is an article of faith that our Divine Saviour merited for us the forgiveness of all sins, including original sin, and, in addition, sanctifying grace. That the actual graces required for and during the process of justification also flow from the thesaurus of Christ's merits, is a theologically certain conclusion.51 Capreolus denied it ; 52 but the Tridentine Council, in teaching, " Ipsius iustificationis exordium in adultis a Dei per Christum lesum praeveniente gratia sumendum esse" evidently employs the phrase " per Christum lesum " in the sense of " per meritum Christi lesu." It is likewise an article of faith that man, in the state of grace which follows justification, receives all the graces and merits which come to him solely from the treasury of the merits of Jesus Christ.53 Our Lord Himself inculcates this by the parable of the vine and its branches.54
Christ also merited a reward for Himself, which con sists chiefly in His extrinsic glorification after death. Cfr. Luke XXIV, 26 : " Nonne haec oportuit pati Chri stum et ita intrare in gloriam suamf — Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into his glory?" Phil. II, 9: cc Propter quod et Deus exaltavit ilium et donavit illi nomen, quod est super onme nomen —
49 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, 53 Cfr. Cone. Trident., Sess. VI, pp. 259 sqq. cap. 16; Sess. XIV, cap. 8. (Den- so Cfr. Heb. X, 5. zinger-Bannwart, n. 809, 904.) 51 Cfr. 2 Tim. I, 9. 54 John XV, 5. On the grace of f>2 Cfr. F. Stentrup, Soteriologia, predestination cfr. St. Thomas, S. thes. 36. Theol., 33, qu. 19, art. 3.
THE MERITS OF CHRIST 59
For which cause God also exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above all names." Heb. II, 9: " Videmus lesum propter passionem mortis gloria et honore coronatum — We see Jesus . . . for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor." It is conse quently unscriptural to hold, as Calvin did, that Christ's love for the human race prompted Him to waive all claims to His own honor.55
In determining the scope of Christ's merits, Saint Thomas proceeds as follows : " Since every perfection and noble quality must be attributed to Christ, it follows that He possessed by merit whatever others possess by merit, unless it be something which would detract from His dignity and perfection more than could be gained by merit."50 Hence, he continues, " Christ merited neither grace, nor knowledge, nor beati tude of soul, nor Divinity (i. e., the Hypostatic Union). As only that can be merited which one does not yet pos sess, Christ would have lacked all these perfections, and therefore it is plain that He merited only such things as the glory of the body, and whatever pertains to its extrinsic excellence, e. g., the ascension, adoration, etc." 57
d) The question: Who participates in the merits of Christ? coincides with that regarding the universality of the atonement, which we shall treat below, Sect. 2, Art.
2.58
65 Cfr. Bellarmine, De Christ o, V, 58 On the whole subject dealt with
in this subdivision of our treatise
565". TheoL, 33, qu. 19, art. 3. consult Pesch, Praelectiones Dog-
si L c.— Cfr. Simar, Lehrbuch der maticae, Vol. IV, 3rd ed., pp. 252
Dogmatik, Vol. I, 4th ed., pp. 532 Sqq., Friburgi 1909.
sqq., Freiburg 1899.
SECTION 2
THE PROPERTIES OF CHRIST'S VICARIOUS ATONE MENT
ARTICLE i
INTRINSIC PERFECTION OF THE ATONEMENT
Christ's vicarious atonement is intrinsically perfect and comprises within its scope all sins and all sinners.
The intrinsic perfection of Christ's vicarious atone ment manifests itself in three ascending stages, which are technically called adequacy, rigorousness, and super abundance.
By adequate atonement we understand a satisfaction which completely and fully repairs the offence com mitted, or, at least, is accepted as a full reparation by the person offended. If the satisfaction rendered is of such high intrinsic merit that the offended person is in justice compelled to accept it, it is called rigorous. If it exceeds the offence committed, it is superabundant.
Thesis I: The satisfaction which Christ made for our sins was adequate, i. e., fully sufficient.
This thesis embodies the common teaching of a majority of Catholic theologians.
Proof. The reality of Christ's vicarious atonement is an article of faith, with which we
60
ADEQUACY OF THE ATONEMENT 61
have already dealt (supra, Sect. i). In the present thesis we are merely concerned with its^ intrinsic properties. As the Church has never denned these, the Scotists were free to estimate them differently than the majority of Catholic divines.
The Scotists and the Nominalists hold that Christ's vicarious atonement derives its adequacy not from its own intrinsic merit, but from the accidental circumstance of its " extrinsic acceptation " by God. Suarez rejects this theory as " neither probable, nor pious, nor suffi ciently in accordance with the faith."1 This is a per fectly just criticism, since both Holy Scripture and Tradition declare that the satisfaction which Christ made for us was equivalent to the offence inherent in sin.
a) Holy Scripture distinctly declares that we were "bought" with a "price/'2 and that this price was the Precious Blood of our Lord. Cfr. i Pet. I, 18 sq. : ". . . you were not redeemed with corruptible things, ... but with the pre cious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undented." How could the blood of Christ be called "precious" if its value was not equiva lent to the offence for the reparation of which it was shed? St. Paul says: "You are bought with a great price." 3 This phrase likewise indi cates that the satisfaction given by our Divine Re deemer was equivalent to the guilt of sin.
1 De Incarn., disp. 4, sect. 3, n. n. 3 Pretio magno, TIUTJS i Cor.
2 Pretium, \trpov. VI, 20.
62 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
Moreover, the Bible tells us that the Godman im molated Himself in expiation for our sins. Hence the satisfaction He gave to His Heavenly Father must be of equal value with Himself, and therefore, to say the least, adequate. Tim II, 5 sq.: "There is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus: who gave himself a redemption for all («""*»- TPov] " The graphic term <WXvTPov, which St. Paul' here employs instead of plain w^o,, shows that he conceives "the redemption for all" as a full equivalent for sin. "Quanta iniuna, tanta satisfactio." In fact, it is only in this hypothe sis that we can understand why the Apostle attaches such tremendous importance to the singleness of our Lord's sacrifice on the Cross, in contradistinction to the multiplicity of the inef fective offerings of the Levites. Cfr. Heb. 12 and 28 : "By his own blood he entered once into the holies, having obtained eternal redemp tion. ... So also Christ was offered once0 to exhaust the sins of many."
b) Patristic texts in support of our thesis wil be found infra, p. 71- A convincing theologi cal argument for the adequacy of the atone ment may be deduced from the concept of our Lord's natural mediatorship (supra, Ch. I, Sect.
, ««,£. lSem,l,l*ai.
ADEQUACY OF THE ATONEMENT 63
a) JBjL-XJrtue ofjhe Hypostatic Union all hu man actions of the Godman are infinitely valuable in the eyes of God, independently of their ex trinsic acceptation, because a theandric merit de rives its full value solely from the infinite dignity of the Logos.6 But an atonement, the expiatory power of which is, morally considered, infinite, cannot be conceived otherwise than as adequate.
/?) The Scotists and the Nominalists are con sequently in error when they teach that the meri torious and expiatory value of Christ's vicarious atonement, though extrinsically infinite because of its benevolent acceptation on the part of God,7 is not so intrinsically, i. e., on account of its own immanent worth.8 Scotus' own teaching on this point is uncertain.9 But the great majority of Scotist theologians, including such later authors as Frassen, De Rada, and Hen.no, undoubtedly underestimated the meritoriousness of Christ's theandric operation by asserting that it became infinitely valuable only through the condescension of God in deigning to accept it as such. The Sco tists admit that Christ's human actions, because performed by the exalted person of the Godman, were invested with a certain equitable claim to
6 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, o Scotus, Comment, in Quatuor pp. 161 sqq. Libras Sent., Ill, dist. 19. Hauzeur
7 Infinitas extrinseca ob benignam and a few other Scotists attempted Dei acceptationem. to reconcile their master's teaching
8 Infinitas intrinseca ob valorem with the senteniia communis, but in innatum. vain
64 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
be received as of infinite value by a loving God; but they deny that these actions can by their own power attain to infinitude. This they declare to be impossible because these actions are essen tially the product of a finite (human) nature. As the intrinsic or bullion value of a coin need not equal the extrinsic valuation stamped upon its face, they say, so the human actions of our Saviour were in themselves of a merely finite value, but capable of being raised to a higher valu ation by God.
Mastrius and a few others restrict the Scotistic theory to the thesis (which no one denies) that, to render His atonement valid in actu secundo, our Divine Saviour had first to assure Himself of its acceptation on the part of God, not indeed per moduni principii dignificantis, but per modiun conditionis praeviae. This is beside the question. What the Scotists assert is that the satisfaction which Christ made for our sins was intrin sically insufficient or inadequate, and that what it lacked in intrinsic merit was supplied by God's extrinsic acceptation. Their basic error consists in this that they fail to distinguish be tween the physical entity and the ethical value of Christ's meritorious actions, confounding the finite character of the former with the infinity of the latter. Justly, therefore, do the Thomists 1(
10 Cfr. Billuart, DC Incarn,, diss. 19, art. 5.
ADEQUACY OF THE ATONEMENT 65
insist that the Hypostatic Union endows a phys ically finite act with a morally infinite value, be cause it is the infinite Divine Person that performs that act as principiuni quod, employing the finite nature merely as principiuni quo. Were we to trace the Scotist theory to its sources, we should probably find that its originators had no clear con ception of the character of theandric operation and misconceived the true nature and scope of the Hypostatic Union.11
Thesis II: The satisfaction which Christ made for our sins was not only adequate, but rigorous, accord ing to the standard of strict justice.
Proof. In the preceding thesis we saw that Christ's vicarious atonement was quantitatively adequate, i. e., equivalent to all the sins of man kind. We have now to show that it was ade quate also in quality, i. e., measured by the stand ard of strict justice (secundum rigorem iustitiae).
In other words, it was not necessary for God's mercy to supply anything over and above the satisfaction ren dered by Christ, since this satisfaction fully covered all just claims.
This thesis does not embody an article of faith. It is not even a theological conclusion. But it voices the
11 On the uncertain teaching of gen, 1907, pp. 241 sqq. On the
Scotus cfr. P. Minges, O. F. M., general subject of this thesis cfr.
Compend. Theol. Dogmat. Specialis, also De Lugo, De Myst. Incarn.,
Vol. I, pp. 213 sqq., Monachii 1901; disp. 6, sect, i; Scheeben, Dog-
Theologische Quartalschrift, Tubin- matik, Vol. Ill, §251, Freiburg 1882.
66 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
more general teaching of Catholic divines, especially of the Thomist school, and of Suarez, Tanner, Gregory of Valentia, Franzelin, and others. In a limited way we may also number among its defenders those Scotist the ologians who, like Mastrius, admit that the atonement satisfied divine justice, though not to its full extent.
a) It pertains to the dogmatic treatise De Deo Uno12 to show that the only kind of relation possible between God and His creatures is a free but real relation of rights and duties based upon the veracity and fidelity of the Creator. Christ's vicarious atonement embodies all the con ditions necessary and sufficient to establish a re lation of strict and rigorous justice. These con ditions are five in number, to wit: («) Equiva lence of debit and credit; (£) difference of person between debtor and creditor; (y) payment of the debt out of the debtor's own means; (8) absence of all other indebtedness ; («) payment of the debt in person or through a bondsman. These condi tions are selected somewhat arbitrarily, and it is not easy to prove that Christ fulfilled them all. For this reason some theologians prefer not to speak of a rigor iustitiae. However, the sent en- tia communior rests on fairly solid ground.
a) That Christ fulfilled the first of the conditions enumerated was shown in Thesis I.
ft) Condition number two demands that debtor and
12 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His Knowability, Essence and Attributes, pp. 457 sqq.
ADEQUACY OF THE ATONEMENT 67
creditor must be separate and distinct persons. "Satis- factio debet esse ad alterum." No one can be his own debtor. How could Christ fulfil this condition? Since He is Himself God, is it not physically the same person that merits and rewards ? This difficulty cannot be solved by the retort that Christ renders satisfaction to God the Father. Humanity's creditor was not the Father alone, but the whole Trinity.13 The right solution seems to be this: In atoning for our sins, Christ acts both as man and as God, and hence makes satisfaction virtually as a double person: (i) the man Jesus makes satisfaction to God for our sins in His human nature, as if He were a different person from the Logos; (2) The Logos, as God, accepts this satisfaction. If Christ, as man, was able to practice the virtues of obedience and worship towards Himself as God, it can be no contradiction to say that, as man, He gave satisfaction to Himself, qua God, ac cording to the strict measure of justice.
We must, however, beware of misinterpreting the ex pression duplex persona moralis, as Berruyer (a pupil of Hardouin) did when he asserted that the humanity of our Lord was a quasi-suppositum, to which, as to a distinct human person, must be ascribed certain actions of Christ which had no intrinsic hypostatic connexion with the Per son of the Logos.14
y) The third of the conditions enumerated above is
13 "What does it mean to be the and iniquity of men." Ennar. in
mediator between God and men?" Ps., 29, 2, i.
asks St. Augustine, and answers the 14 On this dangerous error see
question as follows: "It means to Legrand, De Incarn., diss. n, Paris
be a mediator not between the 1860; von Schazler, Das Dogma von
Father and men, but between God der Menschwerdung Gottes, §24,
and men. What is God? He is Freiburg 1870; Scheeben, Dogmatik,
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. . . . Vol. Ill, pp. 29 sqq., Freiburg 1882;
Christ was constituted mediator be- B. Dorholt, Die Lehre von der Ge-
tween this Trinity and the infirmity nugtuung Christ i, pp. 435 sqq., Pa-
derborn 1891.
68 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
that the debtor must pay his liability out of his own be longings. " Satis factio debet fieri ex bonis propriis." Did Christ fulfil this condition ? As He was a man, His power of giving satisfaction for our sins (vis merendi sive satisfaciendi) must have been a grace, L e., a free gift of God, and consequently the atonement cannot have been a payment made by Him out of His own means. Even the supernatural merits of a justified man, being due to pure grace, cannot satisfy rigorous justice. Indeed we may broadly say that, as man possesses nothing of his own, but has received everything he has from God, whether by creation or by grace, so Christ's human nature, which was the principium quo of His meritorious and expiatory ac tion, was not His own but a gift of the debtor, i. e., God.
This objection may be met as follows: It was not the man Jesus, but the Godman, whose meritorious actions made satisfaction for our sins. In other words, not the human nature of Christ as such made satisfaction, but the Divine Logos through the functions of His human na ture, which, by virtue of the Hypostatic Union, is so inti mately united to the Logos that He possesses and governs it with absolute sovereignty as its sole principium quod. To attribute such a sovereign control over the human nature of Christ to the Father and the Holy Ghost, i. e., to the Trinity qua Godhead, would be tantamount to asserting that it was not the Logos alone who was made flesh, but the whole Blessed Trinity.15' But this is manifestly repugnant. The human nature of Christ was the personal property of the Logos, and the satisfaction He made through that nature was made ex bonis pro priis.16
8) We come to the fourth condition : " Satisfactio
15 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, is Cfr. Ysambert, De Myst. In-
pp. 132 sqq. earn., disp. 6, art. 2-3, Paris 1639.
ADEQUACY OF THE ATONEMENT 69
debet esse ex alias indebitis." Satisfaction must be made by means of something which the debtor does not already owe to his creditor on some other account. It may be argued that this condition, too, remained unful filled in the case of our Divine Saviour, because whatever He did and suffered, He was obliged to do and suffer for reasons other than that prompting the atonement, such as gratitude and obedience to God, a feeling of de pendence, piety, etc. Can an action to which one is obliged by so many titles be in strict justice regarded as meritorious?
Suarez offers two solutions of this difficulty, (i) The rigor iitstitiac, he says, is to be measured purely and solely by the titulus iustitiae. Even if a debtor were obli gated by gratitude towards his creditor, he would never theless satisfy rigorous justice as soon as he paid the last farthing of his indebtedness. Though other duties re mained, justice as such would be satisfied. (2) The intrinsic merit of the satisfaction which Christ made for our sins is infinite, and as such capable of satisfying, not merely one single title of justice, but many, nay, an infinite number of such titles. Consequently justice can be rigorously satisfied even though there are other titles and duties.
e) The last condition is that satisfaction must be made by the debtor for himself. " Satis factio debet fieri pro se ipso, non pro alienis." Strictly speaking, Christ did not fulfil this condition, because He made atonement for others. It is to be noted, however, that the rigor iustitiae can be satisfied by proxy, provided the substitute is formally accepted by the creditor and the proportion between debt and reparation is strictly observed. Let it not be objected that where an offence has been committed the offended person waives his claim to strict justice by
70 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
surrendering his right to personal satisfaction. He does not remit the debt, nor any part thereof, but merely com mutes it into something of equal value.17
Thesis III: The satisfaction which Christ made for our sins was more than adequate and rigorous ; it was superabundant.
This thesis may be characterized as " coin- munis," since it is held by practically all theolog ical schools.
Proof, a) A Scriptural argument may be drawn from St. Paul's antithetical sentences in tracing the analogy between Adam and Christ. Cfr. Rom. V, 15: "But not as the offence, so also the gift. For if by the offence of one many died ; much more 18 the grace of God, and the gift, by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many." And even more point edly Rom. V, 20: "Where sin abounded,-0 grace did more abound/' 21 The Apostle here distinctly asserts that Christ gave superabundant satisfac tion for our sins. The sin was great, but the atonement and the graces flowing therefrom are still greater.22
17 Cfr. on the subject of these 18 Multo magis, TroXXw /J,a\\ov.
conditions and their fulfilment by 19 In plures abundavit, els rovs
Christ: Franzelin, De Verbo Incarn., iro\\ovs eirepiaaevafv- thes. 47, Rome 1881 (new edition, 20 Abundavit, eTr\e6vO,ffev,
1910); B. Dorholt, Die Lehre von 21 Superabundant gratia, vircpe-
der Genugtuung Christi, pp. 424 sqq., Trepiffaevo'ei' rj ^apts- Paderborn 1891; Tepe, lust. Theol, 22 Cfr. Eph. i, 3-8; John X, 10.
pp. 639 sqq., Paris 1896.
THE ATONEMENT SUPERABUNDANT 71
b) The Fathers generally held that the ade quacy of the atonement can be most effectively demonstrated from its superabundant meritori- ousness.
Thus St. Cyril of Jerusalem trenchantly argues: " He who died for us was of no less value. He was not a visible lamb, no mere man, nor yet an angel, but the incarnate God. The wickedness of sinners was not as great as the righteousness of Him who died for us. Our sins were not equal to the justice of Him who died for us." 23 St. Chrysostom exemplifies this truth as follows : " Our experience has been like that of a man who was cast into prison with his wife and children and servants for a debt of ten oboli, and another man came and plumped down not only ten oboli, but ten thousand gold talents, and then led the prisoner into the royal chamber, placed him on an exalted throne, and allowed him to share in the highest honors. . . . For Christ paid far more than we owed, and in a larger measure, like as the infinite ocean exceeds in magnitude a tiny drop of water." 24
c) If Christ's vicarious atonement was super abundantly meritorious, that is to say, far in ex cess of the sins for which it was made, its intrin sic worth must have been actually infinite. This inference is demanded by all the rules of theolog ical logic, and hence we need not wonder that Suarez lays it down as the common teaching of
MCatech., 33, c. 13. Cfr. also B. Dorholt, Die Lehre von
24 Horn, in Ep. ad Rom., 10, 2. der Genngtuung Christi, pp. 376
Additional Patristic texts apud Pe- sqq., 419 sqq.; Muth, Die Heilstat
tav., XII, 9 and Thomassin, IX, 9. Christi, pp. 228 sqq.
72 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
Catholic divines that "the actions of Christ pos sessed a value which was absolutely and strictly infinite in making satisfaction and acquiring merits before God." 25
a) St. Thomas demonstrates this proposition by a the ological argument based on the infinite dignity of the God man. " The dignity of Christ's flesh," he says, " must not be estimated solely by the nature of the flesh, but by the assuming person ; it was the flesh of God, hence its dig nity is infinite." 2G As a matter of fact, the intrinsic moral value of an action varies in proportion to the dignity of him who performs it, and therefore the actions of a person of infinite dignity, when offered in satisfaction for an offence, must be infinitely meritorious.
To demonstrate the infinite value of Christ's vicari ous atonement, it is not necessary to have recourse to its superabundant merit; the proposition follows as a corollary from the fact of its mere adequacy. If no one but a Godman was able to give adequate satisfaction for our sins, each and every one of Christ's theandric actions, even the most insignificant, must have been suffi cient, nay more than sufficient, for the purposes of the atonement, because each and every action performed by a Godman is by its very nature infinitely meritorious.
As to the question, why the meritorious actions of our Lord had of necessity to culminate in His dolorous pas sion and death, St. Thomas says : " If we regard the amount paid for the redemption of the human race, any suffering undergone by Christ, even without death, would
25 "Opera Christi Domini habuisse tenableness of the Scotistic theory
•valorem absolute et simplidter in- of extrinsic acceptation v. supra,
finitum ad satisfaciendum et meren- pp. 63 sqq.
dum apud Deum." De Incarn., 26 S. TheoL, 33, qu. 48, art. 2, ad
disp. 4, sect. 4, n. 3.— On the un- 3. Cfr. Suarez, op. cit., n. 17 sqq.
THE ATONEMENT SUPERABUNDANT 73
have sufficed for the redemption of the human race, on account of the infinite dignity of His person. . . . But if we regard the payment of the price, it must be ob served that no other suffering less than Christ's death was deemed sufficient by God the Father and by Christ Him self to redeem the human race." 27
0) That the satisfaction which Christ made for our sins was infinite, may also be inferred from certain utterances (though they are not ex-ca thedra decisions) of the Holy See. Among the propositions of Bajus condemned by Pope Pius V in the year 1567 is the following: "The works of justice and temperance performed by Christ derived no additional value from the dignity of His person." 28 Hence it is Catholic teaching that the actions of Christ derived a higher value from the "dignity of His Person." How high is this value to be rated? Evidently it must have corresponded to the infinite dignity of the God- man, — which is merely another way of saying that it was infinite.
A far more important pronouncement for our present purpose is this from the Bull "Unigeni-
27 "Si ergo loquamur de redemp- neris a Deo Patre et Christo aliae
tione humani generis quantum ad passiones Christi absque morte."
quantitatem pretii, sic quaelibet pas- Quodlib. 2, art 2. — Cfr. Dorholt, op.
sio Christi etiam sine morte suffecis- cit., pp. 405 sqq.
set ad redemptionem humani ge- 28 "Opera iustitiae et temperan-
neris propter infinitam dignitatem tiae, quas Christus fecit, ex dignitate
personae . . . Si ant em loquamur personae operantis non traxeru.nl
quantum ad deputationem pretii, sic maiorem valorem." Prop. 19 (Den-
dicendum est quod non sunt depu- zinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n.
tatae ad redemptionem humani ge- 1019).
74 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
tus" of Pope Clement VI, A. D. 1343: "He is known to have shed, not a little drop of blood, — though this would have sufficed for the redemp tion of the entire human race, because of the [Hy- postatic] Union with the Logos, — but streams of it, like unto a river. . . . That the mercy in volved in such a large effusion [of blood] be not rendered vain, empty, and superfluous, He laid up for the Church militant a copious treasure, which the good Father desires to dispense to his children, in order that it may become an infinite store-house for men, and that those who make use of it may share in the friendship of God/' 29 Pope Clem ent, in issuing his Bull, did not intend to define the dogmatic teaching of the Church with regard to this "infinite treasure." Nor does the document contain any clear expression as to whether Christ's merits are to be conceived as actually or po tentially infinite. Hence the above-quoted words cannot be said to constitute a binding dogmatic definition. We may, however, safely assume that Clement VI intended to represent the treasure of Christ's merits as actually infinite, for this is the obvious meaning of his words, considered both in
:29 " Non guttam sanguinis modi- tio redderetur, thesaurum militanti
cam, quae tamen propter unionem Ecclcslae acquisivit, volens suis
ad Verbum pro redemptione totius thesaurizare filiis pius Pater, ut sic
humani generis suffecisset, sed co- sit infinites thesaurus hominibus,
piose velut quoddam profluvium nos- quo qui usi sunt Dei amicitiae par-
citur effudisse . . . Quantum ergo ticipes sunt effecti." Denzinger
e.vinde, ut nee supervacua, inanis e\ Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 550. superflua tantae effusionis misera-
CHRIST DIED FOR ALL 75
themselves and in connection with the context. The doctrine of the superabundant merits of Jesus Christ and His Saints forms the ground work of the Catholic teaching on indulgences, which we shall explain more fully in a later volume of this series.30
ARTICLE 2
EXTRINSIC PERFECTION OR UNIVERSALITY OF THE ATONEMENT
If, as we have shown in the preceding Article, the satisfaction made for our sins by Christ was intrinsically perfect, there is a priori ground for assuming that it must have embraced all men without exception. In mat ter of fact the universality of the atonement objectively coincides with the universality of God's will to save the entire human race (vohmtas salvifica), Here we shall merely touch upon a few important points bearing on the Redemption.
Thesis I : Christ died for all the faithful, not only for the predestined.
This proposition is strictly de fide.
Proof. The predestined are those who actu ally attain to eternal salvation. Of the "faith ful/5 i. e., those who have the true faith, many are unfortunately lost.
a) Predestinarianism was taught by Calvin, and also by the younger Jansenius, who hereti-
30 In connection with the Sacrament of Penance.
76 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
cally asserted that " It savours of Semi-Pelagian- ism to say that Christ died, or shed His blood, for all men without exception." 1 This proposi tion was censured as "false, foolhardy, and scan dalous" by Innocent X, who added that, "under stood in the sense that Christ died for the salva tion of the predestined only," Jansenius' thesis is furthermore "impious, blasphemous . . . and heretical." Consequently it must be accepted as an article of faith that Christ died also for those who were not predestined. These are the "faith ful," i. e. (in the New Testament) all who have received the Sacrament of Baptism, be they in fants or adults. For all baptized Christians are bound to accept the Creed, which says that Christ "descended from Heaven for us men and for our salvation." 2
b) Sacred Scripture is so clear on this point that we may well marvel at the existence of Predestinarianism. St. Paul must have had the "faithful" in mind when he wrote to the Thes- salonians: "For God hath not appointed us unto wrath, but unto the purchasing of salva tion by our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us." Again, Christ Himself, assuredly the most faith-
i "Semipelagianum est dicere, 2 "... qui propter nos homines Christum pro omnibus omnino ho- et propter nosiram salutem de- minibus mortuum esse out sanguinem scendit de coelis." •fudisse." Prop. Damn. lansenii, 5 3 i Thess. V, 9 sq. (Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 1096).
CHRIST DIED FOR ALL 77
ful exponent of the Divine Will, in the touching prayer which He pronounced as the High Priest of humanity, included all the faithful,— in fact, indirectly, the whole human race. Cfr. John XVII, 20 sq. : "Non pro eis [scil. Apostolis] autem rogo tantum, sed et pro eis qui credituri sunt* per verbwn eorum in me, . . . ut credat mundus* quia tu me misisti — And not for them [i. e., the Apostles] only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me; . . . that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."
c) The teaching of the Fathers on this point is copiously expounded by Petavius,6 and we need not expatiate on it here.7
Thesis II : Christ died for all men without excep
tion.
This thesis may be qualified as "saltern fidei proximo,!'
Proof. The Provincial Council of Quiercy (A. D. 853) defined against Gottschalk: "As there never was, is or will be any man whose nature was not assumed by our Lord Jesus Christ, so there never was, is or will be any man for whom He has not suffered; though not all
4 Trepc TUV TTiffrevovTuv. Augustine's teaching by the Jansen-
iva. o Koaftos Trio-reiV?/. ists consult Dechamps, De Haeresi
' De Incarn., XIII, 2 sq. Janseniana, 1. II, disp. 7.
7 On the misrepresentation of St.
8
78 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
are redeemed by the mystery of His passion/' Pope Alexander VIII, A. D. 1690, formally con demned the proposition that "Christ gave Him self for us as an oblation to God, not for the elect only, but for all the faithful, and for the faithful alone." 9 The Tridentine Council defines the dogmatic teaching of the Church on this point as follows: "Him [Christ] God hath proposed as a propitiator, through faith in His blood, for our sins ; and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world."
a) This Tridentine teaching is thoroughly Scriptural, in fact it is couched in the very lan guage of Holy Writ. Cf r. i John II, 2 : "Et ipse est propitiatio n pro pec cat-is nostris, non pro nostris aiitein tantum, sed etiam pro totius mundi12— He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." i Tim. II, 6 must be interpreted in consonance with the text just quoted. "Qui
8 "Christus Jesus D. N., sicut nul- electis, sed pro omnibus el soils fide-
lus homo est, fuit vcl erit, cuhts no- libus." (Denzinger-Bannwart,
tura in illo assumpta non fuerit, it a chiridion, n. 1294.) nullus est, fuit vel erit homo, pro io"Hunc proposuit Deus propi-
quo passus non fuerit, licet non tiatorem per fidem in sanguine ip-
omnes passionis eius mysterio re- sius pro peccatis nostris, non solum
dimantur." The controversies inci- out em pro nostris, sed etiam pro to-
dent to the Council of Valence (A. tius mundi." Cone. Trid., Sess. VI,
D. 855) were due to a misunder- cap. 2 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n.
standing. Cfr. B. Dorholt, Die 794) • Lehre -von der Genugtuung Christi, n tXao-^os-
pp. 323 sqq. i2clXXa Kal irepl 6Xoi> rov KOC-
9 "... dedit semetipsum pro no- /JLOV- bis oblationem Deo, non pro solis
CHRIST DIED FOR ALL 79
dedit redemptionem semetipsum pro omnibus [soil, hominibus] — Who gave himself a redemp tion for all [i. e., for all men]/' The context shows that St. Paul means to emphasize the universality of God's will to save all men. We may also point in confirmation of our thesis to such passages as 2 Cor. V, 14, in which the Apostle numbers among the elect such as are still in the state of original sin as well as those who are justified. "Si units pro omnibus 13 mortuus est, ergo omnes 14 mortui sunt — If one died for all, then all are dead." 15
b) The Jansenists did not deny that the Fathers who wrote before Pelagius clearly taught the vicarious atonement to be as universal as God's will to save mankind, i. e.} that it embraces all human beings without exception. But they claimed that a change came with St. Augustine, who succumbed to the evil influence of Predesti- narianism. It is to be noted that the famous African Doctor was warmly defended against this calumnious charge by one of his contempo raneous disciples, St. Prosper of Aquitaine.16
13 inrep iravTdov- holt, Lehre von der Genugtuung
I* ot iron/res. Christi, Paderborn 1896, pp. 317
15 For an explanation of this text sqq., by Tricassin, De Praedestina- see Al. Schafer, Erkl'drung der bei- tione, p. I, sect. 7, punct. 4 sqq., den Briefe an die Korinther, pp. and by Franzelin, De Deo Uno, 439 sqq., Munster 1903. thes. 32, Rome 1883. The fate of
16 We cannot enter into the con- unbaptized infants will be discussed troversy here. The student will in Vol. VII of this series.
find it exhaustively treated by Dor-
8o THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
Thesis III: The atonement did not benefit the fallen angels.
This proposition is de fide.
Proof. Origen taught that Christ also died for the demons, who were destined at some fu ture time to be released from hell. This error
(dTroKarao-raais Travrwv) was closely related tO
another, harbored by the same learned but erratic divine, vis. ; that the Logos assumed the form of an angel to redeem the lost angels, just as He became man to redeem sinful humanity. These vagaries were condemned as heretical by a council held at Constantinople in 543, and again by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, A. D.
553-17
The dogma embodied in our present thesis is
intimately bound up with that concerning the fall of the angels and their eternal banishment from Paradise.18 Being condemned to everlast ing hell-fire, the evil spirits can have no share in the merits of the Redeemer. "For although there is assigned to angels also perdition in the fire pre pared for the Devil and his angels," says Ter- tullian, "yet a restoration was never promised
17 Cfr. Denzinger, Enchiridion, General Council in 553, though the
ed. 9, n. 193 and 198. Fr. Diekamp acta of the latter do not mention
(Die origenistischen Streitigkeiten the fact. Cfr. Chr. Pesch, S. J.,
im 6. Jahrhundert und das V. allge- Theologische Zeitfragen, Vol. II,
meine Konzil, Munster 1899) has put Freiburg 1901.
a quietus on an ancient controversy is Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God the Au-
by showing that Origenism was con- thor of Nature and the Supernat-
demned both by the Council of Con- ural, pp. 34O sqq. stantinople in 543 and by the Fifth
WHY SOME ARE LOST 81
them. No charge about the salvation of angels did Christ ever receive from the Father; and that which the Father neither promised nor com manded, Christ could not have undertaken."
Thesis IV : The doctrine of the universality of the atonement is not disproved by the fact that many human beings are eternally lost.
This proposition may be qualified as theolog ically certain.
Proof. The Council of Trent teaches : "But, though He died for all, yet not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His Passion is communicated."
According to Holy Scripture, the universality of Christ's vicarious atonement is not absolute but conditional. Those only are saved who com ply with the conditions necessary for participat ing in the fruits of the Redemption, viz.: bap tism, faith, contrition, cooperation with grace, perseverance. Cfr. Mark XVI, 16: "Quicredi- derit et baptizatus fuerit, salvus erit; qui vero non crediderit, condemnabitur — He that be- lieveth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned."
19 De Came Christi, c. 14. — Cfr. [20 "Verum etsi ille pro omnibus Dorholt, Lehre von der Genugtuung mortuus est, non omnes tamen eius Christi, pp. 353 sqq. — On the partici- beneficium recipiunt, sed ii dum- pation of the good angels in the taxat, quibus meritum passionis corn- merits of the Redeemer see Pohle- municatur." Sess. VI, cap. 3. Preuss, Christology, pp. 243 sqq. Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 795.
82 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
"The blood of thy Lord," observes St. Augus tine, "is given for thee, if thou wilt; if thou wilt not, it is not given for thee."
Theologians distinguish between God's antecedent and His consequent will to save men. Antecedently He willed to save all men without exception, even those who are lost ; voluntate consequent^ however, the damned are in fact, though not in principle, excluded from the fruits of the Redemption. It is correct to say, however, in spite of this limitation, that Christ also died for the damned, both past and future, because they are lost through their own fault.
The atonement may be regarded as universal from still another point of view. Satisfaction is either merely sufficient or efficacious. It is sufficient if it provides adequate means of salvation. It is efficacious if these means are appropriated and utilized by those to whom they are offered. Catholic divines unanimously teach that Christ died for all men secundum sufficientiam, non tamen secundum efficaciam. It is indeed quite ob vious that if a man neglects to appropriate the fruits of the Redemption, he derives no more benefit therefrom than one who is dying of thirst receives from a spring within his reach but from which he refuses to drink. " Although [Christ] by His death made sufficient satis faction for the sins of the human race," says St. Thomas, "yet each individual man must seek for the remedies whereby to work out his own salvation. The death of Christ may in a manner be called the universal cause of salvation, like as the sin of the first man was, after a fashion, the universal cause of damnation. But it is nec essary that the universal cause be applied to each one
21 Serm., 344, n. 4.
WHY SOME ARE LOST 83
in particular, that each may participate in its effect. The effect of the sin of our first parents descends to each one of us by the propagation of the flesh, while the effect of our Saviour's death comes to each by spir itual regeneration . . . and therefore it is necessary that each individual human being should seek to be regenerated through Christ and to employ all other means whereby the death of Christ becomes efficacious." 22 In other words, the atonement is universal only with regard to its objec tive value or sufficiency, not in respect of its subjective application or efficaciousness. 23
22 " Quamvis autem sufKcienter igitur peccati primi parentis pervenit
pro peccatis humani generis sua ad unumquemque per carnis ori-
morte satisfecerit, sunt tamen uni- ginem, effectus autem mortis Christi
cuique remedia propriae salutis pertingit ad unumquemque per spi-
quaerenda. Mors enim Christi est ritualem regcnerationem . . . et ideo
quasi quaedam universalis causa oportet quod unusquisque quaerat
salutis, sicut peccatum primi ho- regenerari per Christum et alia sus-
minis fuit quasi universalis causa cipere, in quibus virtus mortis
damnationis. Oportet autem uni- Christi operatur." Contra Cent.,
versalem causam applicari ad unum- IV, 55, sub. fin.
quodque specialiter, ut effectum uni- 23 Cfr. Dorholt, op. cit., pp. 307
versalis causae participet. Effectus sqq., 330 sqq.
SECTION 3
THE CONCRETE REALIZATION OF CHRIST'S VICA RIOUS ATONEMENT
In the two preceding Sections we have shown that the atonement was real and intrinsically as well as ex- trinsically perfect. The question now arises: What were the specific actions by which the Godman made satis faction for our sins ? Or, to express it in simpler terms, How did Christ redeem us? We pray: " By Thy holy Cross Thou hast redeemed the world." This does not imply that our Divine Saviour's previous actions had no reference to the purpose of the Redemption. His whole life, from His conception to His death on the Cross, was a chain of expiatory actions, each in itself sufficient to redeem the world jj^g^tu^rimo. But it was an essential feature of the scheme of salvation that jnjictu secundo, I. e., actually, no satisfaction was accept able but that which had its consummation in the trag edy on Golgotha.
In the present Section, therefore, we shall first treat of Christ's Death on the Cross (Article i) and then of two subsequent events of peculiar soteriological import, viz.: His Descent into Hell (Article 2) and His Glori ous Resurrection (Article 3).
CHRIST'S DEATH 85
ARTICLE i CHRIST'S DEATH ON THE CROSS
We are here considering the death of our Di vine Redeemer not as a sacrifice, but merely as the means of our salvation. It was by His passion and death that Jesus actually redeemed mankirid. The circumstance that His death was a bloody sacrifice constitutes Him a priest; this aspect of the matter will receive due attention in Part II, Chapter i, infra.
i. CHRIST'S DEATH THE EFFICIENT CAUSE OF OUR REDEMPTION. — In view of the central posi tion which the Cross of Christ occupies in the history of the Redemption, the Tridentine Coun cil asserted a truth self-evident to every Christian when it defined : "Of this justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, . . . while the efficient cause is a merciful God ; . . . but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who . . . merited justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the Cross and made satisfaction for us to God the Father." 1
l "Huius iustificationis causae lesus Christus, qui . . . sua sanctis-
sunt finalis quidem gloria Dei et sima passion? in ligno crucis nobis
Christi, . . . efficiens vero miseri- iustificationem meruit et pro nobis
cars Deus, . . . meritoria autem di- Deo Patri [scil. per appropria-
lectissimus Unigenitus suus D. N. tionem] satisfecit." Cone. Trid.,
86 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
So important a dogma must loom large in the New Testament and be at least foreshadowed in the Old.
a) Apart from certain Old Testament types (such as the sacrifice of Isaac, the scapegoat, the brazen serpent, etc.),2 the Messianic prophecies afford numerous intimations of the bloody pas sion and death of the future Messias. Most of these occur in the prophecies of Isaias and the Book of Psalms. Isaias, in speaking of the satis faction rendered by the "servant of the Lord," invariably describes it as a dolorous passion fol lowed by death.4 The 2ist Psalm characterizes salvation as the outcome of intense tribulation and suffering. "But I am a worm, and no man; the reproach of men, and the outcast of the people. All they that saw me have laughed me to scorn : they have spoken with the lips, and wagged the head. . . . My strength is dried up like a pot sherd, and my tongue hath cleaved to my jaws: and thou hast brought me down into the dust of death. . . . They have dug my hands and feet. They have numbered all my bones. And they have looked and stared upon me. They parted my garments amongst them; and upon my ves ture they cast lots/' 5
Sess VI cap. 7 (Denzinger-Bann- sis. XLII, 1-9; XLIX, i sqq.; L,
wart, n. 799). 4 sqq., LIII. 4 sqq. Cfr. Maas.
2 On these and other types of the op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 231 sqq.
suffering Messias see A. J. Maas, S. 4 See supra, pp. 46 sq.
J., Christ in Type and Prophecy, 5 Ps. XXI, 7 sqq. Cfr. Maas, op.
Vol. II, pp. 322-343. cit-> Vol< H> ppl 264-287-
CHRIST'S DEATH 87
b) The New Testament fairly swarms with passages in support of the dogma. Christ Him self says : "Filius hominis non venit ministrari, sed ministrare, et dare animani suam redenip- tionem 6 pro multis - - The Son of man is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many." And again: "Sic enim Deus dilexit munduni, ut F ilium suum unigenitum daret* ut omnis qui credit in eum, non pereat, sed hob eat vitam aeter- nam — God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlast ing." 9 St. Paul attests the same truth in some what different terms. "Qui etiam proprio Filio suo non pepercit," he says, "sed pro nobis omni bus tradidit w ilium — He spared not even his own Son, but delivered him up for us all." The notion that Christ died for us on the Cross assumes concrete form in the shedding of His blood "unto the remission of sins." 12 Hence the well-known Pauline axiom, "Sine sanguinis effusione non fit remissio 13 — Without shedding of blood there is no remission." 14 Therefore, too, subjective salvation, i. e., the application of
6 \vrpov = ransom. 11 Rom. VIII, 32.
7 Matth. XX, 28. 12 Cfr. Matth. XXVI, 28.
8 eSw/cev. is Kal xwP*s ai/J.aT€Kxv(rla* ov
9 John III, 16. 7iWrcu a0e<rtj.
10 -rraptduKev, 1* Heb. IX, 22.
8$ THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
the fruits of the Redemption to the individual soul, is described as "the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ," 15 and the Redemption was not "consummated" until Christ gave up the ghost.16
2. THE CONGRUITY OF CHRIST'S DEATH ON
THE CROSS. — It was fitting that Christ should die for us on the Cross. The reasons are admirably developed by St. Thomas.17 We must confine ourselves to a summary of the most important of them.
a) It would have been unbecoming for the Redeemer to die of old age or disease,18 or to fall beneath the blows of an assassin. His high office as Saviour of the human race demanded that He should die a public death. In no other way could He have so effectively sealed the truth of His teaching. Nothing could have been more conducive to the spread of His Gospel than His bloody martyrdom, which contained within itself the proof of His teaching and power. The fact that He met death unflinchingly gained for Him a greater number of enthusiastic ad herents than many years of teaching could have done. What is the poison cup that Socrates put to his lips in comparison with the agony suffered by Jesus Christ? His reward was proportionate to the magnitude of His suffering. This consideration (namely, that He merited His glorification by intense suffering) implies a profound teleology, which may be truly termed divine.
15 i Pet. I, 2: " aspersionem san- is developed by Tepe, Inst. Theol., guinis lesu Christi." Cfr. Heb. Vol. Ill, pp. 651 sqq.
IX, 13 sq. 17 S. Theol., 33, qu. 46, art. 1-4,
16 "Consummatum est." John n; qu. 47, art. 4; qu. 50, art. i. XIX, 30. — The Patristic argument 18 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology,
pp. 8 1 sqq.
CHRIST'S DEATH 89
b) In regard to those for whom He gave up His life, Christ could not have selected a more congruous manner of dying than that which He actually chose. The path of Christian perfection runs between two poles — hatred of sin and the practice of virtue. From both points of view the cruel drama enacted on Golgotha was eminently effective. The power of sin could not be broken except by a strong opposing force. This may be regarded either objectively or subjectively.
a) The sin of our first parents had doomed the human race to spiritual death, a terrible penalty which entailed the death of the body.19 Hence it was eminently proper that our Divine Redeemer should by His bodily death de stroy the spell of spiritual death and thereby restore man to that corporeal immortality which had been one of the prerogatives of the human race in Paradise, but was for feited by sin. There is a striking parallel also between the first sinner's desire to be like unto God and the self- humiliation of the Godman, between the " tree of knowl edge " and the " wood of the Cross." The antithesis be tween Christ's passion and death on the one hand, and sin on the other, may be traced in detail. Thus the unholy trinity of vices which we have inherited from our first parents — concupiscence of the eyes, concupiscence of the flesh, and pride of life — received a tremendous blow by the bitter passion and death of our Saviour, — concupis cence of the eyes in the distribution of his garments, concupiscence of the flesh in His disrobing and scourg ing, and pride of life in the imposition of the thorny crown and the crucifixion.
(3) Nothing could produce a more impressive idea of the hideousness of sin than the contemplation of the
19 Cfr. Rom. V, 7 sqq.
9o THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
mangled and blood-stained body of our crucified Re deemer.20 It is apt to soften the hardest of hearts. He who dares to offend God in plain view of the Cross is an atrocious villain, because, in the words of St. Paul, he does not shrink from " crucifying again . . . the Son of God and making him a mockery." 21 The height of contemplation and the heroic practice of virtue to which the medieval mystics attained by meditating on the cruel sufferings of our Divine Redeemer, have been and still are within the reach of all men. Like St. John many have found by experience that love kindles love. " In this is charity : not as though we had loved God, but be cause he hath first loved us, and sent his Son to be a pro pitiation for our sins." '
Our crucified Redeemer is, moreover, a living and at tractive model of all virtue. How would it be possible for us poor weak mortals to be virtuous had we not His glorious example to encourage us? Is there anything a selfish, effeminate man dreads more than pain and death ? Yet the Passion of Christ has deprived both of their sting. St. Teresa had no other desire than either to die or to suffer (ant mori ant pati). Death, too, so terrible to human nature, has lost its horrors. With the crucifix clasped in his hands and the name of the Re deemer on his lips, the pious Christian calmly commends his soul to the Heavenly Father. In the Cross there is salvation, the Cross is a haven of refuge.23
20 On the extensive and intensive 22 i John IV, 10.
magnitude of our Lord's suffering 23 Cfr. the Roman Catechism,
see Cfr. Pesch, Prael. Dogmat., Vol. Part I, ch. 5, qu. 4, 145 Billuart,
IV, pp. 267 sqq.; A. Kluge, Das De Myst. Christi, diss. 9, art. i, and
Seelenleiden des Welterlosers, Mainz Oswald, Die Erlosung in Christo
J90S. Jew, Vol. II, §5, Paderborn 1887.
aiHeb. VI, 6.
CHRIST'S DESCENT INTO HELL 91
ARTICLE 2 CHRIST'S DESCENT INTO HELL
The Oriental and the ancient Roman versions of the so-called Apostles' Creed do not mention Christ's Descent into hell. But the doctrine is contained in the Spanish, Gallic, and Aquilean re censions and in the symbol "Quicunque/' wrongly attributed to St. Athanasius. Hence the descen- sits ad infer os is commonly regarded as an article of faith. The Fourth Lateran Council (A. D. 1215) teaches somewhat more explicitly: "He descended into hell, ... but He descended in soul and arose in flesh, and ascended equally in both/' 1
Durandus contended that the soul of Christ de scended into hell dynamically but not substan tially. This opinion was censured as heretical by Suarez.2 And justly so; for it can be effectively refuted from Sacred Scripture. The same is true of Calvin's absurd notion 3 that Christ before and after His agonizing death suffered the tortures of the damned.
The nature of the place into which our Lord descended has never been dogmatically denned,
. " Descendit ad infernos, . . . zinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. sed descendit in anima et resurrexit 429.)
in carne: ascenditque pariter in 2 De Myst. Vitae Christi, disp. 43,
utroque." Caput "Firmiter." (Den- sect. 2, n. 7.
3 Inst., II, 16, 10.
92 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
but it is theologically certain that it was the so- called limbus patrum (sinus Abrahae).
i. PROOF OF THE DOGMA FROM SACRED SCRIP TURE AND TRADITION. — The dogma of Christ's Descent into hell is clearly contained both in Sacred Scripture and Tradition.
a) Ps. XV, 10: "Non derelinques animam meam in inferno* nee dabis Sanctum tuum videre corruptionem — Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, nor wilt thou give thy holy one to see cor ruption/' This text contains a convincing argu ment for our dogma, because St. Peter directly applies it to Christ: "Providens [David] locutus est de resurrectione Christi, quia neque derelictus est in inferno neque caro eius vidit corruptionem — Foreseeing this, he [David] spoke of the resur rection of Christ. For neither was he left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption." The Greek term which the Vulgate renders by in- fernum is £&?s. It cannot mean grave, as Beza contended, because the soul of Christ was not buried; nor can it mean death (which is Calvin's interpretation), because the soul of Christ did not die. It must refer to a locality where the soul of our Lord sojourned until it was reunited with His "uncorrupted flesh" at the Resurrection.6
4 T*IV *vx*iv eis &8ov. 6-12; Maas, Christ in Type and
5 Acts II, 31. Cfr* Acts XIII, 35- Prophecy, Vol. I, pp. 140 sqq.; Vol.
6 Cfr. Bellarmine, De Christo, IV, II, pp. 35^ sqq., esp. p. 372.
CHRIST'S DESCENT INTO HELL 93
This interpretation is confirmed by the teaching of St. Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians : " Now that he ascended, what is it, but because he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth ? 7 He that de scended is the same also that ascended above all the heavens, that he might fill all things."8 Christ's as cension here can only mean His return to Heaven. Con sequently, the word descend, in contradistinction to as cend, must here be understood in a local sense. This is rendered all the more probable by the fact that the phrase inferiores paries terrae cannot be applied to Christ's burial, and still less metaphorically to the Incarnation. For the rest, St. Peter, (in a somewhat obscure passage, it is true),9 explicitly observes that the soul of Christ " preached 10 to those spirits that were in prison," — hence it must have been substantially present in a partic ular place, i. e., the limbo.
b) The Tradition in support of our dogma is as ancient as it is positive.
St. Irenaeus says : " For three days He dwelt in the place where the dead were." 1X Tertullian mentions Christ's Descent into hell in several passages of his works. We shall quote but one. " Nor did He ascend into the heights of heaven before descending into the lower parts of the earth, that He might there make the patriarchs and prophets partakers of Himself."12 St. Augustine speaks with the authority of both Scripture
7 eis TO. KCLTwrepa pepy TTJS 7775. Adv. Haereses, V, 31, i; cfr. also
8 Eph. IV, 9 sq. Adv. Haereses, IV, 27, 2.
» i^Pet. Ill, 18 sqq. 12 " Nee ante ascendit in sublimi-
10 <?Ki7pu£e, praedicavit. or a coelorum, quam descendit in in-
11 "Nunc out em tribus diebus feriora terrarum, ut illic patriarchal conversatus est, ubi erant mortui." et prophetas compotes sui faceret."
De Anima, c. 55; cfr. also c. 4, 7.
94 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
and Tradition when he says: " Who but an unbeliever would deny that Christ was in the nether world? " 13
2. MEANING OF THE TERM "HELL." — Infer- num (ffys, KaroWrct^ Hebrew, "*? ) may designate either (a) hell in the strict sense of the term, i. e., the abode of the reprobates (gehenna) ; or (b) a place of purification after death, commonly called purgatory (purgatorium) ; or (c) the biding place of children who have died unbaptized (limbus infantium); or (d) the abode of the just men who lived before the coming of Christ (limbus patnnn). To which of these four places did Christ descend?
a) The soul of our Lord did not descend to the abode of the damned.
Calvin's blasphemous assertion that the soul of Christ, from the beginning of His sacred Passion in the Garden of Gethsemane to the Resurrection, dwelled in the abode of the damned, and there suffered the poena damni, is based on an untenable exaggeration of the notion of vicarious atonement.14 It is not true, as Calvin held, that Christ's Descent into hell constituted the climax. of the atonement. The atonement culminated on the Cross. (" Consummatum est") Nor can we conceive of any reasonable motive why our Lord should have descended into the gehenna of the damned. The hu man beings confined in that awful dungeon were abso-
13 "Quis ergo nisi infidelis nega- P. L., XXXIII, 710). verit fuisse apud infer os Christum?" i* Cfr. Bellarmine, De Christ o,
Ep. 104 ad Ev odium, c. 2, 3 (Migne, V, 8.
CHRIST'S DESCENT INTO HELL 95
lutely irredeemable, even as the demons themselves.16 Moreover, a personal sojourn in hell would have been re pugnant to the dignity of the Godman. St. Augustine does not hesitate to stigmatize as heretical the proposi tion that " When Christ descended into hell, the unbe lieving believed and all were set free." 16 The " triumph over hell " which the Church celebrates in her Easter hymns did not require the substantial presence there of our Lord's soul; it was accomplished by His virtual or dynamic presence, i. e., the exercise of His divine power. Certain ancient ecclesiastical writers 17 held that on the occasion of His Descent Christ rescued from eternal tor ture the souls of certain pious heathens, e. g., Socrates and Plato. This theory does not contradict the dogma that the pains of hell are eternal, as Suarez contends ; but it must nevertheless be rejected as unfounded; first, be cause without positive proof to the contrary we are not permitted to assume an exception, and secondly, because there is no ground whatever for the assumption that these pious heathens were condemned to hell rather than rele gated to the limbus pair urn.
b) There is another opinion, held by several reputable theologians, viz., that the soul of Christ appeared personally in purgatory to console the poor souls and to admit them to the beatific vision.
We may let this pass as a " pious opinion," provided its defenders refrain from denying that Christ also descended into the limbus patrum. But even with this limitation we can hardly admit that the theory is based on sufficient
is V. supra, Sect. 2, Art. 2, The- feros credidisse incredulos et omnes sis 4. e.vinde liberates." De Haer., 79.
16 "Descendente Christ o ad in- 17 E. g., Clement of Alexandria
and Origen.
96 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
evidence. Two weighty arguments speak against it. It is a fundamental law of divine justice that whoever neg lects to render satisfaction in this life must inevitably suf fer in the next (satispassio) , and Sacred Scripture affords no warrant for assuming that an exception was made in this instance, say after the manner of a plenary indul gence in commemoration of the Redemption. On the other hand it is highly improbable that all the inmates of purgatory should have finished the process of purifi cation at exactly the same moment. In view of these considerations St. Thomas holds that the (merely vir tual) presence of our Lord in purgatory resulted in noth ing more than giving to the poor souls temporarily im prisoned there " the hope of an early beatitude." 18 The only exception the Angelic Doctor is disposed to make is in favor of those " who were already sufficiently purged, or who during their lifetime had by faith and devotion to the death of Christ merited the favor of being released from the temporal sufferings of purgatory on the occasion of His descent." 19
c) Was it perhaps the limbus pueromm, i. e., the abode of children who die in the state of orig inal sin, into which our Saviour descended? It is difficult to see for what reason He should have gone there.
He could not benefit the souls of these children, be cause they have once for all arrived at their destination.
185". TheoL, 33, qu 51, art. 3: viverent, meruerunt per fidem et
"Illis vero, qui detinebantur in pur- devotionem ad mortem Christi, ut
gatorio, spem gloriae consequendae eo dcscendente liberarentur a tern-
dedit." porali purgatorii poena." (Ibid.)
19 ". . . qui iam sufficient er pur- Cfr. Billuart, De Myst. Christi, diss.
gati erant, vel etiam qui, dum adhuc n, art. 3.
CHRIST'S DESCENT INTO HELL 97
Nor can He have desired to triumph over them, be cause the fact that they are deprived of the beatific vision is not due to any malice on their part, but simply and solely to original sin contracted by their descent from Adam. As these infants are absolutely irredeem able in virtue of Christ's voluntas salmfica consequens,™ we cannot even assume the existence of a special priv ilege in their favor. That which is impossible cannot be made the subject-matter of a privilege, not even at so solemn a juncture as the death of our Saviour.21 Their fate does not involve cruelty nor injustice on the part of God, because, though deprived of the beatific vision, they enjoy a certain measure of natural happiness.22
d) Consequently, the only place to which the soul of Christ can have descended during the triduum intervening between His death and the Resurrection, is the limbus patrum, sometimes also called "bosom of Abraham/'
The limbus patrum was the place in which the pa triarchs and just men of the Old Testament, together with those heathens who had died in the state of grace, after having been cleansed from all stain of sin in purga tory, dwelled in the expectation of the beatific vision. That such a place existed we conclude from Heb. IX, 8 : " The way into1 the holies [i. e., Heaven] 23 was not yet
20 V. supra, Sect. 2, Art. 2, The- neque per fidem parentum out per sis 4. aliquod fidei sacramentum [soil, bap-
21 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. TheoL, 3a, tismum] fuerant a peccato originali qu. 52, art. 7: "Pueri autem, qui mundati. Et idea descensus Christi cum originali peccato decesserant, ad inferos huiusmodi pueros non li- ttullo modo fuerant coniuncti pas- beravit ab inferno."
sioni Christi per fidem et dilec- 22 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God the
tionem. Neque enim fidem pro- Author of Nature and the Super-
priam habere potuerant, quia non natural, pp. 300 sqq.
habuerunt usum liberi arbitrii, 23 Cfr. Heb. X, 19.
98 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
made manifest, whilst the former tabernacle [i. e., the Old Testament] was yet standing," We may also infer the (former) existence of such a place from the fact that Holy Scripture adverts to a state of imprisonment as an intermediary stage on the way to Heaven.
3. SPECULATIONS REGARDING THE LOCATION OF THE LIMBO. — The word limbo, which is de rived from limbus, properly signifies edge or bor der. It owes its use as a technical term in theol ogy to the ancient belief that the abode of the patriarchs was situated on the confines of hell, somewhere near the surface of the earth. Dante and Milton place the limbo at the outermost circle of hell.24 Since the geocentric has been sup planted by the Copernican world-view, we know that the ancient notions of "above" and "below" are purely relative. Hence the traditional view with regard to the site of hell and the limbo does not appertain to the substance of dogma. The meagre data furnished by Revelation do not enable us to draw up a topographical map of the nether world. We know no more about the whereabouts of hell than we know about the location of what was once the limbo of the Fathers. The theological arguments of certain Scholastic writers, based on the geocentric con ception of the universe, can claim no probability, much less certitude.25
24 Milton, Paradise Lost, III, 440 25 On the limbo see P. J. Toner
gqq. in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol.
CHRIST'S DESCENT INTO HELL 99
4. THE SOTERIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF CHRIST'S DESCENT INTO HELL. — Christologically our Lord's Descent into hell must be conceived as an intermediary stage between glorification and abasement. It partook of abasement in | respect of the external circumstance of place, but it did not entail upon His human nature any substantial or intrinsic alteration.26 From the soteriological point of view the question as to the meaning of Christ's Descent into hell re solves itself into another, namely, What was its object or purpose?
What can have been our Saviour's purpose in visiting the patriarchs ? We may safely assume that His descent stood in some sort of relation to the redemption of the human race which He had just accomplished. It must have aimed at their beatification, for the limbo contained no repro bates. St. Paul applies the text Ps. LXVII, 19: "Ascendens in altum captivam duxit captivita- tem " to the inmates of the limbo, — as if he wished to say: Ascending into Heaven Christ leads away with Him those who had been impris oned in the limbo.27
We are informed of the object of our Lord's De scent into the limbo by St. Peter, who says in his
IX, pp. 256 sqq.; Mamachi, De 26 Cfr. H. Simar, Dogmatik, Vol.
Animabus lustorum in Sinn Abrahae I, 3rd eel., p. 538, Freiburg 1899. ante Christi Mortem, Rome 1706. 27 Cfr. Eph. IV, 8.
ioo THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
first Epistle:28 "[Christ was] put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, in which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison : 29 which had been some time incredulous,30 when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a-building." This text is admittedly difficult of in terpretation ; 31 but despite a certain obscurity, its gen eral drift is discernable. The Apostle evidently means to say that Christ personally approached 32 the spirits or souls of those who were imprisoned in the limbo and preached 33 to them. What and why did he preach to them? To assume that He tried to convert the damned would contradict the revealed truth that there is no salvation for those condemned to hell. Can it have been His purpose to assure them of their damnation? This hypothesis is equally untenable, because a little fur ther down in his text St. Peter expressly describes Christ's preaching (/ofcvy/xa) as a "gospel," which means a message of joy. " Ne/cpois ew/yyeAt'o-tf??," these are his words — •" the gospel was preached to the dead." 34 The " gospel " which our Lord preached to the inmates of limbo must have been the glad tidings that their im prisonment was at an end. But whom does St. Peter mean when he speaks of " those spirits . . . which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe"? This is a diffi cult question to answer. But no matter how we may choose to interpret the subsidiary clause, the main sen tence is plain enough. Among the just imprisoned in the limbo there were also (/cat) some who had abused God's
28 i Pet. Ill, 18 sqq. 31 Cfr. St. Augustine, Ep. ad
29 ev & /cat rots ev <^uXa/c^f Evod., 164. irvevfjiCKriv iropevOels eicf]pv£ev. 32 iropevtieis.
30 diretOriaacriv irore- 33 eKripv&v, praedicavit,
34 i Pet. IV, 6.
THE RESURRECTION 101
patience before the Deluge by remaining incredulous till the flood overtook them.35 The " gospel " or joyful mes sage which Christ brought to the inmates of limbo cannot have consisted in anything more than the preliminary announcement that they were soon to be freed ; for their formal admission into the heavenly abode of the Blessed did not take place till the day of His Ascension.36 Never theless, in view of our Lord's remark to the penitent thief: "This day thou shalt be with me in paradise," we must hold that the patriarchs were forthwith ad mitted to the beatific vision of God.37
ARTICLE 3
THE RESURRECTION
i. THE RELATION OF CHRIST'S RESURRECTION TO His DEATH. — Christ's glorious Resurrection may be considered from three distinct points of view.
Apologetically, i. e., regarded as a historic fact establishing His Divinity, it is the bulwark of our faith 1 and the pledge of our own future resurrec tion.2
Christologically, the Resurrection signalizes
35 Cfr. Hundhausen, Das ersie l i Cor. XV, 14. Pastoralschreiben des Apostelfiir- i2 i Cor. XV, 13. — For an apol- sten Petrus, pp. 343 sqq., Mainz ogetic treatment of the Resurrec- 1873. tion we refer the student to De-
36 Cfr. Ps. LXVII, 19. vivier-Sasia, Christian Apologetics,
37 Cfr. the Catechism of the Vol. I, pp. 197 sqq., San Jose, Cal., Council of Trent, Part I, Ch. 6, Qu. 1903; G. W. B. Marsh, The Resur- 6. The reasons why it was meet rcction of Christ, Is it a Fact? that Christ should descend into hell London 1905; and other similar are developed by St. Thomas, 5". treatises.
Theol., 3a, qu. 52, art. i.
102 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
Christ's entrance into the state of glory which He had earned for Himself by His passion and death.3
Considered from the distinctive viewpoint of Soteriology, the Resurrection of Christ was not, strictly speaking, the chief, nor even a contrib uting cause of our redemption ; 4 but it was an essential complement thereof, and constituted its triumphant consummation.
a) The Catholic Church regards the Resurrection as an integral, though not an essential, element of the atone ment. That is why she mourns on Good Friday and cele brates Easter as the great feast of the Redemption. " Lastly," says the Roman Catechism,5 ". . . the Resur rection of our Lord was necessary, in order to complete the mystery of our salvation and redemption ; for by his death Christ liberated us from our sins, and by His Resurrection he restored to us the principal blessings which we had forfeited by sin. Hence it is said by the Apostle : ' He was delivered up for our sins, and rose again for our justification.' ° That nothing, therefore, might be wanting to the salvation of the human race, it was meet that, as He should die, He should also rise again." This teaching is in perfect accord with Sacred Scripture, which links the crucifixion of our Lord with His Resurrection and represents both events as one in divisible whole. Cfr. Luke XXIV, 46 sq. : " Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise
3 Cfr. Luke XXIV, 26. V. su- the Cross. (Cfr. supra, pp. 85 sqq.) pn, PP- 58 sq. r, Part I, Ch. 6, Qu. 12.
4 The sole cause of our redemp- 6 Rom. IV, 25. tion was the Saviour's death on
THE RESURRECTION 103
again from the dead, the third day, that penance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all nations." 7
b) St. Paul deepened this conception by pointing out that the Crucifixion and the Resurrection contain the two essential elements of justification — remission of sin and infusion of a new life. As Christ died and rose again from the dead, so shall we die to sin and arise to spiritual life. Cfr. Rom. VI, 6 sqq. : " Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin may be de stroyed, to the end that we may serve sin no longer. For he that is dead is justified from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall live also together with Christ: knowing that Christ rising again from the dead, dieth now no more." The Apostle loved to apply this sublime symbolism to the Sacrament of Baptism', in which the acts of immersion and emersion emblem both the burial and Resurrection of Christ, and the liberation from sin and sanctification of the sinner. Cfr. Rom. VI, 4 : " For we are buried together with him by baptism into death ; that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life." 8
2. THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST AS A DOGMA. — The glorious Resurrection of our Lord is a cardinal dogma, nay the very foundation and keystone of Christian belief. For this reason the
7 Cfr. St. Bonaventure, Comment. 8 Cfr. 2 Cor. V, 15. On the sub-
in Quatuor Libras Sent., Ill, dist. ject-matter of this subdivision the
19, art. i, qu. i: "Ratio merendi student may profitably consult St.
iustificationem attribuitur soli pas- Thomas, vS". Theol., 33, qu. 56, art.
sioni, non resurrectioni; ratio vero 2 and H. Simar, Die Theologie des
terminandi et quietandi attribuitur hi. Paulus, 2nd ed., pp. 194 sqq.,
resurrectioni, ad quam ordinatur Freiburg 1883. ittstificatio, non passioni."
104 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
phrase "on the third day He arose again" was embodied in all the creeds and reiterated in nu merous doctrinal definitions.
The Catholic Church has always emphasized two distinct points in regard to the Resurrection, vis.: (i) Its reality or truth, and (2) the transfigured and glorified state of the risen Re deemer. To safeguard these two aspects of the dogma she strenuously insisted on the real re union of Christ's soul with His body,9 and form ally rejected the Origenist teaching of the ethereal nature and sphericity of the risen body as well as the heresy of its alleged corruptibility. Thus the Council of Constantinople (A. D. 543) says: "If any one assert that the body of our Lord after the Resurrection was ethereal and spherical in shape, ... let him be anathema." And the symbol of Pope Leo IX declares that Christ arose from the dead on the third day "by a true resurrection of the flesh, to confirm which He ate with His disciples — not because He stood in need of food, but solely by His will and power." n All these statements can be convincingly demon strated from Divine Revelation.
a) Christ had positively predicted that He would arise on the third day (cfr. Matth. XII, 40;
9 Cfr. Cone. Lateran. IV , Caput reum et figura sphaerica, anathema "Firmiter" (supra, p. 91). sit." Denzinger's Enchiridion, gth
10 "Si quis dixerit Domini corpus ed., n. 196.
post resurrectionem fuisse aethe- n Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 344.
THE RESURRECTION 105
XX, 19; XXVII, 63; Mark X, 34; Luke XVIII, 33; John II, 18 sqq.). He proved the reality and the truth of His resurrection by repeatedly appearing to His disciples, conversing with them, allowing them to touch His sacred body, eating and drinking with them, and so forth. (Matth. XXVIII, 17 sq.; Luke XXIV, 41 sqq.; John XX, 24 sqq.; i Cor. XV, 6). The Apostles would not have so courageously and uncompro misingly stood up for their faith in the Resur rection had they not seen and conversed with the risen Lord. Cfr. Acts IV, 33: "And with great power 12 did the Apostles give testimony of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord." 13 Though not an eye-witness, St. Paul was a bold and enthusiastic herald of the Resurrection : "If Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain/' 14
That Christ rose in a glorified body is evi denced by the circumstances surrounding His Resurrection,15 and by the fact that His risen body was endowed with certain attributes which man cannot enjoy except in a transfigured state.16
12 dvvd/jiei fjLeydXrj, virtute magnd. 15 Matth. XXVIII, i sqq.; Luke
13 Cfr. Acts II, 22 sqq.; Ill, 15; XXIV, 36 sqq.; John XX, 19 sqq. X, 40 sqq.; XIII, 30 sqq. 16 This point will be developed in
14 i Cor. XV, 14; cfr. Rom. X, 9. Eschatology.
io6 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
He retained the marks of His five wounds 17 for reasons of congruity, which St. Thomas explains as follows : " It was becoming that the soul of Christ in the Resurrection should reassume the body with its wounds. First, for the glorification of Christ Himself ; secondly, to confirm His disciples in their faith in the Resurrection ; third, that in supplicating the Father for us, He might always remind Him of what He had suffered for men ; fourth to recall the divine mercy to those whom He had redeemed, by ex hibiting to them the marks of His death ; and, lastly, that on Judgment day He might show forth the justice of the judgment by which [the wicked] are damned." 18
That Christ really and truly rose from the dead in a glorified body, is so evident from Sacred Scripture that we need not stop to prove it from Tradition.19
b) In connection with the Resurrection of our Lord the Catholic Church has always held two other important truths, viz.: ( i ) That His Res urrection is the prototype of a general "resurrec tion of the flesh/' and (2) that Christ arose by His own power.
Both these truths are clearly taught in the famous Creed drawn up by the Eleventh Council of Toledo (A. D. 675) : " And on the third day, raised up by His
17 Cfr. John XX, 27; Apoc. V, 6. tulerit, semper ostendat; quarto ut
18 S. TheoL, 33, qu. 54, art. 4: sua morte redemptis, quam miseri- "Conveniens fuit animam Christi in corditer sint adiuti, propositis eius- resurrectione corpus cum cicatrici- dem mortis indiciis insinuet; po- bus resumere : primo quidem propter stremo ut in iudicio [ultimo], quam gloriam ipsius Christi . . .; secundo iuste damnentur, ibidem denuntiet." ad confirmandum corda discipulorum 19 On the whole subject cfr. Billu- circa fidem suae resurrectionis; ter- art, De Myst. Christi, diss. 12, art. tio ut Patri pro nobis supplicans, 4 and 6; G. B. Tepe, Inst. TheoL, quale genus mortis pro homine per- Vol. I, pp. 97 sqq., Paris 1894-.
THE RESURRECTION 107
own power, He rose again from the grave ; by virtue of this example of our Head we profess that there will be a resurrection of the flesh for all the dead." 20 The phrase "by His own power" (mrtute proprid) points to an ac tive rising (resurgere), which is more than a miraculous awakening (resuscitari) .
The dogma is clearly contained in Sacred Scripture. Cfr. John II, 19: "Jesus answered and said to them: Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."21 John X, 17 sq.: "Therefore doth the Father love me: because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No man taketh it away from me: but I lay it down of myself, and I have power to lay it down: and I have power to take it up again." 22
Christ Himself ascribes this power to His consubstan- tiality with the Father. John V, 21: "For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and giveth life : so the Son also giveth life to whom he will."23 Hence, if Holy Scripture elsewhere speaks of our Lord's being raised up by the Father, 24 this is obviously an appropriation, based on the fact that the efficient cause of our Saviour's Resur rection was not His humanity, which had been resolved into its constituent elements by death, but His Divinity, which remained hypostatically united with His soul and body. The Roman Catechism explains this as follows: >l There existed a divine energy as well in the body, by which it might be reunited to the soul, as in the soul, by which it might return again to the body, and by which He,
20 "Tertio quoque die virtute pro- 21 e7e/?w, excitabo.
pria sua suscitatus a sepulcro resur- 22 $£0Vfflco> e'x« iraXiv \aBeiv
rexit; hoc ergo exemplo capitis no- avTyv.
stri confitemur veram fieri resurrec- 23 6 vlbs ovs 0e'\« fwoTroiei.
tionem carnis omnium mortuorum." 24 Acts II, 24 sqq.; Ill, 13 sqq.;
Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 286. Rom. VIII, u; Gal. I, i.
8
io8 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION
by His own power, might return to life and rise again from the dead." 25
READINGS : — * Billuart, De Incarnatione, diss. 19-20.— IDEM, De Mysterio Christi, diss. 9-12.— St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, aa, qu. 19-22; qu. 24, 26; qu. 46-56.— Bellarmine, De Christo, 1. IV, c. 6-16; 1. V, c. i-io.— De Lugo, De Mysterio Incarnation**, disp. 27 sqq..— * Franzelin, De Verbo Incarnate, sect. 4, Rome 1881.— Oswald, Soteriologie, 2nd ed., Paderborn 1887.—* Stentrup, S. J., Soteriologia, 2 vols., Innsbruck 1889.— G. B. Tepe, Insti- tutiones Theologicae, Vol. Ill, pp. 617 sqq., Paris 1896.— Chr. Pesch, S. J., Praelectiones Dogmaticae, Vol. IV, 3d ed., pp. 201 sqq., Freiburg 1909.— Hunter, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, pp. 506 sqq., London s. a.— Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology, Vol. II, pp. 181-195, 2nd ed., London 1901.
— A. Ritter, Christus der Erloser, Linz 1903.—* B. Dorholt, Lehre von der Genugtuung Christi, Paderborn 1896.— Muth, Heilstat Christi als stellvertretende Genugtuung, Ratisbon 1904 .— K. Staab, Die Lehre von der stellvertretenden Genugtuung, Paderborn 1908.
— Pell, Lehre des hi. Athanasius von der Sunde und Erldsung, Passau 1888— Strater, Erldsung slehre des hi Athanasius, Frei burg 1894.— Weigl, Heilslehre des hi Cyrill von Alexandrien, Mainz 1905.—*!. Riviere, Le Dogme de la Redemption, Paris 1905 (English translation, The Doctrine of the Atonement, 2 vols., London 1909).— E. Hugon, O. P., Le Mystcre de la Re demption (a speculative pendant to Riviere's Le Dogme de la Redemption, which is mainly historical), Paris 1911.— H. N. Oxenham, The Catholic Doctrine of the Atonement: An His torical Inquiry into its Development in the Church, London 1865. (This work, which has been lately translated into French, must be read with caution. Cfr. La Civilta Cattolica, Quad. 1431, Feb. 5, 1910).— J. Kleutgen, S. J., Theologie der Vorzeit, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 336 sqq., Miinster 1870 (against Gunther).— Friedlieb, Leben Jesu Christi des Erlosers mit neuen historischen und chronologischen Untersuchungen, Paderborn 1887.— Grimm, Le ben Jesu nach den vier Evangelien, 7 vols., 2nd ed., Ratisbon
25 Cat. Rom., P. I, c. 6, qu. 8: set, qua et licuit sua virtute revivis-
"Divina vis turn in corpore inerat, cere atque a mortuis resurgerc." —
qua animae iterum coniungit, turn Cfr. Chr. Pesch, Praelect. Dogmat,,
in anima, qua ad corpus reverti pos- Vol. IV, pp. 280 sqq.
THE RESURRECTION 109
1890 sqq.— Didon, O. P., Jesus Christ, English edition, London 1895.— J. E. Belser, Geschichte des Leidens und Sterbens, der Auferstehung und Himmelfahrt des Herrn, Freiburg 1903.— W. Humphrey, S. J., The One Mediator, London s. a.— A. J. Maas, S. J., Christ in Type and Prophecy, Vol. II, pp. 13 sqq., New York 1895.— G. W. B. Marsh, Messianic Philosophy, pp. 24 sqq., London 1908.— Freddi- Sullivan, S. J., Jesus Christ the Word Incarnate, pp. 191 sqq., St. Louis 1904.— J. Tixeront, His- tolre des Dogmes, Vol. II, 3rd ed., pp. 148 sqq., 285 sqq., 376 sqq., Paris 1909.
See also the references in Pohle-Preuss, Christology, pp. 7 sq., St. Louis 1913.
* The asterisk before an author's name indicates that his treatment of the question is especially clear and thorough. As St. Thomas is in variably the best guide, the omission of the asterisk before his name never means that we consider his work in any, way inferior to that of other writers. There are vast stretches of theology which he scarcely touched.
PART II
THE THREE OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER
The Redemption, considered as an objective fact, must be subjectively appropriated by each individual human being. Hence three functions or offices on the part of our Divine Redeemer, ( I ) that of High Priest, (2) that of Prophet or Teacher, and (3) that of King.
no
CHAPTER I
CHRIST'S PRIESTHOOD
SECTION i CHRIST'S DEATH A TRUE SACRIFICE
The present Chapter is chiefly concerned with demonstrating, ( i ) that the death of Christ was a true sacrifice, and (2) that He Himself was a true priest. It is these facts which give to the Redemption its sacerdotal and hieratic stamp and furnish us with the key to the philosophy of the atonement.
i. DEFINITION OF THE TERM "BLOODY SAC RIFICE/' — A sacrifice is "the external offering up of a visible gift, which is destroyed, or at least submitted to an appropriate transformation, by a lawful minister in recognition of the sovereignty of God and in order to appease His anger."
a) This definition, which will be more fully explained in the dogmatic treatise on the Holy Eucharist, embraces four essential elements :
(a) A visible gift and its physical or moral destruc tion or transformation, such as the slaughtering of an
in
ii2 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER
animal, the burning of cereals, the pouring out of a fluid, etc.
(/?) A lawful minister or priest who offers the gift to God.
(y) An exterior act of worship, consisting in the phys ical presentation of the gift.
(8) A final end or object, which is the acknowledgment of God's supreme dominion and the appeasement of His anger.
Applying the Scholastic distinction between materia and forma, we find that the materia remota of a sacrifice is the visible gift itself, its materia proximo,, the act of de struction or transformation, and its forma, the sacrificial act (actio sacrifica), which combines and unifies both the external offering of the visible gift and the intrinsic purpose for which it is offered. This intrinsic purpose or object is the main factor, because it informs and de termines the external act, just as the human soul informs and determines the body. Without a genuine intention on the part of the sacrificing priest there is no sacrifice.1
b) The twofold purpose of every sacrifice is the ac knowledgment of God's supreme dominion and the ap peasement of His anger.
The first of these objects is attained by adoration, the second by expiation.
Adoration is the formal element of every sacrifice, i. e., that which essentially constitutes it a sacrifice in the strict sense of the term. Expiation does not enter into the essence of sacrifice, but is a merely secondary factor, because conditioned by the accidental fact of sin. Since both thanksgiving and supplication, when addressed to the Almighty, invariably and necessarily partake of the
l Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., za aae, qu. 85, art 2.
SACRIFICE 113
nature of absolute worship, sacrifices offered up for these two purposes have no relation to sin. The case is differ ent with expiatory sacrifices. While sin has neither abol ished nor debased, but rather reinforced, the main pur pose of adoration, namely thanksgiving and supplication, it has added a new object which, though in itself second ary, has become inseparable from the notion of sacrifice in consequence of the Fall.
These considerations explain the usual division into sacrifices of adoration (sacrificia latreutica), sacrifices of thanksgiving (sacrificia eucharistica) , sacrifices of sup plication or petition (sacrificia impetratoria), and sacri fices of expiation or propitiation (sacrificia propitiatoria). As these four objects can never be entirely separated, the various kinds of sacrifice owe their specific appella tions solely to the special emphasis laid on the principal purpose for which each is offered.
c) A most important element in the concept of sac rifice is the symbolic substitution of some other creature for man. " The gift takes the place of the giver. By sacrificing an object over which he has control, and offering it up entirely to God, man acknowledges God's overlordship over his person and life, and it is the latter which is symbolically offered up and destroyed."2 This symbolism is based on the very nature of sac rifice. The acknowledgment of God as the sovereign Lord of the universe has its human correlative in man's humble subjection and surrender of himself to his Maker. The most precious gift which man has re ceived from God is life. Since he cannot surrender this -God demands no human sacrifices — He offers it up symbolically by destroying or transforming and present-
2 Jos. Dahlmann, S. J., Der Idea- sophie im Zeitalter der Opfermystik, lismus der indischen Religionsphilo- p. 22, Freiburg 1901.
ii4 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER
ing in his own stead some living or inanimate creature. This vicarious act assumes its deepest significance in the sacrifice of propitiation, by which, in addition to manifest ing the sentiments already mentioned, man confesses his guilt and admits that he has deserved death in punishment for his sins. It is in this sense that St. Thomas explains the Old Testament holocausts. " The slaughtering of ani mals," he says, " signifies the destruction of sins and that men are deserving of death for their sins, as if those ani mals were killed in their stead to denote the expiation of their sins." 3 The ethical significance of sacrifice is based on this same consideration. The highest act of divine worship, coupled as it ever should be with sin cere contrition and an ardent desire to be reconciled to God, cannot but elevate, cleanse, and sanctify the human heart, especially in view of the fact that God's will to save all men and the legitimate institution of the sacri ficial rite confirm human expectation and constitute a rich source of consolation.
d) The Sacrifice of the Cross is not only a true sacrifice, but in contradistinction to the sacri- ficium incruentum (Hebrew, n™9) specifically a bloody sacrifice. What constitutes the differ ence between the two? It cannot be the per son of the lawful minister, nor yet the final object of all sacrifice (except in so far as propi tiation must plainly be the prevailing motive of every bloody sacrifice). Hence we shall have to
3 S. Theol., la 2ae, qu. 102, art. animalia loco eorum occiderentur ad
3, ad 5: "Per occisionem anima- significandam expiationem peccato-
lium significatur destructio pecca- rum." Cfr. N. Giehr, The Holy
torum et quod homines erant digni Sacrifice of the Mass, pp. 35 sqq.,
occisione pro peccatis suis, ac si ilia 3rd ed., St. Louis 1908.
A BLOODY SACRIFICE 115
seek for the specific difference in the materia and forma.
The materia remota of a bloody sacrifice, as its very name suggests, must be a living creature endowed with blood (yictima, hostia). Its materia proximo, is the slaying of the victim, accompanied by an effusion of the life-giving fluid (mactatio cum sanguinis effusione). In regard to the physical forma there is room for a differ ence of opinion, as we do not know for certain whether the sacrificial act (actio sacrifica), strictly so called, is the slaying of the victim or its oblation. The latter opinion is the more probable, though not certain. First, because the act of slaying, as such, with its con sequent shedding of blood, does not necessarily indicate the purpose of the sacrifice, and consequently requires a more specific determinant, i. e., the act of oblation. Secondly, because in the Mosaic sacrifice the victim was slain by laymen and temple servants, while the oblation of the blood was a function reserved to the lawfully appointed priesthood.4 Third, because it is impossible to assume that Christ's bloody sacrifice on the Cross con sisted in the material acts of cruelty committed by His barbarous executioners.
Hence a bloody sacrifice must be defined as " the visible oblation of a living creature, the slaying of which is accompanied by the shedding of blood, by a lawful min ister, in acknowledgment of the supreme sovereignty of God, and especially to propitiate His anger." 5
2. THE DOGMA. — The Church has formally defined, against the Socinians and the Rationalists,
4 Cfr. P. Scholz, Die hi. Alter- 5 Cfr. Becanus, De Triplici Sacri-
tiimer des Volkes Israel, II, 134 ficio, Naturae, Legis, Gratiae, Opusc. sqq., Ratisbon 1868. II, Lugduni 1631.
Ii6 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER
that Christ's vicarious atonement was a bloody sacrifice, made for the purpose of reconciling the human race to God (sacrificium propitiato- rium. )
The Council of Ephesus (A. D. 431) declared against Nestorius : " For He offered Himself up for us as an odor of sweetness to God the Father. Hence if any one say that the Divine Logos Himself was not made our High Priest G and Apostle ... let him be anathema." T The Council of Trent, in defining the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, bases its definition on the dogma that Christ's bloody death on the Cross was a true sacrifice: " Though He was about to offer Himself once on the altar of the Cross unto God the Father . . . that He might leave a visible sacrifice . . . whereby that bloody sacrifice, once to be accomplished on the Cross, might be represented, . . . He offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine ... [In the Mass] that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on -the altar of the Cross. . . . For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the Cross, the manner alone of offering be ing different." 8
6 dp^ie/Jed- sacrificium, quo cruentum illud
7 "Obtulit enim semetipsum pro semel in cruce peragendum reprae- nobis in odorem suavitatis Deo et sentarctur, . . . corpus et san- Patri. Si quis ergo Pontificem et guinem suum sub speciebus panis Apostolum nostrum dicit factum et vini Deo Patri obtulit. . . . [In non ipsum Dei Verbum . . ., ana- Missa] idem ille Christus . . . in- thema sit." Synod. Ephes., can. 10. cruente immolatur, qni in ara crucis (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 122.) semel seipsum cruente obtulit . . .
8 "Etsi semel seipsum in ara cru- Una eademque est hostia, idem nunc cis morte intercedente Deo Patri afferent sacerdotum ministerio, qui oblaturus erat, . , . ut relinqueret seipsum tune in cruce obtulit, sola
A BLOODY SACRIFICE 117
a) The Scriptural proof of our dogma is based partly on the Old and partly on the New Testa ment.
«) The argument from the Old Testament may be stated in the terms of a syllogism, thus: The sacrifices of the Old Law, which were almost exclusively bloody oblations, culminated in the idea that the Israelite, conscious of having de served death for his sins, substituted brute ani mals in his own stead and offered them to God as a means of propitiation. Now all the sacrifices of the Old Law were merely types of Christ's death on the Cross. Therefore Christ's death must be as truly a vicarious sacrifice of blood and propitia tion as were the sacrifices of the Old Testament.
Proof of the Major Premise. There is no need of dem onstrating the proposition that the Old Testament sacri fices were true sacrifices, as this is denied by no one. That the Jews practiced symbolic substitution is obvious from the sacrificial rites which they employed. Aside from cer tain unbloody oblations of altogether minor importance they offered three different kinds of sacrifices : burnt offer ings, peace offerings, and offerings for sin. All three required the imposition of hands on the head of the victim to symbolize that the sins of the people were heaped upon it. Thus, when the multitude had trans gressed a divine command through ignorance, they had to bring a sin-offering to the door of the taber-
offerendi ratione diversa." (Cone, 940; cfr. also can. 3-4, ibid. n. 950, Trid., Sess. XXII, cap. i and 2 951.) Denzinger Bannwart, No. 938 and
ii8 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER
nacle in the shape of a calf. Lev. IV, 13-20: "And the ancients of the people shall put their hands upon the head thereof before the Lord; and the calf being immolated in the sight of the Lord, the priest that is anointed shall carry off the blood into the tabernacle of the testimony. . . . And the priest praying for them, the Lord will be merciful unto them." On the Feast of Expiation two buck goats were led up to the door of the tabernacle, and one of them was slain as a sin offering. With regard to the other the Mosaic law ordained as follows : " Then let him [the high priest] offer the living goat: and putting both hands upon his head, let him confess all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their offences and sins: and praying that they may light on his head, he shall turn him out by a man ready for it, into the desert. And when the goat hath carried all their iniquities into an uninhabited land, and shall be let go into the desert, Aaron shall return into the tabernacle of the testimony." 9 What was thus symbolized in the sacrificial rite is ex plicitly set forth in the prohibition of blood, Lev. XVII, n : ". . . the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you, that you may make atonement with it upon the altar for your souls, and the blood may be for an expiation of the soul." The text we have previously quoted from Isaias (Is. LIII, 4 sqq.), derives its deeper significance from the sacrificial rite described by the same prophet (Is. LII, 15; LIII, 7, io).10
Proof of the Minor Premise. The minor premise of our syllogism can be demonstrated from St. Paul's Epis tle to the Hebrews, particularly Chapters 8 to io. As the Old Law had but " a shadow of the good things to
» Lev. XVI, 9; XVI, 20 sqq. bauer, Erklarung des Propheten
10 Supra, p. 46. Cfr. Knaben- Isaias, Freiburg 1881.
A BLOODY SACRIFICE 119
come," 1X so in particular its sacrifices merely prefigured the one great sin-offering on the Cross. Being " weak and needy elements," it was impossible that " the blood of oxen and goats " should " take away sin." 12 The student will be able to appreciate the full force of this argument only after a careful perusal of the whole Epis tle. If the Mosaic sacrifices were real and vicarious, this must be true in a far higher sense of the sacrifice of the Cross, which they foreshadowed.13
P) The argument from the New Testament is based on the Epistle to the Hebrews, with its explicit assertion that the typical sacrifices of the Old Law found their consummation and perfec tion in the one true sacrifice of the Cross. In a variety of phrases St. Paul reiterates the funda mental truth that, as priest and victim in one per son, Jesus Christ by a single bloody offering atoned for the sins of men and once for all con summated their eternal salvation.
To quote only a few salient passages : " For if the blood of goats and of oxen, and the ashes of an heifer being sprinkled, sanctify such as are defiled, to the cleansing of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, who by the Holy Ghost offered himself un spotted unto God,14 cleanse our conscience from dead works to serve the living God ? " 13 " So also Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many." 16 " In
11 Heb. X, i. 14 tavrbv Trpoa^veyKev
12 Heb. X, 4. Cfr. Gal. IV, g. r<5 Gew.
13 Cfr. Franzelin, De Verbo In- 15 Heb. IX, 13-14.
carnato, thes. 49, Rome 1881; Hugo ie #7ra£ irpoffevexQels els rb iro\-
Weiss, Die messianischen Vorbilder \u>v dveveyKeiv apaprtas- Heb.
im Alien Testament, Freiburg 1905. IX, 28.
120 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER
the which will we are sanctified by the oblation of the body of Jesus Christ alone." 17 " But this man [Christ] offering one sacrifice for sins,18 for ever sitteth on the right hand of God." 19 " For by one oblation 20 he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." 21
The sacrificial character of the death of our Divine Lord is expressly inculcated in many other passages of the New Testament.
Cfr. Matth. XX, 28: " Filius hominis non venit ministrari, sed nrinistrare et dare animam snam redemp- tionem pro multls 22 - The Son of man is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many." Christ here emphasizes three momenta, viz.: sacrifice, atonement, and the vicarious character of that atonement. " To give one's life " 23 is a distinctly hieratic and sacrificial term ; " for many " 24 denotes vicarious satisfaction, and " redemption " 25 in dicates expiation. It follows from this important text that the expression " for many " or " for all," 26 which occurs so frequently in the New Testament, when used in connection with sacrifice means, not only " for the benefit of many," but also " instead of many." Cfr. Eph. V, 2 : " Tradidit semetipsum pro nobis oblationem et hostiam Deo 27 in odorem suavitatis — Christ . . . hath delivered himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness."28 I Tim. II, 6:
17 Heb. X, 10. 24 avrl TTO\\WV, not merely virlp
18 fnav VTrep a/jLapnuv irpocrevty- TroXXwy.
KO.S Ovatav- 25 \vrpov (strictly, ransom).
19 Heb. X, 12. 26 inrep 7rd\\uv, pro multis.
20 mq. yap Trpoffcfiopa. 27 Traptdwicev eavrbv inrep ij/Jiuv
21 Heb. X, 14. Trpoff(f)opav itai 6vo~iav-
22 /cat dovvai ryv ^v^v avrov 28 irpoafyopa here means sacrifice \vrpov dvrl TroXXdJj/. »n general, 0vffia> bloody sacrifice.
23 SoVVCLl TT]V
A BLOODY SACRIFICE 121
" Qui dedit redemptionem semetipsum pro omnibus,29 testimonium temporibus suis — Who gave himself a re demption for all, a testimony in due times." Referring to the Old Testament sacrifice of the Paschal lamb, St. Paul says in his first Epistle to the Corinthians (V, 7) : " Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus — For Christ our pasch is sacrificed." The expiatory character of our Lord's death is expressly asserted in Rom. Ill, 25 : " Quern proposuit Deus propitiationem 30 per fidem in sanguine ipsius — Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood," and likewise in the first Epistle of St. John (II, 2) : " Ipse est propi- tiatio 31 pro peccatis nostris, non pro nostris autem tantum, sed etiam pro totius mundi — He is the propitia tion for our sins : and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." 32
b) Christian Tradition has from the first faith fully adhered to the obvious teaching of Holy Scripture in this matter.
The so-called Epistle of Barnabas, which was prob ably composed at the time of the Emperor Nerva (A. D. 96-98), 33 contains the following passage: "For our sins he was going to offer the vessel of the spirit \_i. e., His sacred humanity] as a sacrifice,34 in order that the type established in Isaac, who was sacrificed upon the altar, might be fulfilled." 35 Tertullian expresses himself in a similar strain : " Christ, who was led like a sheep to
296 Softs eavrov avri\VTpov virtp 32 Cfr. 2 Cor. V, 21.
iravraV' 'AvTiXvrpov here means 33 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pa-
a ransom given vicariously, by a trology, p. 24.
representative. 34 e/^eXXe . . . TrpoffQepeiv Ovalav.
30 iXaffrripiov = ft sacrifice of pro- 35 Ep. Barn., c. 7, n. 3. (Ed.
pitiation. Funk, I, 23.)
122 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER
the slaughtering pen, had to be made a sacrifice for all nations." 36
3. THEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS. — Christ vicari ously made atonement for us by immolating Him self; consequently, He is priest, acceptant, and victim all in one. This gives rise to a number of subtle theological problems, which in the main may be reduced to three: (a) Was it in His Godhead or manhood that Christ combined the double function of victim and priest? (b) In what sense did He simultaneously offer and accept the sacrifice of the Cross? (c) Wherein precisely did the actio sacrifica of His bloody sacrifice consist?
a) The first question must be decided on Christological principles as follows. The victim (victima, hostia) of the sacrifice of the Cross was the Godman, or, more specifically, the Divine Logos in person, though not, of course, through the functions of His Divine, but those of His human nature.
To assert that the human nature of our Lord alone was sacrificed on the Cross would be equivalent to Nes- torianism. To hold that it was the Godhead as such that was crucified and sacrificed, would savor of Theo- paschitic Monophysitism. Both heretical extremes are avoided by saying that the Divine Logos was indeed
86 Adv. lud., c. 13. For other Genugtuung Christi, § 7-10, Pader- Patristic texts bearing on this sub- born 1891. ject see Dorholt, Die Lehre -von der
THEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS 123
sacrificed (principium quod), but only according to His passible manhood (principium quo). This proposition is an immediate deduction from the dogma of the Hypostatic Union.
A similar answer may be given to the cognate question : In what way did Christ officiate as a priest? In other words, Did He offer the sacrifice of the Cross (i. e., Him self) to God in His human or in His Divine Nature? The correct answer depends on a true conception of the nature of the Hypostatic Union. Nestorius believed that Jesus Christ .and the Logos- Son were two separate and distinct persons, and hence he was entirely consistent in teaching that the man Jesus alone was a high priest, to the exclusion of the Divine Logos.37 The same con clusion was forced upon the Socinians, who denied the Trinity and consequently also the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Though the Monophysites held a diametrically opposite opinion, they too were perfectly consistent in regarding the Divine Nature of Christ as the instrument of mediation, redemption, and the priesthood; for they imagined Christ's humanity to have been absorbed and destroyed by His Divinity. We cannot, however, regard without surprise the illogical attitude of certain older Protestant divines, who, despite their orthodox teaching on the Hypostatic Union, either showed Nestorian lean ings, as e. g. Francis Stancarus (d. 1574), or, like cer tain Calvinists and Zwinglians in Switzerland, adopted the Monophysitic view that Christ was our Mediator and High Priest qua Logos and not qua man.38 The truth lies between these extremes. The Godman was a true priest, not, however, in His divine, but solely in His human nature.39
37 Cfr. Concilium Ephes., can. 10. V. supra, p. 116.
38 For details consult Bellarmine, De Christo, V, 2-3.
39 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol, 33, qu. 22, art. 2. '
9
124 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER
b) The second question is: How are we to conceive the relation of Christ in His capacity as sacrificing priest, to Christ as the Divine Logos, to whom the sacrifice of the Cross was offered? To solve this problem correctly we shall have to bear in mind the truths set forth in the first part of this treatise with regard to the mediatorship of our Lord.40
It will not do to represent the first Person of the Blessed Trinity as the sole acceptor of the sacrifice of the Cross, and Christ merely as the sacrificing priest, though this opinion has found some defenders among Catholic divines. It was the Trinity, or God qua God, who had been offended by sin ; consequently the sacrifice of the Cross had to be offered up as a propitiation to the entire Trinity. Hence Christ not only offered up the sacrifice of the Cross, but He also accepted it, though of course only in His capacity as God, conjointly with the Father and the Holy Ghost. The Patristic phrase, adopted by the Council of Trent, that Christ " offered Himself unto God the Father," must therefore be ex plained as an appropriation.41
From what we have said it appears that Christ exer cised in a most wonderful manner three distinct func tions, viz.: that of sacrificial victim, that of the sacrificing priest, and that of the accepting God. As God He ac cepts His own sacrifice; as Godman (or Logos) He is both victim (victima) and sacrificing priest (sacerdos), though only according to His human nature. St. Augustine
40 Supra, pp. 5 sqq. Preuss, The Divine Trinity, pp. 244
41 V. supra, pp. 67 sq. On the sqq. Divine Appropriations see Pohle-
THEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS 125
beautifully explains this in his famous work De Civitate Dei. " And hence that true Mediator, in so far as, by as suming the form of a servant, He became the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, though in the form of God He received [accepted] sacrifice to gether with the