D O G M A T IC T H E O L O G Y

T H E P O H L E - P R E U S S S E R I E S O F DOGM A TIC TEX T-B O O K S i. 2. God: His Knowability, Essence and Attributes, vi & 479 pp., $2.00 net. The Divine Trinity, net. iv & 297 pp., $1.50

3- God the Author of Nature and the Su

pernatural. v & 365 pp., $1.75 net. iii & 310 pp., $1.50 net. (In Press.)
to follow in course of t i m e :

45-

Christology. Soteriology.

6. Mariology.
O ther V olumes > > tc c 0 O ' n H 8.

7- Grace : Actual and Habitual.

The Sacraments in General. Baptism. Confirmation.

9. 8 ii. 3 a 10. G a { 11. _ w _

The Holy Eucharist. The Sacrament of Penance. Extreme Unction. Holy ders. Matrimony. Or-

12. Eschatology.

SOTERIOLOGY
A DOGMATIC TREATISE ON THE REDEMPTION

BY

THE REVEREND JOSEPH POHLE,

Ph .

D., D.D.

F O R M E R L Y P R O F E S S O R O F F U N D A M E N T A L T H E O L O G Y IN T H E C A T H O L IC U N IV E R S IT Y O F A M E R IC A , N O W P R O F E S S O R O F D O G M A IN T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R E S L A U

A U T H O R I Z E D E N G L I S H VE RS ION, B A S E D O N T H E F I F T H G E R M A N E D I T I O N W IT H SOME A B R I D G E M E N T AND ADDED REFERENCES

BY

ARTHUR

PREUSS

ST. LOUIS, MO., 1914

P u b lish ed by

B.

H erder

17 S o u th B r o a d w a y F r e ib u r g (B a d e n ) I | L o n d o n , W .C . 68, G r e a t R u s s e l l S t r .

G erm any

the

NEW YORK

i PUBLIC LIBRARY
A B T O R , L E N O X AND
t i l d e n f o u n d a t i o n s

1 91 6

___ \

NIHIL O BSTAT. Sti. Ludovici, die 2 5 . Sept., 9 1 3 .

F . Q. H OLW ECK,

Censor Lihrorum.

IM P R IM A T U R .

Sit. Ludovici, die 2 6 . Sept., 1913.

^ J o a n n e s J. G l e n n o n ,

Archtcpiscopus Sti. Ludovici.

Copyright, 1913,

h
Jo s e p h Gu m m e r s b a c h .

r<

A ll right: reserved.

r_

BECK TO LD PRINTING AND BOOK MFG. CO. ST . LOUIS, MO.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAG E

I N T R O D U C T I O N ................................................................ i P art I. T he W ork Prefatory

of

R e d e m p t i o n ..................................... 3

R e m a r k s .......................................................... 3

C h . I. Christs Mediiatorship as a Condition of Our Re5 d e m p t i o n .......................................................... 5 1. The Possibility of the Redemption..................... 5 2. Congruity and Necessity of the Redemption . 13 3. Predestination of the R ed eem er...........................24 C h . II. The Redemption of the Human Race Through Christs Vicarious A tonem ent...........................35 1. The Reality of Christs Vicarious Atonement . A rt. 1. Vicarious Atonement Defined . . . . . 35 35

A rt. 2. The Dogma of Christs Vicarious Atone ment Proved From R e v e l a t i o n ..................... 41 2. The Properties of Christs Vicarious Atonement Art. 1. Intrinsic Perfection of the Atonement . Art. 2. Extrinsic Perfection or Universality of the A t o n e m e n t .......................................................... 75 3. The Concrete Realization of .Christs Vicarious ................................ 84 Atoti^'pent ^ 60 60

A rt. 1. Christs D-ea.th on the C r o s s ..................... 85 . A rt. 2. ChrisW L>escint .into H e l l ..................... 91 Art. 3. The Resurrection1'. % ................................... 101 P art II. T he T hri^ ' O fFifcE's ' of TtE R edeemer . C h . I. Christs . . .110

P r i e s t h o o d ................................................i n

1. Christs Death a True Sac rific e...........................i n 2. Christ a True P r i e s t ...........................................127 C h . II. Christs Prophetical O f f i c e ................................ 140 C h . III. Christs K i n g s h i p ................................................149

INTRODUCTION
C h risto lo g y deals w ith the P erson of our D i vine R edeem er; S o teriolog y (* V 4 rijs crwT^ias Aoyo) considers the object for which H e came into this world. T h is object w a s the Redemption of the human race. C h rist became our Redeemer or M ediato r solely by H is vicarious atonement, therefore, re demption (m ediation) and vicarious atonement are interchangeable terms. T h e fallen race of A d a m w a s not simply re stored as a w hole to its original state of bliss. In order to share in the g rac es o f the Redemption each individual human being must co-operate w ith the Redeemer. T o be able to do this man needs ( i ) a teacher, w h o authoritatively instructs him in the truths necessary for salvation; ( 2 ) a priest w ho effectively applies to him the merits of the atonement; and (3 ) a k in g or shepherd, who, b y the prom ulgation o f suitable laws and p re cepts, guides him on the w a y to H eaven. H ence our D iv in e L o r d exercises a threefold function or office, namely ( 1 ) that o f T each er, ( 2 ) that o f H i g h Priest, and (3 ) that of K i n g

IN TR O D U CTIO N

or Shepherd. C fr. John X I V , 6: I am the w a y ( K i n g ) , and the truth ( T e a c h e r ) , and the life ( P r i e s t ) . Soteriology, therefore, naturally falls into tw o main divisions: I. T h e W o r k of Redemption; II. T h e T h r e e Offices o f the Redeemer

PART I T H E WORK OF REDEMPTION

PREFATORY REM ARKS T h e Redemption could not h ave been effected by a mediator w ho w as either mere God or mere man. It required one w ho w as both God and man. Christ, alone, being both God and man, w a s in a position to act as natural and moral mediator and to reconcile the hum an race to its Creator. W e h ave shown in a previous treatise that C h risto lo g y 1 is founded on the doctrine of the H yp o sta tic U nion. Sim ilarly, S o teriolog y turns on the pivotal concept of the mediatorship o f C h rist and m a y be said to be implicitly contained in 2 Cor. V , 19: God indeed w a s in Christ, reconciling the w orld to him self. W e have, therefore, to consider: (C h . I ) , the mediatorship of Christ, the possibility of the R e demption, its co n g ru ity and necessity, and, by w a y o f a corollary, the h ig h ly interesting question w h ether or not the Incarnation w a s absolutely
1 P o h le -P r e u s s , C h r isto lo g y , A D o g m a tic L o u is T r e a tis e o n th e I n c a r n a tio n , S t . 19 13.

T H E W O R K OF R ED EM PTIO N

preordained; (C h . I I ) , the fact of the Redem p tion, its reality, its properties, and the concrete mode o f its realization. In connection w ith the last-mentioned point w e shall also treat ( C h . I l l ) o f C h ris ts Descent into hell and H is R e su rre c tion from the soteriological point o f view.

CHAPTER I
Ch
r i s t s m ed ia to r sh ip as a co n d itio n of our

R EDEM PTIO N

SE C T IO N
THE I. POSSIBILITY OF

i
REDEM PTIO N M e d ia to r .

THE

D e fin itio n

of th e

Term

A mediator ( mediator,

n?) is one w h o holds

a neutral position between parties at variance, and is therefore apt to interpose between them as the equal friend of each. a) T h u s, in the political domain, a neutral governm ent sometimes intervenes between q u ar rellin g powers b y p ro ffe rin g its friendly offices as arbitrator. T h e notion o f a mediator, therefore, comprises tw o distinct elements, viz.: ( i ) T h e e x is t ence of tw o extrem es in co n trary opposition, and ( 2 ) a quality or characteristic proper to him w h o interposes, w hich enables him to reconcile the parties at variance.
T h is is the true Catholic notion of mediatorship. T h ere is also an heretical one, which appears in the religious
5

T H E W O R K OF RED EM PTION

systems o f the Gnostics and the Arians. T o exalt the Creator o f the universe as fa r as possible above mere matter, which they regarded as intrinsically evil, the Gnostics invented a series o f intermediate beings, which they called aeons, and which were supposed to bridge the gap between the Godhead and the m aterial world. T h e last o f these in a descending line w as the so-called Dem iurge, who as creator o f the m aterial uni verse was believed to be the proper mediator between the absolute B ein g and the physical cosmos.2 Th e A rian s regarded the Logos as the most exalted o f creatures and as creator o f all the rest, and ascribed to him the office o f m ediator between God the Father and the universe created by the Logos. W e have already disproved this error by showing, in our treatises on the D ivine T rin ity 3 and the Incarnation,4 that, so fa r from being a creature, the Logos is true God, consubstantial (o^oovVtos) w ith the Father.

b) A d uly qualified mediator m a y exercise his functions either in the m oral or in the ontological order.5 In some m anner or other moral a lw a ys presupposes ontological mediation, and hence the one cannot be conceived apart from the other.
T o perform the part o f a moral mediator one m ust be able, either by ones natural powers, or through the instrum entality o f grace, to reconcile opposing extrem es in the order o f being. H ence the distinction between
2 F o r a r e f u t a t io n o f th is d u a lis tic e r r o r s ee P o h le - P r e u s s , G od th e A n th o r o f N a tu r e a n d th e S u p e r n a tu r a l, pp. 17 sq ., S t. L o u is 19 12 . 3 C f r . P o h le - P r e u s s , T h e D iv in e T r in ity , pp. 49 sqq ., S t. L o u is 19 12 . 4 C fr . P o h le -P r e u s s , C h r isto lo g y , pp. 10 sqq. G I n o r d in e m o ra li siv e e th ic o ; in o r d in e o n to lo g ic o s iv e e sse n d i.

M ED IATO RSH IP

mediator naturalis and mediator per gratiam. M oses,6 the Levites, the Prophets, and the Apostles were medi ators by grace. So is every Catholic priest in virtue o f his ordination. A s regards natural mediatorship, Christ is our only M ediator in the moral order, because H e is the sole natural M ediator between God and man. Th e fact o f C hrists existence is in itself a mediation, a bond between the Creator and H is creatures. B y uniting our humanity to H is Divinity, H e united us to God and God to us. H e is o f God and in God, but H e is also o f us and in us. 7 Being consubstantial with man as w ell as w ith God,8 Christ is the born m ediator be tween God and man ( mediator naturalis). T h is unique natural mediatorship constitutes the foun dation o f an equally unique moral mediatorship. Th e offended D eity exacted adequate atonement for the sins o f mankind, and therefore redemption or moral mediation w as impossible except on the basis o f a natural m ediatorship.9

c)

It follows, b y w a y o f a corollary, ( i )

that

m ankind has but one mediator, because there is no natural m ediator between God and m an other than the G odm an Jesus C h rist; (2 ) that all other so-called m ediators are such m erely by g race. T h e y owe their m ediatorial power solely and entirely to Christ, and can consequently be called mediators only in a subordinate and sec on dary sense.
6 C f r . D e u t. V , 5 : " M e d iu s f u i in te r D o m in u m e t v o s I s to o d b e tw e e n th e L o r d a n d y o u . .7 W ilh e lm -S c a n n e ll, A M a n u a l o f C a th o lic T h e o lo g y , V o l. I I , p . 140, 2 n d ed ., L o n d o n 1901. 8 C f r . P o h le -P r e u s s , C h r isto lo g y . 8 V . in fr a , S e c t. 2.

T H E W O R K O F RED EM PTIO N

N o further argument is required to disprove the P ro t estant objection that Catholics obscure and degrade the unique mediatorship o f Christ by adm itting a host o f priests and saints as co-mediators between God and man. It is an essential function o f the office o f a m ediator, says Aquinas, to join together and unite those between whom he is to interpose; fo r it is in the middle that extrem es meet. N ow , to unite men with God p erfectively belongs to Christ, through whom men are reconciled to God. . . . A nd therefore C hrist alone is a perfect m ediator between God and men, inasmuch as, by H is death, H e reconciled the human race to God. . . . T h ere is, however, nothing to forbid others from being called m ediators 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 o f unification (ministerialiter) . 10

2.

T h e

D o g m a .

T h e o lo g ica lly speaking, M e

diation is synonym ous w ith Redemption. T h a t C h rist w a s our natural M ediator is an article of faith, defined by the Council of T re n t. S i quis hoc A d a e pcccatum [originate] . . . per aliud remedium asserit tolli quam per meritum m im s mediatoris D o m in i nostri Iesu CJiristi, qui nos
1 0 " A d m e d ia to r is officium prop ria p e r tu ie t c o n iu n g e r e c t u n ir e eo s, in te r q u o s est m e d ia to r ; am e x tr e m a u n iu n tu r in m ed io . U n ir e a u te m h o m in e s D e o p e r fe c tiv e q uidem c o n v e n it C h r is to , p e r q u em h o m in e s su n t r e c o n cilia ti D e o . . . . E t id e o s o lu s C h r is tu s e st p e r fc c tu s D e i et h o m in u m m e d ia to r, in q u a n tu m p er su am m o r te m h u tn a n u m genus D eo r e c o n c ilia v it. . . . N i h i l ta m en proh ib e t a liq u o s a lio s se c u n d u m q u id d i d m e d ia to r e s in te r D e u m et hom in e s , p ro u t s c il. c o o p e r a n tu r ad u n io n e m h o m in u m cum D e o d isp ositiv e v e l m in is t e r ia lite r ." S . T h e o l., 3 a, q u . 26, a r t . 1. C f r . F r a n z e lin , D e V e r b o I n c a r n a to , th e s . 46, R o m e 18 81.

CH RIST OU R M ED IATOR

D e o reconciliavit in sanguine sito . . . anathema sit. A n g lic e : I f any one asserts that this sin o f A d a m [original sin], . . . is taken a w a y . . . by any other rem edy than the merit of the one M ediator, our L o r d Jesus Christ, w h o hath reconciled us to God in H is ow n blood, . . . let him be anathem a. 11 " a ) M o ra l mediation, or the Redemption proper, acco rd in g to H o ly Scripture, consists in the shedding of the blood of H im w h o was the sole, because the natural, M ediato r be tween God and man. Consequently, C h ris ts moral mediatorship is based upon H is natural mediatorship. C fr . Col. I, 19 sq.: Quia in ipso [scil. C h r is to ] complacuit omnem plenitudinem inhabit are [ = mediatio ontologica natu ralist et per eum reconciliare omnia in ipsum pacificans per sangninem crueis eins [ = mediatio m oralis] Because in him it hath well pleased the F ath er, that all fulness should dwell; and throu gh him to reconcile all things unto himself, m a k in g peace th ro u gh the blood of his cross. 12 Both the ontological and the moral mediatorship o f Ch rist are p re g n a n tly summed up by St. P a u l in 1 T im . II, 5 sq.:
1 1 C o n e . T r id ., S e s s . V , c a n . 3 (in D e n z in g e r s E n c h ir id io n S y m b o lo ru m , D e fin itio n u m et D e cla ra tio n u m in R e b u s F i d e i et M o r u m , ed . B a n n w a rt, n. 790, F r ib u r g i 19 0 8 ).

U nas enim D ens, unus

12 F o r a f u l l e x p la n a tio n o f th is t e x t c f r . J . N . S c h n e id e r , D ie V e r s h n u n g d e s W e lta lls d u rc h das B lu t J e s u C h r is ti n a ch K o l . I , 20, R a tisb o n 18 57.

10

TH E W O R K OF RED EM PTION

et mediator D e i et homimnn/ 3 homo C hristas Iesu s , qui dedit rcdemptioncm semctipsitm pro omnibus 14 F o r there is one God, and one m e diator of God and men, the man C h rist Jesus, w h o g a v e him self a redemption for all.
T h e Redem ption o f the human race began w ith the conception o f Jesus Christ and was consummated in the shedding o f H is precious Blood on the Cross.15 H ence the functions o f H is moral mediatorship comprise all H is human-divine (theandric) acts from the m anger to Calvary. H is mediatorial act par excellence w as the institution o f the N ew Covenant. E t idco N o v i Testa menti mediator18 est, ut morte intercedente in redemptionem earnm praevaricationum, quae erant sub priori Testamento, repromissioncm accipiant A nd therefore he is the mediator o f the N ew Testam ent: that by means o f his death, for the redemption of those transgressions which were under the form er testament, they that are called m ay receive the promise o f eternal inheritance. 17 In fact everything that Christ did and does for us must be regarded as the result o f H is mediatorship, e. g., the institution o f the H oly Sacrifice o f the M ass, the establishment o f H is Church, the mission o f the H oly Ghost, the sanctification o f souls,1S etc.

b)

W e meet w ith a profound conception of

C h rists m ediatorship in the w ritin g s o f St. A u gustine. T h is F a th e r m a y be said to have antici pated the objections o f such later heretics as
13 e ls Kdl /jLe<rlTi]S O eov K al dvdp&TTuv. i * d 5 oi>s a v r b v a vrC K vrpo v iiirkp ir iv T w v .

15 C fr . H eb . X , 5 sqq. 10 SiaOriKTjs koivtjs /jLeaiTT]s, 17 H eb. I X , 15. 18 C fr . J o h n X I V , 6.

CH RIST OUR M ED IATOR

ii

Calvin, w ho held that C hrist is our mediator only accordin g to H is D ivinity, and the older L u theran theologians, who attributed H is mediato rial action exclu sively to H is human nature.19
T h e truth lies between these extremes. It is the Godman as such who is our M ediator, but only in H is hu man nature. H e is the mediator between God and "man, says St. Augustine, because H e is God with the Father, and a man with men. A mere man could not be a m ediator between God and m a n ; nor could a mere God. Behold the m ed iator: D ivinity without humanity cannot act as m ediator; nor can humanity without D i vinity ; but the human D ivinity and the D ivine humanity o f Christ is the sole mediator between D ivinity and hu m anity. 20 A n d a g a in : Christ is the m ediator [be tween God and man] not because H e is the W o r d ; for the W ord, being immortal and happy in the highest de gree, is fa r removed from the miseries o f mortal m e n ; but H e is the m ediator as man. 21

c) T h e Schoolmen went into the matter even more deeply by resolving the concept of m edia tion into its constituent elements.
19 C fr . B e lla r m in e , D e C h r is to , V , i-io .

e t d ivin a h u m a n ita s C h r is t i. S e r m ., 4 7 , c. 12, n. 2 1. 2 1 N on ob C h r is tu s , q u ia h o c m e d ia to r est V erbum ; taxiin g

2 0 " M e d ia to r D e i et h a m in u m , q u ia D e n s cu m P a tr e , quia hom o cu m h o m in ib u s. N a n m ed ia to r h om o p ra ete r d eita tem , n o n m ed ia to r D e u s p ra e te r h u m a n ita te m . E c c e m edia to r : d iv in ita s s in e liu m a n ita te n o n est m e d ia tr ix , h u m a n ita s sin e d iv in ifa te n an est m e d ia tr ix , se d in te r div in ita te m so lam et h u m a n ita tem so lam m e d ia tr ix est hum an a d iv in ita s

q u ip p e im m a rta le et m a xim e b ea tu m V e r b u m lo n g e est a m o r ta lib u s mis e r iis ; se d m e d ia to r est s e c u n d u m q u o d h o m o ." D e C iv . D e i, I X , 15. F o r a d d itio n a l P a tr is t ic t e x t s s e e P e t a v iu s , D e I n c a r n ., X I I , 1-4 ; V a s q u e z , C o m m e n t, in S . T h e o l., I I I , disp . 83, c. 1.

TH E W O R K OF RED EM PTION
T h ey had to meet this logical difficulty: T h e idea o f natural mediation essentially implies three distinct ele ments, viz.: the tw o extrem es God and man, and a m ediator who must be both God and man, i. c., Godman (dtavdpoyrros). Christ, being God according to H is Divine N ature, is identical with the first o f these two extremes. Consequently, H e cannot be a true and nat ural mediator, fo r it is impossible to conceive H im as a go-between between H im self and man. C fr. Gal. I l l , 20: A mediator is not o f one. T h e Scholastics retorted that Christ is the mediator between God and man not qua Logos, but qua W ord Incarnate, i. c. as man. C fr. 1 Tim . II, 5: 'O n e mediator o f God and men, the man Christ Jesus. Th e God man Christ Jesus is not only numerically distinct from all other men, H e is likewise hypostatically distinct from the Father and the H oly Ghost, being a different Person than either. H ence H is mediatorship involves three dis tinct fa c to r s : God, man, and Christ. It is true that, regarded in H is D ivine N ature, as God, Christ is the m ediator between H im self and mankind. But his media tion is not effected by the Godhead as such, it is effected solely by H is manhood, which is hypostatically united with the Second Person o f the Trinity. This gives rise to seeming paradoxes, e. g.: A s man H e adores, as God H e is adored; as man H e gives satisfaction, as God he receives it; as man H e offers sacrifices, as God H e accepts them. But this two-sidedness does not destroy the reality o f C hrists natural and moral mediation. It simply constitutes its substratum. T o postulate a numer ical distinction between the Divine N ature o f Christ and the Godhead o f the Father and the H oly Ghost, would be to base the possibility o f the atonement on Tritheism .2 2
22 C fr . S t. T h o m a s , 5 . T h e o l., 3a, q u . 26, a r t. 2.

SECTION 2
C O N G R U I T Y A N D N E C E S S I T Y OF T H E R E D E M P T I O N

i. C o n g r u i t y o f t h e R e d e m p t i o n . Inasmuch as an end can be best attained by congruous means, i. e., means specially adapted to that particular end, the congruous may be said to be m orally necessary. But it is never necessary in the strict metaphysical sense of the term. Failure to employ a m erely 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 w e must regard certain profound arguments by which Fathers and theologians have tried to show the congruity o f the In carnation for the purpose o f Redemption. H ere are the more notable ones.

a) God in H is e x te rior operation aims solely at the m anifestation of H is attributes for the pur pose of H is ow n glorification. W h a t more e f fective means could H e have chosen fo r this end than the Incarnation?
In the Incarnation the seemingly impossible was e f fected. T h e Creator was inseparably united with the creature, the Infinite with the finite, omnipotence with

13

T H E W O R K OF RED EM PTION
m e rcy ; H eaven and earth were locked together, as it were, by the bond o f the Iiypostatic Union. M an is a microcosm reflecting the whole created universe. No doubt this is what Tertullian had in mind when he w rote: The Son o f God was b o rn ; I am not ashamed, because men must needs be ashamed [of it]. A nd the Son o f God d ie d ; it is by all means to be believed, becausc it is absurd. A nd after having been buried, He rose a g a in ; the fact is certain, because it is impossible. 1 (a) G od s justice and m ercy 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 o f its infinity without disturbing the other.- W hen, moved by infinite m ercy, the Son o f God satisfied infinite justice by expiat ing the sins o f mankind on the Cross, justice and peace kissed in very truth.3 (/?) G od s love, too, triumphantly m anifested itself in the Incarnation o f the Logos. God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son. 4 T h e m ystery o f the Incarnation gives the lie to A ristotle, who held that, owing to the impassable gu lf separating man from God, anything like friendship is impossible between them. Both he that sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified, are all o f o n e ; fo r which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren. 5 (y ) D ivine wisdom also reached its clim ax in this sublime m ystery. I f any one w ill diligently consider the m ystery o f the Incarnation, says St. Thom as, he
l " N a lu s est D ei F i li u s : von 2 C fr . P o h le -P r e u s s , G od: H is p u d e t, quia p u d e n d u m e s t ; est m ortin ts D e i F i li u s : p ro r s u s c r e d ib ile , quia in ep tu m e s t ; et s e p u ltu s resu rK n o tv a b ility , E s s e n c e , a n d A ttr x b u te s, pp. 466 sq q ., S t. L o u is 1 9 1 1 .
3 Ps.

L X X X I V , 11.
5 I le b . I I ,

r e x it ; certu m e st, quia i n t p o s s i b i l e J o h n I I I , 16. * D e C o m e C h r is t i, c. 5.

11.

C O N G R U ITY O F TH E R ED EM PTIO N

15

w ill find [therein] a profundity o f wisdom exceeding all human understanding. . . . H ence it is that he who piously meditates on this m ystery, will constantly dis cover [therein] new and more wonderful aspects. 6

b) W h y did the Second P erson o f the M o st H o ly T r in it y become incarnate, rather than the F ir s t or the T h ir d ? T h e r e is a profound reason for this.
W e have pointed out in C h risto lo gy 7 that nothing in the personal traits o f the Father or o f the H oly Ghost would forbid either o f these D ivine Persons to assume human flesh. But there is that in the personal character o f the Son which makes it more appropriate for H im to become incarnate than either the Father or the H oly Ghost. It was through the Logos that the universe was crea te d ; 8 and what is more fitting than that it should also be repaired by H is agency ? 0 M oreover, as the Logos alone is the [perfect] image o f God, 10 it was highly appropriate that H e should restore to its pristine purity G ods likeness in men, which had been destroyed by sin.11 Th e Divine Logos H im self came into this w orld, says St. Athanasius, in order that, being the image of the Father, H e might restore man, who was created to H is image and likeness. 12 It also befit0 S i q u is a u tem d ilig e n te r in carn a tio n is m y ste riu m c o n s id c r c t, in v e n ie t t ant am sa p ien tia e p r o f aud ita tern, q u o d o m n em hum an am cog n itio n e m e x c e d a t. . . . U n d e fit, u t p ie c o n sid e r a n ti se m p e r m agis ac tnagis a d m ira b iles r a tio n e s h u iu s m o d i m y s te r ii m a n ife s te n tu r . G e n t., I V , 54. 7 P o h le -P r e u s s ,
135 9 Pope

8 C f r . J o h n I , 3. S t. L e o th e G r e a t

saysi

. . 1it, qu ou ia m ipse e st, p er quern o m n ia fa c ta su n t et sin e q uo fa c tu m est n ih il, . . . c u iu s erat c o n d ito r , etia m e sse t r e fo r m a to r ." ( S e r in 64, M ig n e , P . L ., L I X , 358.) ,10 C fr . 2 C o r . I V , 4. 11 C fr . G en . I , 26. 12 O r. d e I n c a r n . V e r b i, 13 .

C o n tr . pp.

C h r isto lo g y ,

sq.

16

T H E W O R K OF R ED EM PTIO N

ted the hypostatic character o f the Son o f God that, as the true son o f the V irgin M ary, H e should become the Son o f m an, in order to reconstitute all men sons o f God as by a new birth.13 T h e second o f these momenta is well brought out by St. Augustine when he s a y s : T h a t men m ight be born o f God, God was first born o f them. F o r . . . H e through whom we were to be created, was born o f God, and H e by whom w e w ere to be re-created, was born of a w om an. 14 St. John o f Dam ascus emphasizes the first-mentioned point when he o b serv es: The Son o f God also became the son o f m a n ; H e took flesh from the Blessed V irgin , but did not cease to be the Son o f God. lo

c)

It strikes us as an admirable m anifestation

of divine w isdom that the Son of God assumed human nature rather than that of the angels. Heb. II, 16: N u squ a m cn'un angclos cipprchendit, scd semen A b ra h a e a p p rch cn d it10 F o r now here doth he take hold of the an g e ls: but of the seed of A b r a h a m he taketh hold.
B y assum ing flesh, the Son o f God wished to recon struct human nature upon its own foundations and to propose to man fo r his imitation a pattern exem plar in the F ollow ing o f Christ, neither o f which objects could have been attained had the D ivine Logos assumed the nature o f an angel.
13 C f r . J o h n I , 1 2 ; G a l. I V , 4 sq. 14 " U t

h o m in e s

n o sc e r e n tu r

ex

15 " F i li u s D e i etiam filiu s h o m in is fit, q u i e x s. v ir g in e in ca r n a tits e st,

D e o , p rim o e x ip s is n a tn s est D e n s . C h r is t u s en im . . . n a tu s e x D e o , p er quern e ffice re m u r, et n a tu s e x fe m in a , p er qu em r e fic e r e m u r . T r a c t. in lo a ., 2, n. 15.

n e e tam en a filia li p ro p r ie ta te d iscess i t . De T r im ta te , 1. C f r . S t. T h o m a s, .9 . T h e o l.. 3a, q u . 3 , a r t . 8. 16 -n X a n P d v e T a i.

C O N G R U ITY OF TH E RED EM PTION

17

One o f the most telling reasons why it was more ap propriate fo r the Son o f God to assume the nature o f man than that o f the angels 17 is that none but a God man could endow the created universe with the highest degree o f perfection o f which it was capable. B y the hypostatic incorporation into the Godhead o f a nature composed o f a material body and a spiritual soul, the physical universe was linked with the realm o f pure spirits. In no other w ay, says Lessius, could the whole universe have been so appropriately perfected . . . for by the assumption o f man the whole universe was after a fashion assumed into and united with the God head. 18 T hus Christ is in very deed both the natural and the supernatural keystone o f the cosmos, the be ginning and the end o f all things, the pivot o f the universe. C fr. 1 Cor. I l l , 22: Omnia enim vestra sunt . . . vos autem Christi, Christus autem D e i F or all things are yours, . . . and you are C hrists, and Christ is G ods.

d) It is a further proof of divine wisdom that the Son of God chose to come into this w o rld as the child of a v ir g in rather than as a fu ll-g ro w n man.
A sweet infant is more apt to win our affection than a mature man. The virgin birth represented the real ization o f the last o f the four possible modes in which a human being can come into existence. Three o f these had already been realized in Adam , Eve, and their de scendants. A dam was created immediately by God (sine
17 O n

th e

p o s s ib ility

of

th e

18 D e P e r fe c t . M o r ib u s q u e D iv in is , X I I , 4.

L o g o s a s su m in g th e n a tu re o f a n a n g e l, see S u a r e z , D e In c a r n ., disp . 14, sect. 2.

i8

TH E W O R K OF RED EM PTION

marc ct fcm in a ) ; E ve sprang from the male w ithout fe male co-operation ( c x mare sine fcm ina) ; their descend ants are propagated by sexual generation (e x mare ct fcm ina) ; Jesus Christ alone originated from a woman without male co-operation ( c x fcmina sine marc). T h is fact guarantees the reality and integrity o f our L o rd s human nature, as has been shown in Christology.10 B y H is incorporation into the race o f the " first A d am , our Blessed Redeem er became the second Adam 2 in a far higher sense than if H e had appeared 0 on earth in a celestial body. There is a sim ilar an tithesis between E ve and the Blessed V irgin M ary. In Christ the male was elevated, ennobled, and consecrated ; in M ary, the female. H e did not despise the male, says St. Augustine, for he assumed the nature o f a man, nor the fem ale, fo r he was born o f a wom an. 21

2. N e c e ssity o f tiie R e d e m p t i o n . N e ce s sity is tw o fo ld : absolute or hypothetical. T h e latter m a y be subdivided into a number of special varieties. H ence in tre a tin g of the necessity of the Redemption w e shall have to distinguish between several hypotheses. a) W y c l i f asserted that the Redemption w as an absolute necessity. T h is proposition is un tenable.22
4J 10 P o h le -P r e u s s , C h r isto lo g y , pp. B le s s e d V ir g in M a ry , c fr. S a in t sqq. T h o m a s, S . T h e o l., 3a, q u . 1, a r t . 5 20 C f r . R o m . V , 14 sq q .; 1 C o r . 6. O n th e w h o le s u b je c t o f th is

X V , 45. s u b d iv isio n c f r . D e L u g o , D e M y s t. 21 "N ee hi a res fa s t id i- it , quia I ttc a iit., disp . 1, sect. 2; S u a r e z , D e tilarent s u s c e p it; ttec fe m in a m , q u ia In c a r n ., disp . 3, s ec t. 3 ; C h r. P e s c h , d e fe m ln a fa c tu s e s t . E p ., 3. O n th e p ro p rie ty of C h r is t s becom * in g in c a r n a te at th e p a r tic u la r tim e w h en H e w a s c o n c e iv e d b y th e P r a e le c t. D o g m a t., V o l. I V , 3 rd ed ., pp. 209 sqq. 22 C f r . D e n z in g e r -B a n m v a r t, E n c h ir id io it, 11. 607.

N E C E S SIT Y O F TH E RED EM PTION

19

W hatever is absolutely necessary involves the same kind o f certainty as that two and two are four. T o as cribe such mathematical necessity to the Incarnation would be to deny the liberty o f the Redemption as well as that o f the Creation, fo r the creation o f the world was an indispensable condition o f the Incarnation. F urther more, Revelation clearly teaches that the Redem ption o f the human race was in the strictest and most perfect sense o f the word a w ork o f divine grace, m ercy, and love. W 'yclif is wrong in holding that the Incarnation satisfies a legitimate demand o f human nature, for in that hypothesis reason would be able to demonstrate w ith mathematical certainty the possibility and existence o f the H ypostatic Union, which we know is not the case. So fa r is the human mind from being able to understand this m ystery, tha t it cannot even demonstrate it after it has been revealed.2 H ence the Incarnation, if it was at 3 all necessary, could be necessary only in an hypothetic sense, that is, on some condition or other. W h at m ay this condition be?

b) R aym on d Lull, Malebranche, Leibniz, and other champions of absolute Optimism contend that when God determined to create the universe, H e of necessity also decreed the Incarnation, be cause it is inconceivable that H e should have wished to deprive H is w o rk of its highest per fection. In other words, the concept o f the best possible w o rld includes the Incarnation.
This theory, which destroys the liberty o f the Creator, is refuted in our dogmatic treatise on God the Author
23 C f r . P o h le -P r e u s s , C h r isto lo g y , pp. 45 sq.

20

T H E W O R K O F RED EM PTION

of Xaturc.-4 H ere we merely wish to point out two facts: that the Creator H im self, without regard to the future Incarnation, described H is w ork as very good, 25 and that the Incarnation would not be pre eminently a free grace if it corresponded to a strict claim o f nature. T h e champions o f moderate or relative Optimism 26 maintain that the present order, capped by the Incarna tion, represents the best possible w orld, not because the Incarnation w as a metaphysical necessity, but because it was m orally necessary in view o f God's superabundant goodness. These w riters forget that, while the Incarna tion represents the apogee of divine glorification and the highest perfection o f the universe, it involves at the same time an equally great humiliation and self-abasement (c.rinanitio, Kemcm) o f G ods M ajesty, which is inconceivable in any other hypothesis except as a free decree o f His love.27

c) T h e fu rth er question arises: D id God owe it to fallen man to redeem him by means o f the Incarnation ? T h e answ er is that the restoration o f the state of g ra c e which man had enjoyed in P a ra d ise w a s ju st as truly a free g i f t of G o d s m ercy and benevolence as that state itself, nay, even more so.
Th at God w as under no obligation to redeem H is creatures is evidenced by the fate o f the fallen angels. C fr. also W isd. X II, 12: Quis tibi iniputabit, si pcri24 C fr . P o h le - P r e u s s , G o d th e A u -

D e i, disp . 9 ) , S y lv e s t e r M a u r u s ( D e D eo, a n d V i v a ( D e In ea rn ., qu. 2, a r t. 2 ). 27 C f r . D e L u g o , D e M y s t. I n c a r n ., d isp . 2, s cc t. 1 -2 . disp . 51),

Ih or o f N a tu r e an d th e S u p e r n a tu r a l, pp. 45 sq. 23 G en . I, 3 1. 26 E . g ., D id a c u s R u iz ( D e V o lu n t.

N E C E S SIT Y OF TH E RED EM PTION

21

erint nationes, quas tu fecisti? W ho shall accuse thee, if the nations perish, which thou hast m a d e ? St. Augustine m ay have held harsh and exaggerated view s on the subject o f predestination, but he was certainly right when he sa id : The entire mass incurred pen alty ; and if the deserved punishment o f condemnation were rendered to all, it would without doubt be right eously rendered. 2 8 T o say that the Incarnation, though the result o f a free decree, was the only means God had o f redeeming the human race,2 would be unduly to restrict the divine attri 9 butes of m ercy, wisdom, and omnipotence in their essence and scope.3 God might, without injustice, have left the 0 human race to perish in its iniquity, and there is nothing repugnant either to faith or right reason in the assump tion that H e might, with or without the intervention o f some appointed saint or angel as representative o f the
28 " U n iv e r sa m assa p o en a s dabat, et s i o m n ib u s d a m n a tio n is su p p lic iu m r e d d e r e tu r , n on in iu s te p ro cu du bio r e d d e r e tu r . (D e N a t. et G ra t., c. S-)
29 T h is o p in io n w a s h eld b y S t. A n s e lm (C u r D e u s H o m o ? I , 4 ; I I , 1 2 ) , R ic h a rd o f S t . V i c t o r (D e I n c a n . V e r b i, c. 8 ), a n d T o u r n e ly (D e D e o , q u. 19, a r t. 1 ; D e In c a r ti., qu. 4 s q q .) . I t is a b s o lu te ly w ith o u t S c r ip t u r a l w a r r a n t. D e L u g o says of i t : M ih i v id e tu r sa tis ad e rro re m a c ce d e r e, co q u o d , lic e t n o n o m n in o

s itio n s ee S t e n t r u p in th e Z e i t s c h r ift f r k a th o lis c h e T h e o lo g ie , pp. 653 sqq ., I n n s b r u c k 1892. B . F u n k e , G r u n d la g e n u n d V o r a u s s e tz u n g e n d e r S a tis fa k tio n s th e o r ie d es h l. A n s e lm , M n s te r 1903, f u r n is h e s a n o ta b le c o n tr ib u tio n in s u p p o rt o f D r h o lt s th e s is. C fr . also L . H e in r ic h s , G e n u g tu u n g s th e o r ie d es hl. A n s e lin u s , P ad erb orn 1909; an d P o h le -P r e u s s , G o d : H is K n ozva b iU ty , E s s e n c e , a n d A ttr ib u te s , pp. 462 sqq. 30 lf S u n t s t u lti q n i d ic u n t: N o n p otera t a lite r sa p ien tia D e i h o m in e s lib e r a re , n is i s u s c ip e r e t h o m in em et n a sc e r e tu r d e fe m in a . . . . Q u ib u s d ic im u s: P o te r a t o m n in o , s e d si a lite r fa c e r e t, sim ilite r v e s tra e s tu ltitiae d is p lic e r e t. (S t. A u g u s t in e , D e A g o n e C h r is ti, X I , 12 ). For o th e r P a tr is t ic te x ts c o n s u lt P e ta v iu s , D e In c a r n ., I I , 13.

c la re , f e r e tam en cla r e e x S c rip tu r a c o llig a tu r o p p o situ m , a c c e d e n te praese r tim e x p o s itio n e com m uni Patr u m ." (O p . cit., disp . 2, s ec t. 1, n . 6 ) . L a t e ly a n a tte m p t h as b e e n m a d e to in t e r p r e t S t. A n s e lm s o p in io n m o re m ild ly (D r h o lt , D ie L e h r e von der G e n u g tu u n g C h r isti, pp. 201 sq q ., P a d erb o rn 18 9 1). F o r a c ritic is m o f D r h o lt s po-

22

TH E W O R K OF RED EM PTION

whole race, have restored penitent sinners to H is grace without demanding any equivalent whatever, or on the basis o f an inadequate satisfaction. Hcnce, according to Suarez,31 the universal teaching o f theologians that God in H is omnipotence might have repaired human nature in a variety o f other w ays,32 is so certain that it cannot be denied w ithout tem erity and danger to the faith .

d) T h e Incarnation can be conceived as a necessary postulate of the Redemption only on the assumption that God exacted adequate (/. e., in finite) satisfaction for the sins of men. In that hypothesis m anifestly none but a natural m edia tor, that is to say, a Godman, w a s able to g iv e the satisfaction demanded.
Sin involves a sort o f infinite guilt and cannot be adequately atoned for except by an infinite satisfac tion.3 The Fathers held that not even the human 3 nature o f Christ, as such, considered apart from the H ypostatic Union, could make adequate satisfaction for our sins; much less, o f course, was any other creature, human or angelic, equal to the task. For, in the words o f St. Augustine, w e could not be redeemed, even by the one -Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, if H e were not also God. 3 4 Though this was the most difficult mode o f redemption,
31 D c I n c a r n ., d isp . 4, s ec t. 2, n . 3. 32 C f r . S t. T h o m a s , 5 . T h e o l., 3a,

q u. 1, a r t. 2 : D e n s p er su a m o in n ip o te n le in v ir tu te m p o tcr a t hitm anam tiaturain in u ltis a liis m od is r cp a r a r c. 33 C fr . S t. T h o m a s , 5 \ T h e o l., 3a, q u . 2, ad 2.

34 S t. A u g u s t in e , E n c liir ., c. 108: " N c q u c p er ipsum lib c r a rc m iir un u m in ed ia lo r e m D e i et h o m iiu im , hom iitem le s iu n C h r istu m , n isi c ss c t ct D e n s ." F o r a d d itio n a l te x ts fro m th e w r itin g s o f th e F a th e r s c o n s u lt V a s q u e z , disp . 4, c. 3; T h o m a s s in , D c I n c a r n ., I , 4.

N E C E S SIT Y OF TH E RED EM PTION

23

it was the one actually chosen by God. The Incarnation o f the L ogos satisfied the full rigor o f H is justice, but it also gave free play to H is boundless love. T h e fact that the atonement was decreed from eternity explains such Scriptural phrases as John III, 14: Exaltari oportet35 Filium liominis T h e Son o f man must be lifted u p (as M oses lifted up the serpent in the desert), and L uke X X I V , 26: Nonne haec oportuit p a ti3 Christum 0 W as it not necessary for Christ to have suffered these things ? 37
35 vxpoOrjvaL S et. 36 eoei w a& eiv, 37 C f r . H e b . I X , 22. O n th e sub-

je c t s u it z e it , 430

o f th e f o r e g o in g p a ra g ra p h s con J. K le u t g e n , T h e o lo g ie d er V o r V o l. I l l , pp. 336 sqq ., 381 sqq ., sq q ., M n s te r 18 70 ; C h r . P e s c h ,

P r a e le c tio n e s D o g m a tic a e , V o l. I V , 3 r d ed ., pp. 201 sq q ., F r ib u r g i 1909; D e L u g o , D e M y s t. I n c a r n ., d isp . 2, 3, 5; B illu a r t , D e I n c a r n ., d is s. 3, a r t . 2 ; B . D r h o lt, D ie L e h r e vo n d e r G e n u g tu u n g C h r is ti, pp. 17 1 s q q ., P a d e r b o r n 18 9 1.

SECTION 3
PR ED ESTIN ATION OF T H E REDEEMER

i. S t a t e o f t i i e Q u e s t i o n . W o u ld the Son of God have appeared in the flesh if A d a m had not sinned? In other w ords, w as the Incarnation absolutely predeterm ined? T h is is a most inter esting question, and the fam ous theological con tro ve rsy to which it g a v e rise, throw s so clear a light on the dogm a of the Redemption and the sublime d ig n ity of the Redeemer, that w e must g iv e an account of it here. T h e u n d erlyin g problem m a y be briefly stated as follow s: T h e Incarnation w a s dictated by tw o principal motives, namely, ( i ) compassion for the m isery of mankind, and ( 2 ) the glorifi cation of God and I l i s C h rist.1 W h ic h of these motives outw eighed the other? T h is question must receive an answ er before w e can determine whether the fall of A d a m was an indispensable condition o f the Incarnation, or whether the D i vine L o g o s assumed human flesh irrespective of the existence or non-existence of a sinful race of
1 C f r . J o h n X V I I , 4 s q q .; 2 T h e s s . I , 12.

24

PR ED ESTIN A TIO N OF TH E RED EEM ER men.

25

T h e form er view is held by the Thomists,

the latter b y the Scotists.

The Scotists conceive the divine decrees appertaining to the Redemption in the follow ing order. First o f all comes the absolute predistination o f Christ and H is divine kingdom, consisting o f angels and men. In the second place, the permission of the sin of A d a m ; and in the third place, the mission o f Christ in H is capacity o f passible Redeemer. T h e Thom ists, on the other hand, hold that God created the universe without regard to C h rist; that H e subse quently decreed to permit sin, and lastly determined on the Incarnation o f the L ogos fo r the purpose o f redeem ing the human race. A s m ay be seen from this enumeration, the Scotists put the Incarnation first, while the Thom ists put it last. From the Scotist point o f view G ods predominant m o tive in decreeing the Incarnation w as the dignity and glorification o f Christ. T h e universe was created fo r C hrists sake. The Thom ists, on the other hand, ascribe the Incarnation o f the Logos prim arily to G ods mercy. In the Scotist hypothesis the Incarnation is altogether independent o f the F a ll; the Thom ists regard the latter as an indispensable condition of the former. A gain st the Scotist view there lies this objection: If Christ was not predestined to atone fo r the sins o f men, w hy did H e appear on earth as a passible Redeem er rather than, as w e should have every reason to expect, in the capacity o f an impassible, glorified Godman ? Th e Scotists meet this difficulty by saying that the first and absolute decree touching the Incarnation was modified in view o f the F a ll ; that after the Fall, Christ, who originally

26

TH E W O R K OF RED EM PTION

was to have appeared among men as homo gloriosiis, de cided to assume human flesh and become homo passibilis. In general terms the two theories m ay be characterized as fo llo w s: T h e Scotistic theory is inspired by a tran scendent idealism, whereas the Thom ist view conform s to the facts as we know them. T o enable the reader to form his own estimate w e will briefly state the leading arguments adduced by both schools.

2. T h e T h o m i s t i c T h e o r y . T h a t the F a ll o f A d a m was the chief motive which prompted God to decree the Incarnation, is held by all T h o m ists,2 and also by a large number of theo logians belon gin g to other schools, e. g., G r e g o r y o f V alen tia , V asq u ez, P etaviu s, Cardin als T o letus and D e L u g o , and even by the ''ideal L essiu s.3 A m o n g modern theologians this the ory has been espoused by K le u tg e n ,4 Stentrup,5 T ep e,G and m a n y others.
Toletus and Petavius absolutely reject the Scotist hypothesis. Chr. P e s c h 7 and L. Janssen s8 prefer the Thom ist view , but admit the other as probable. In this they follow St. Thom as him self 0 and St. Bonaventure.10 T h e A n gelic D octor both in his Com m entary on the Liber Scntcntiarum and in the Summa Thcologxca expresses
2 C f r . B il lu a r t , 3. a rt. 3. De I n c a r n ., d iss. " P r a e le c l. D o g m ., V o l. I V , 3d ed ., pp. 2 16 sqq. S D c D e o -H o n tin c , I I : S o te r io lo g ia , pp. 44 sqq. 0 C o m m e n t, in Q u a tito r L ib r o s S e n t ., I l l , d ist. q u. 1, a r t . 3. 10 C o m m e n t, in Q u a tu o r L ib r o s S e n t ., I l l , d ist. 1, a r t. 2, q u. 2.

3 D e P r a e d c s t. C h r is ti (O p u s c ., t. I I , pp. 483 s q q ., P a r is 18 78 ). 4 T h e o lo g ie d e r V o r c c it, V o l. I I I . pp. 393 sqq. 5 S o te r io lo g ia , th es. 2. 6 I n s tit. T h e o l., V o l. I l l , pp. 663 sq q ., P a r is 1896.

TH E TH O M ISTIC T H E O R Y

27

himself with cautious reserve. St. Bonaventure says: H e who was made flesh fo r us alone knows which o f the two theories is the better. W hich is to be preferred it is difficult to say, because both are Catholic and sustained by Catholic authors.' 11 T h e Thom istic conception is based upon arguments which, though not cogent, are perfectly sound.

a) St. T h o m a s himself argu es as follow s: Some claim that the Son of God w ould have assumed human flesh even if man had not sinned. O thers assert the contrary, and their teach ing seems to h ave a grea te r claim to our assent. T h e reason is this. W h a te v e r proceeds solely from the D iv in e W ill, transcending eve ry e x i g e n cy of nature, must remain unknow n to us, except it be revealed by S acred Scripture. . . . N o w , S acred Scripture invariably assigns the sin of A d a m as the motive of the Incarnation. It is more befitting, therefore, to r e g a r d the In c a rn a tion as ordained by God for the cure of sin, so that if there had been no sin there would h ave been no Incarnation. 12
A s a m atter o f fact, whenever Sacred Scripture speaks o f the m otive o f the Incarnation, it invariably points to
1 1 l. c. 12 S . T h e o l., 3 a, q u . i , a r t. 3 : " Q ttid am d ic u n t, q u o d etia m si hom o n o n p ecc a sse t, D e i F i li u s in ca r n a tu s fu is s e t. A l i i v e r o co n tr a r iu in ass e r u n t, q u o ru m a ss e r tio n i m agis assen tien dv.m v id e tu r . E a en im quae a so la D e i v o lu n ta te p r o v e n iu n t su p ra o m n e d e b itu m n a tu r a e , n o b is in n o te s c e r e n o n p o ss u n t, n is i quate n u s in S . S c r ip tu r a tr a d u n tn r . . . . U n d e quu m in S . S c r ip tu r a u b iq u e in ca r n a tio n is ra tio e x p ecca to p rim i h o m in is a ssig n e tu r , c o n v e n ie n tiu s d ic itu r , in ca r n a tio n e m o p u s o rdin aturn e ss e a D e o in re n te d iu m c o n tr a p ec c a tu m , ita q u o d p ecca to n o n e x iste n te in ca r n a tio n o n f u is s e t .

28

T H E W O R K OF R ED EM PTIO N

the sin o f Adam . It is because H e was sent to redeem the fallen race o f men that Christ received the name of Jesus, i. e., Saviour or Redeem er (salvator, owr/p). C fr. M atth. I, 2 1 : E t vocabis nomen eius Iesum; ipse cnim 13 salvum faciet populum suitm a pcccatis eorum And thou shalt call his name Jesus; for he shall save his people from their sins. 14 Jesus H im self never even hints at any other motive. C fr. L uke X I X , 10: Venit cnim Filins hominis quacrere et salvum facere, quod, perierat F or the Son o f man is come to seek and to save that which was lost. It seems perfectly legitim ate to conclude, therefore, that the redemption of man was the main motive which prompted God to send H is Son. H ad there been a higher and more com prehensive m otive, it would be strange to find no hint o f it in the Scriptures. T h e w eight o f this argument must not, how ever, be overrated. F or, in the first place, the texts upon which it is based are purely affirmative, but not exclusive, so that the argum ent based upon them is at bottom m erely one e x silentio. A nd, secondly, the Scriptural passages in question all refer to the actual order o f salvation, not to its hidden background. Although the Incarna tion and the Redemption are causally correlated. Sacred Scripture does not define the nature o f their mutual relationship, and tells us nothing at all concerning the question whether the Incarnation is subordinate to the Redemption, or vice versa.

b) O w i n g to their la r g e r know ledge o f the w ritin g s of the Fath ers, modern theologians are
13 y i p , 14 S im ila r ly M a tth . I X ,

II,

17 ;

Luke

13 ; M a r k I , 3 1 ; J o h n I I I , 17 ;

R o m . I l l , 2 5 ; G a l. I V , I , 15 ; 1 J o h n I I I , 5.

4;

1 T im .

T H E TH O M ISTIC T H E O R Y

29

able to construct a far more convincing P atristic argu m ent than w as possible in the time of St. Thom as. H o ly Scripture m erely intimates by its silence that there would have been no Incarnation if A d a m had not sinned. T h e F a th ers 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 adm itted that the contrary view is absolutely de void o f probability. 15 W e will cite a few o f these tes timonials. S t Athanasius s a y s : The assumption o f hum&n nature [on the part o f the Logos] presupposes a necessity, apart from which H e would not have put on flesh. 16 St. Am brose a s k s : W h at was the cause o f the Incarnation if not this, that the flesh which had sinned by itself, should by itself be redeem ed? 17 A n d St. A ugustine declares that the Lord Jesus Christ came in the flesh . . . fo r no other reason than . . . to save, liberate, redeem, and enlighten [those who are engrafted members o f H is b o d y]. 18 W e may also refer to the C re e d : W ho for us men and for our salvation de scended from H eaven, and to the Easter h y m n : O happy fault, which deserved to have so great and glorious a R ed eem er! T o sum up the argum ent: Tradition, so far as w e
S . T h e o l., It. I. 10 O r. c o n tr . A r ia n ., 2, 54. S im ila r ly G r e g o r y o f N a z ia n z u s (O r ., 30, n. 3) an d C y r il o f A le x a n d r ia (T h e s a u r ., V , 8 ). 1 " " Q u a e erat causa in ca r n a tio n is, n is i tit caro, quae p er se p ec ca v c r a t,
15 In

p er se r c d im c r c tu r f D e J n c a rn ., c. 6, n. 56. 18 D e P e c c . M e r . et R e m ., I , 26, 39. A d d itio n a l P a tr is tic t e x t s in L e s s iu s , D e P r a c d c s t. C h r isti, sect. 1, 11. 5 ; S te n tr u p , S o tc r io lo g ia , th e s . 1 sq. C f r . P e t a v iu s , D e I n c a r n ., I I , 17.

30

T H E W O R K OF RED EM PTION

are able to ascertain it, is against the absolute predesti nation o f Christ, but holds that, if man had not sinned, the Son o f God would never have become incarnate. T o escape this argument, the Scotists urge their above mentioned distinction between Christus gloriosus and Christus passibilis. G ods original decree concerning the Incarnation, they say, was from all eternity m od ified by the F all o f man, which necessitated a pas sible redeem er; and it is to this particular aspect o f the Incarnation alone that the Patristic texts app ly; at least it is possible so to interpret them. B ut even if they could be interpreted in the wider sense in which they are understood by the Thom ists, w e should still be dealing with a mere theory, which no rule o f faith constrains us to adopt. In support o f this view the Scotist theologians point to the modification which the Patristic theory of satisfaction has experienced in course o f time w ith out detriment to its substance.

3. T h e S c o t i s t i c T h e o r y . I f the question at issue had to be decided purely on the a utho r ity of theologians, w e should be unable to arrive at a unanim ous decision, so evenly is authority balanced a g ain st authority. T h e Scotistic theory origin ated with A b b o t R u pert of D e u t z .19 It w as adopted by A lb e r t the G r e a t 20 and developed by D u n s S cotu s,21 in w hose school it eventually obtained the upper hand.2 2 It has also found m an y ardent defenders outside the Scotistic
19 D e G lo r ia e t H o n . F i li i H o m in is L ib r t X I I I ; D e T r in it., I l l , 20. 20 C o m m e n t, in Q u a tu o r L ib r o s S e n t ., I l l , d is t. 20, a r t. 4.

21 C o m m e n t, in Q u a tu o r L ib r o s S e n t ., I l l , d ist. 7, q u. 3. 22 C f r . M a s t r iu s , D is p . T h e o l., d isp . 4, q u . 1.

TH E SC O TISTIC T H E O R Y

31

camp, a m o n g them A m b ro se C ath arinu s,23 Y s a m bert, St. B e rn a rd of Siena, St. F ran cis de Sales,2 4 and especially S u a rez.25 F o r a while its defend ers w ere few , but of late the theory is again com in g into favor. A m o n g its modern champions we m a y m ention: Faber, Gay, B o ug au d, Schell, F r. Risi, and D u Cappucce.2 6 T h e argu m ents for the Scotist position are un deniably strong. a) T h e ir S criptural basis is the oft-repeated statement o f St. P a u l that the Incarnation of C h rist was pre-ordained by an eternal and abso lute divine decree without re ga rd to the Fall.
T h e A postle declares that all things are by Christ and for Christ, i. e., tend tow ards H im as their final end and object. C fr. Heb. II, 10: Propter qitem omnia et per quern omnia F o r whom are all things and by whom are all things. 27 Col. I, 16 sqq. : Omnia per ipsum et in ip s o 2 creata sunt . . . et ipse est ante 8 om n es29 et omnia in ipso constant; et ipse est caput corporis Ecclesiae, qui est principium,30 primogenitus ex mortuis, ut sit in omnibus ipse primatum t e n a i s 31 In him were all things created . . . and he is before all, and by him all things consist. A nd he is the head o f the body, the church, who is the beginning, the first born from the dead; that in all things he m ay hold the
23 D e P r a e d e s tin . E x im ia C lir is ti, 27 g ; 'v tol irivTCL ica l S i L u g d u n i 1542. n avra. 2i D e V A m o u r d e D ie u , I I , 4. 28 eis a v r v . 25 D e In c a r n ., disp . 5. 29 ^po iravTWV. 26 P r im a u t d e N o t r e - S e ig n e u r 30 p x v . J s u s - C h r is t, in th e tu d e s F ra n 31 -Kpwrevoov, cisc a in e s , 1890, 1900. ov x

32

T H E W O R K OF RED EM PTION

primacy.'' I f Christ holds first place in the divine economy o f the universe, and the world o f 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. W ithout Christ there could have been 110 cre ation. H ence Christ is before all, the first-born of every creature. 32 H e is the centre and pivot o f the uni verse, not in consequence of the Fall, but absolutely and from all eternity. H e has not been added to the created universe by accident, but rules it as t /kotoW , and is the t A lpha and Om ega o f all things from the beginning.33

b) T h o u g h this theory cannot be strictly dem onstrated from the w ritin g s of the F athers, yet the P a tristic interpretation of several passages in the Sapiential Books of the O ld T estam ent seems to lend it w eight. T h e fact that the F a th ers w ere unable to g a u g e the full be a rin g of their interpretation does not forbid us to push to their legitimate conclusions the principles which they asserted.
W e have pointed out in our treatise on the T r in it y 34 that certain o f the Fathers applied Proverbs V I I I , 22: The Lord possessed me in the beginning o f his ways, before he made anything from the beginning, 35 to the temporal birth o f the Logos, that is, the Incarnation. This can only mean that Christ was predestined to be
32 C o l. I , 33 T h e

1 5 ; c f r . R o m . V I I I , 29.

34 P o h le -P r e u s s , T h e D iv in e

T rin -

o b je c tio n s u rg e d a g a in s t th is in t e r p r e ta tio n m a y b e re a d in D e L u g o , D e M y s t. I n c a n t ., disp . 7, s e ct. 2.

ity , p. 157. 35 " D o m in u s p o ss e d it ( e n n o t ) w e iit in itio v ia n im su a ru m , a n teq u a m q u id q u a m fa c c r e t a p r in c ip io ."

TH E SC O TISTIC T H E O R Y

33

the First and that all things were created fo r H is sake.3 8 On the strength o f Gen. II, 24 and Eph. V , 31 sqq. several Fathers held that the nature o f matrimony, as an image o f C hrists union with H is Church, was re vealed to Adam in Paradise. I f this be true, our L o rd s appearance on earth cannot be conceived as conditioned by the Fall. Even if man had not sinned, but had remained in the state o f innocence, says St. A u gu s tine,37 matrimony would still be the symbol o f C hrists union with H is Church. 3 S

W h e n it comes to theological argum ents, the Scotists can allege in their fa v o r all the reasons which w e have g iv e n above for the co n g ru ity of the Incarnation as such, especially the fact that, in the w o rds of L essius,39 by the assumption of man the whole universe was, a fte r a fashion, assumed into and united with the Godhead. S tr a n g e ly enough, L essius subsequently un der mined his ow n position by sa y in g : I f a n y created nature w as to be assumed prim arily for the sake o f p erfe ctin g the universe, it would have been the most perfect, i. e., that of the highest a n g e l. 4 0 T h is conclusion does not fol low. U n lik e man, an angel is not a microcosm . Besides, there is something sublime and over30 C fr . S u a r e z , D e I n c a r n ., disp . 5, s ec t. 2. 37 " C o n iu g iu m etiam in statu inn o ce n tia e, s i h o m o n o n p ec ca sse t, fu tu r u m sa cra m e n tu m c o n iu n c tio n is C h r is ti cu m E c c le s ia . (D e N u p t. et C o n c u p ., I , 2 1 .)
38 F o r th e T h o m is t r e p ly to th is a r g u m e n t see L e s s iu s , D e P r a e d e s t. C lir is ti, n . 23 sqq. 39 D e P e r fe c t . M o r . D iv ., X I I , 4. 40 D e P r a e d e s t. C h r is ti, n . 9.

34

T H E W O R K OF RED EM PTION

w h elm in g in the thought that, as Scotism 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 o rig in al sanctity entirely to the merits of an absolutely predestined R edeem er; that all g r a c e radiates from Christ, the sun of ju stice, w h o sanctifies angels and men and disperses the shadow s of death. P erhaps the w eightiest argu m ent adduced for the Scotist position is the one developed by S u a rez: T h e end cannot be inferior to the means devised for its attainment. T h is would be the case if the Incarnation m erely served the pur pose of the Redemption. N o sensible hunter would shoot a cannon to b rin g down a sparrow. C hrist is not only the crow n of the created uni verse, H e is also the clim ax of divine glorification. W ith o u t H im the universe would be meaningless. H e w h o is highest and most perfect in the order of being, must also be first in the plan of creation, and the fulness of divine g lo r y cannot have been dependent on the accident o f the Fall. T h e Scotistic theory recommends itself by its sublimity. It group s angels and men around the G odm an as the center of the universe, the highest and final revelation, the b e g in n in g and end o f all th in g s.41
41 C f r . J o s. P o h le in th e K a t h o lik , M a in z

1886, I I , 461 s q q ., 578 sqq.

C H A P T E R II
T H E R E D E M P T I O N OF T H E H U M A N R A CE T H R O U G H C h r i s t s v i c a r i o u s ato n em en t

SE C T IO N

T H E R E A L I T Y OF C H R I S T S V I C A R I O U S A T O N E M E N T

A R T IC L E i
V IC A R IO U S ATONEM ENT D E F IN E D

This Chapter deals with the concrete fact o f C h rists vicarious atonement (satisfactio vicaria) rather than with the abstract notion o f Redemption, which even heretics do not entirely d en y ; hence w e must be careful to define our terms.
i. E x p la n a tio n of th e Term A to n e

a ) B y atonement w e understand the reparation o f any w r o n g or injury, either m a terial ( dam num ) or moral ( offensa, iniuria). M a teria l in ju ry demands restitution; m oral in ju r y can be repaired only by satisfaction or atone ment in the strict sense of the term. T h e Rom an Catechism defines satisfaction as nothing else than compensation for an in ju ry offered to an other. Satisfaction in the sense of d isch a rg in g
35

m e n t.

36

TH E W O R K O F RED EM PTION

a penance enjoined in confession will be treated in connection w ith the Sacram ent of Penance. b) Atonem ent, in the sense in which the term is used in Soteriology, presupposes an offence committed against, or an in ju ry 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 clam orin g for reconciliation. T h e concept of sin contains a tw ofold e lem en t: g uilt ( reatus culpae) and punishability ( reatus poenae). Guilt and punishability are insepara ble. T h e ir g r a v it y depends partly on the d ig n ity o f the person offended ( gravitas fo n n a lis ) and p artly on the character of the offence committed ( gravitas materialis). God is infinite in d ig nity and m a jesty ; therefore eve ry g rievo u s sin, m orally considered, involves an infinite offence. A sin committed a g ain st G o d / says St. Thom as, partakes in a manner of infinity, throu gh its re lation to the infinite m a jesty of G od; for an o f fence is the more serious, the g re a te r the person offended. 1 Considered as a moral delinquency on the part of man, sin is a m erely finite evil. In respect of God, how ever, it is infinite. Iniuria cst in iniuriato. T h is applies, of course, only to mortal sin, which seriously disturbs the sinners relation to
1 S . T h e o l., 3a, qu. 1, a rt. 2, ad 2.

V IC A R IO U S A TO N EM E N T

37

God. T h is relation, if justice be given free scope, cannot be restored except by means o f ade quate satisfaction ( eniptio, redemptio). c) G rievous sin, as w e have said, involves an infinite offence, for which no creature, least of all the sinner himself, can render adequate satis faction. A d eq u a te in this case means infinite satisfaction, and infinite satisfaction can be given only by one who is infinite in dignity. H ence none but a Godm an could redeem the h u man race. H ence also the necessity of a v ic a rious atonement.
2. D e fin itio n of V ic a r io u s A to n e m e n t.

Xhe notion of vicariatio does not imply that he who acts as substitute or representative for a n other takes upon him self the others g u ilt 01* sin as such. N o one can be the bearer or subject of anoth ers sins. In this erroneous sense v ic a r ious atonement involves a contradiction, because no mediator can g iv e satisfaction for a n oth ers sins unless he is him self sinless. V ic a r io u s atone ment, therefore, can only mean the vo lu n ta ry a s sumption of a punishment due to sin, not in deed the reatus poencu, which implies real guilt, but the penance imposed b y God. In other words, the Godm an renders infinite satisfaction in our stead, and this satisfaction by its objective w o rth counterbalances our infinite ofifence and is a c

38

T H E W O R K OF RED EM PTION

cepted by God as though it w ere g iv e n by our selves. T o illustrate the case by an analogy. T h e human race is like an insolvent merchant. C h rist vo lun tarily assumes our obligations and is com pelled to pay the whole debt. T h e sum of this debt is H is P recious Blood. ( i Pet. I, 18 sq.) 3. O b j e c t i o n s R e f u t e d . T h e Socinians, and modern Rationalists generally, reject the C a th olic d o g m a o f C h ris ts vicarious atonement on the pretext that it involves m anifest contradictions, ( a ) w ith re g a r d to God, (b ) with r e g a r d to Christ, and ( c ) with re ga rd to man. W e will briefly exam ine these alleged contradictions.
a) T h e doctrine, o f the atonement is held to be con tradictory in respect o f God for the reason that fo rgive ness o f sins is sometimes attributed to pure m ercy and sometimes to strict justice, whereas these two attributes are m utually exclusive. If the simultaneous m anifestation o f G ods infinite m ercy 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 R o m an s: Y o u 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 H is own Son instead o f us poor sin ners, God exercised in an eminent manner both H is mercy and H is justice. T here 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 5 w p tav 7-0 a
vtov

x ^ P iTl.

3 5 ta

rrjs dTroXvrpwacws-

* R o m . I l l , 24.

V IC A R IO U S ATO N EM E N T

39

person and his perform ance subsequently stamped as a grace. H oly Scripture is perfectly consistent in teach ing, on the one hand, that God so loved the w orld as to give his only-begotten Son, 5 and, on the other, that; by sending his own Son, in the likeness o f sinful flesh, and o f sin, [God] hath condemned sin in the flesh. 8 b) T h e doctrine o f the atonement is declared to be contradictory for the further reason that it involves the punishment o f an innocent person in lieu o f the guilty criminal. It is downright murder, however disguised, for God to exact the blood o f H is own guiltless Son in expiation for the sins o f others, say the Rationalists. God would indeed be unjust had H e imposed the guilt and punishment o f others upon H is innocent Son as though H e were the guilty criminal. But this is by no means the teaching o f the Church. N ot having per sonally sinned, Christ could not be punished as a sin ner. Hence H is death was not a punishment in the proper sense o f the word, but merely a satisfactio laboriosa. Furtherm ore, it was not imposed on Him against H is will. H e H im self d eclares: I lay down m y life fo r my sheep. . . . I lay it down o f m yself,7 and I have power to lay it down : and I have power to take it up again. 8 Volenti non fit imuria (N o w rong arises to one who consents). H ence the atonement cannot be said to involve a violation o f commutative justice. N or does it run counter to distributive justice, for C hrists dolorous passion and death, besides redounding to the ad vantage o f the human race, also brought H im personal reward and glory. C fr. L uke X X I V , 26: O ught not
5 J o h n I I I , 16. 6 Rom . V III, 3. C fr . P o h le * P r e u s s , G o d : H is K n o w a b ility , E s s e n c e , an d A ttr ib u te s , pp. 466 sqq.
7 a n ' i/J.avrov-

8 J o h n X , 15 , 18.

40

T H E W O R K OF RED EM PTION

Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into his glo ry? c) In regard to man, the doctrine o f the atonement is denounced as repugnant on the score that one who is guilty o f a crime should, as a point o f honor, give the necessary satisfaction him self, and not shift this painful duty to another. O ur Rationalist adver saries add that the idea of a m ans appropriating to him self the fruits o f anothers labor is preposterous. T h ey overlook the fact that man was absolutely unable to render adequate satisfaction for sin. God m anifested H is infinite love and m ercy precisely in deigning to accept a vicarious atonement. It cannot be proved that this involves an injustice. The objection w ill lose much o f its force if we take into consideration the fact that Christ represented the human race in the order o f 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 A d am . Christ is no stranger to u s ; H e is bone o f our bone, our brother as well as our spir itual head. H is merits constitute as it were a fam ily heirloom, in which each o f us has a share. T h e privilege o f participating in the merits o f C h rists vicarious atonement does not relieve us o f the duty o f personally atoning for our sins. That Christ has ren dered adequate satisfaction for the sins o f the whole race, does not mean that each individual human being is co ipso subjectively redeemed. This is the teaching of o rth o d o x Lutheranism , not o f the Catholic Church. W e Catholics believe that the individual sinner must feel sorry fo r his sins, confess them, and render satisfaction fo r them, though, o f course, no satisfaction can be o f

TH E DOGM A PROVED

41

any avail except it is based on the merits o f our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.9

A R T IC L E 2
THE DOGMA OF C H R IS T S FROM V IC A R IO U S ATONEM ENT PRO VED

R E V E L A T IO N .

i. th e

V a r io u s

H e re sie s a n d

th e

T e a c h in g

of

C h u r c h . T h e heretical opinions that have arisen in course of time w ith re g a rd to the dogm a o f C h rists vicarious atonement owe their in spiration either to Rationalism or to Pantheism. T h e Rationalist error that the idea of individual liberty absolutely excludes origin al sin, found its embodiment in P ela g ia n ism and Socinianism, tw o heretical systems which, though not con temporaneous, ag re e d in denyin g original sin and the atonement. Pantheism , w hich m erges all individuals into one Absolute B e in g and re ga rd s sin as a function of the Godhead, g a v e birth to Gnosticism and modern Theosophy.

a) A ll these heresies are based on a radically w rong conception o f the nature o f sin. a) Pelagianism rests on the fundamental fallacy
9 C f r . C o n e . T r id e n t., S e s s . X I V , s p e c io u s o b je c tio n s (s e e t h a t w r it e r s cap . 8 (D e n z in g e r - B a n n w a r t , E n b o o k , D ie K r is is d e s C h r is te n tu m s c h ir id io n , n. 9 0 4 ). A n e x c e lle n t in d e r m o d e rn en T h e o lo g ie , pp. 10 tr e a tis e on th e p h ilo so p h ica l a s p e c ts sq q ., B e r lin 1882) a r e e ffe c t iv e ly o f th e a to n e m e n t is G . A . P e l l s r e fu t e d b y B . D r h o lt, D i e L e h r e D a s D og m a v o n d e r S n d e u n d E r v o n d e r G e n u g tu u n g C h r is t i, pp. l su n g im L ic h te d e r V e r n u n ft, R a t160 sqq .. P a d e r b o r n 18 91. isb o n 1886. E d w . v o n H a r tm a n n s

T H E W O R K OF RED EM PTION
that sin is essentially the free act o f an individual and cannot be conceived as moral guilt incurred by propa gation (original sin ). In consequence o f this basic error, the Pelagians w rongly held that the grace o f Christ has for its object not the redemption o f the whole human race by the effacem ent o f an inherited sin o f nature, but the setting up o f an ideal or pattern o f 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 exam ple set by Adam . Pelagianism credited the sinner with sufficient strength to arise a fter falling, nay to attain to a state o f perfect sinless n e ss1 without supernatural aid, and hence denied the ne cessity o f grace and unduly exaggerated the m oral ca pacity o f human nature.2 T h e soteriological consequences implied in P elagius system w ere expressly drawn by Socinianism. T h is her esy originated tow ards the close o f the sixteenth century by w ay o f a reaction against orthodox Protestantism . Its founders were Laelius Socinus and his nephew Faustus, both natives o f Siena, Italy. Faustus Socinus (1539-160 4) system atized and developed the teachings o f his uncle in several w o r k s : D c Christo Scrvatore, D e Ofcio Christi, and Brevis Discursus dc Ratione Salutis
1 I m p e cc a n tia , vafiap T T jcra. 2 C f r . B lu n t s D ic tio n a r y o f S e c t s , H e r e s ie s , E c c le s ia s t ic a l P a r tie s , a n d S c h o o ls o f R e lig io u s T h o u g h t, pp. 4 t 5 sq q ., N e w I m p r e s s io n , L o n d o n 19 0 3 ; a lso th e P re fa ce to P. H o lm e s tr a n s la tio n o f T h e A n tiP e la g ia n W o r k s o f S a in t A u g u s tin e , V o l. I , pp. i sq q ., E d in b u r g h 1872. S t. A u g u s t in e tr e a t s a t le n g th o f P e la g ia n is m in th e fo llo w in g b o o k s : D e N u p tiis et C o n cu p is c e n tia , C o n tr a D u o s E p s to la s P e la g ia n o r u m , E n c h ir id io n , D e G ra tia et L ib e r o A r b itr io , D e C o r r e p tio n e e l G ra tia , D e P r a e d e s tin a tio n e S a n c to r u m , Dt D o n o P e r s e v e r a n tia e , C o n tr a Iu lia n um P c la g ia n u m , D e G e stis P e la g ii, D e O c to D u lc i t i i Q u a e s tio n ib u s , C oin m c n t. in P s a lm o s, S e r m ., x a n d x iv , a n d in h is E p is tle s to P a u lin u s , O pta tu s , S e x t u s , C e le s tin e , V i t a li s , a n d V a le n t in e . C fr . also th e V a ria S c r ip ta ct M o n u m e n to ad P c la g ia n orum H isto r ia m P c r tin tia a t th e c lo se o f V o l. X o f th e B e n e d ic tin e e d itio n o f S t. A u g u s t in e s w o r k s .

G N O S T IC IS M

43

Nostrae ex Sermonibits Fausti Socini.3 Socinianism denied the Trinity, the D ivinity o f Jesus Christ, the necessity o f supernatural grace, and the dogma o f the vicarious atonement. Its champions alleged that Christ is properly speaking neither our Saviour nor a true high priest, but m erely a teacher pointing the w ay to salva tion. The chief object o f H is coming was to inculcate the O u r F ather. T o the Socinians have succeeded the modern Unitarians, who are distinguished from their predecessors principally by the denial o f the mi raculous conception o f our L ord and the repudiation o f H is worship. Th e Socinian theology also had consid erable influence in form ing the modern Rationalist school.4 Herm es and G n th er5 held an intermediate position between the Catholic dogma and these heretical vagaries. 13) Diam etrically opposed to the soteriological teach ing o f the Pelagians and Socinians is that o f the Gnostics and Theosophists. Gnosticism was at bottom a Manichsean heresy. Its votaries held that, since the human soul is part o f 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 o f the material body. T h e human nature o f Christ w as regarded by the Gnostics as purely fictitious and apparitional, because the Divine Logos could not pos sibly unite H im self w ith m atter, which is essentially evil.
3 T h e s e w r it in g s a r e c o lle c te d in t h e B ib lio th e c a F r a tr u m P o lo n o r u m , V o ls . 1 an d 2, I r e n o p o li 1656. 4 B lu n t , D ic tio n a r y o f S e c t s , e tc ., p . 568. F o r a d e ta ile d a n a ly s is o f th e S o c in ia n te a c h in g s ee A . H a rn a c k , D o g m e n g e s c h ic h te , V o l. I l l ,

4th ed ., pp. 784 sq q ., F r e ib u r g 19 10 . 5 On th e te a c h in g of H erm es (-)- 18 3 1) a n d G n th e r (-f- 18 6 3 ), c f r . J. K le u t g e n , S . J ., T h e o lo g ic d e r V o r z e it, V o l. I l l , pp. 457 sq q ., M n s te r 1870.

TH E W O R K OF R ED EM PTIO N
In such a system, needless to say, there was no room for the Redemption, much less fo r a vicarious atonement. Theosophy is subject to sim ilar delusions. Being radically Pantheistic, it regards sin as a cosmic factor o f equal necessity and importance with virtue. Good and evil to the Theosophist are two world-powers endowed with equal rights. Sin is m erely a limitation o f infinity. Th e A bsolute Being alone, conceived as an impersonal spirit, is unbounded and sinless. E ach individual human soul is part and parcel o f the Absolute, and as such its own God. In other words, the D eity becomes incar nate in every human being. T h e human race m ay be said to have been redeemed by Christ only in the sense that H e was the first to enlighten men on the true relationship between the finite and the infinite, between good and evil. The real redemption o f man consists in his re-absorption into the infinite ocean o f being, out o f which he has tem porarily emerged like a foam-crested w ave.0

b) T h o u g h the C h urch has never form ally (in ten n in is) defined the doctrine of the vicarious atonement,7 she has nevertheless inculcated the substance o f it so often and so vig o ro u sly that it m a y be said to be one of the cardinal d o gm as o f the Catholic religion. T h e T h i r d G eneral Council of Ephesus ( A . D . 4 3 1 ) solemnly defined: If a n y one therefore says that [C h rist] offered H im fl O n m o d e rn T h eo sop h y c fr. M a d a m e B la v a t k y s I s is U n v e ile d , T h e S e c r e t D o c t r in e , a n d K e y to T h e o s o p h y ; also th e n u m e ro u s w ritin g s o f A n n ie B e s a n t, e s p e c ia lly h er E s o t e r ic C h r is tia n ity ; A . P . W a rr in g to n , a r t. T h e o s o p h y in th e E n c y c lo p e d ia A m e r ic a n a , V o l. XV; E . R . H u ll, S . J ., S tu d ie s in T h e o so p h y , 2n d e d ., B o m b a y 19 0 5; J T . D r is c o ll in th e C a th o lic E n c y c lo p cd ia , V o l. X I V , pp. 628 sqq. 7 C fr . K . M a r t in , C o n e . V a tic a n . D o c u m e n t. C o lle c tio , p. 3 7, P a d e rb o rn 1873.

T H E DOGM A

45

self up as a sacrifice for H im self, and not solely for us,8 let him be anathem a. 9 Still more clearly the Council of T r e n t : I f any one a s serts that this sin of A d a m . . . is taken a w a y . . . by any other remedy than the merit of the one M ediator, our L o r d Jesus Christ, w ho hath reconciled us to God in H is ow n blood, made unto us justice, sanctification and redemption, . . . let him be anathem a. 10 In another place the same Council says: [Christ] by H is most holy p as sion on the wood of the Cross merited justifica tion for us and made satisfaction for us unto God the F a th e r. 11 T h e last-quoted phrase closely resembles the technical term in ology of the Schools. 2. P r o o f f r o m S a c r e d S c r i p t u r e . T he vi carious atonement is clearly inculcated both by the O ld and the N e w Testam ent, though not, of course, in the technical terms of modern theology. a ) Isaias g iv es grap hic expression to it in the
8 K a l oi>xl virep fiovw v rifiwv. H e r e is th e w h o le p a ssa g e in L a t in : S i q u is ergo d ic it, q u o d pro se o b tu lisse t [ C h r is t u s ] se m e tip s u m ob la tio n em et n o n p o tiu s p ro n o b is so lis , an athem a s i t / 9 C o n e. E p h e s ., c a n . 10 (D e n z in g e r -B a n n w a r t, E n c h ir id io n , n . 1 2 2 ). C fr . th e D e c r e tu m p ro la c o b itis (ib id ., n . 7 1 1 ) . 10 " S i q u is h o c A d a e p ecca tu m . . . p er a liu d r e m e d iu m a sserit to lli q uam p er m eritu m u n iu s m e d ia to r is D . N . le s tt C lir is ti, q u i n o s D e o r e c o n c ilia v it in sa n g u in e stio , fa c tu s n o b is iu stitia , sa n c tific a tio et redem ptio , . . . a n a th em a s it. C o n e . T r id e n t., S e ss . V , c a n . 3 (D e n z in g e r B a n n w a r t , n . 7 9 0 ). 1 1 " Q u i . . . su a sa n c tissim a pass io n e in lig n o c r n c is n o b is iu s tifi* c a tio n e m m e ru it e t pro n o b is D e o P a tr i s a t is fe c it . C on e. T r id e n t., S e ss . V I , cap . 7 ( D e n z in g e r -B a n n w a r t, n. 7 9 9 ). W e use W a te r-. w o r t h s tra n s la tio n .

4r >

T H E W O R K OF RED EM PTION

famous prophecy which describes the su ffe rin g o f the S e r v a n t o f G o d /

Th e M essianic character o f this prophecy is sufficiently established by such N ew Testam ent texts as M ark X V , 28, L uke X X I I , 37, A cts V I I I , 33, 1 Pet. II, 22 sqq.12 W e quote its salient passages: Surely he hath borne our infirmities, and carried our sorrows, and w e 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 fo r our sins; the chastisement o f our peace was upon him, and by his bruises w e are healed. A ll we like sheep have gone astray, every one hath turned aside into his own w a y ; and the L ord hath laid on him the iniquity o f us all. H e was offered 13 be cause it was his own w ill,14 and he opened not his m o u th ; he shall be led as a sheep to the slaughter. . . . F o r the wickedness o f my people have I struck him. . . . B e cause his soul hath labored, he shall see and be fille d ; by his knowledge shall this m y just servant ju s tify many, and he shall bear their iniquities . . . he hath borne the sins o f many, and hath prayed fo r the trans gressors. 15 T h e vicarious character o f the S e r van ts suffering is asserted no less than eight times in this p a ssag e: ( 1 ) H e hath borne our infirm ities; (2 ) H e has carried our s o r r o w s ; (3 ) H e was wounded fo r our iniquities; (4) H e was bruised fo r our s in s ; (5 ) T h e chastisement o f our peace was
12 T h e a r g u m e n t is w e ll d e v e lo p e d b y A . J. M a a s , S . J ., C h r is t in T y p e a n d P r o p h e c y , V o l. I I , pp. 231 sq q ., N e w Y o r k 1895.
13 T h e M a s o r e tic te x t has, h e w a s c a lle d u p o n . ( C f r . M a a s , I. c p. 240, n o te .) 14 O n c e r t a in t e x t u a l d iffic u ltie s c o n n e c te d w ith th e H e b r e w w o rd n a 'a n e h , see M a a s ., I. c ., p. 2 4 1, n o te.

15 I s . L I I I , 4 - 1 2 .

SC R IP TU R A L PROOF

47;

upon h im ; 16 (6) B y his bruises we are h e a le d ; (7 ) T h e L ord hath laid on him the iniquity o f us a l l ; (8) H e was offered because it was his own w ill. 17 Th e passage furtherm ore embraces all the es sential elements o f C hrists vicarious atonement, to w it: (a ) the substitution o f the innocent M essias for guilty sinners; (b) the resulting remission o f punishment and healing o f the evil-doers; (c) the manner in which H e made satisfaction, i. c., H is sacrificial death.18

b) T h e N e w T estam ent inculcates the dogm a of the vicarious atonement both directly and in directly. ) T h e texts which teach it directly nearly all employ the p hraseology of, and are dependent upon, Isaias. T ak e, e. g., the exclam ation of John the Baptist recorded in John I, 29: Behold the L am b of God, behold him w h o taketh a w a y the sin of the w o rld. T h e p assage reads as fo l lows in the original G reek: s'lSe 6 vos ro eoS cup m T7 xa prav tov /coytou. T ile /xapra rov koct/xov jv is original sin. T h e verb alpav, like the H e b r e w w ords and employed by Isa ia s,19 besides tollere, i. e., to take a w ay, also means ferre or portare, i. e., to assume or bear for another. St. P eter no doubt had the prophecy of Isaias
T h e p u n is h m e n t w h ic h w a s to p r o c u r e o u r p eace w ith G o d a n d w ith m en , w a s in flic te d on h im . 17 I n th is cla u s e th e p ro p h e t ra th e r d e s c rib e s th e d e ta il o f th e S e r v a n t s s u ffe rin g s th an in s is ts on its v ic a rio u s c h a r a c te r ; b u t th is, to o , m a y b e
16 T h a t is :

in f e r r e d fr o m th e n a tu r e o f th e s u ff e r in g . C fr . M a a s , C h r is t in T y p e a n d P r o p h e c y , V o l. I I , p. 240, n o te . 18 C f r . F . F e ld m a n n , D e r K n e c h t G o tte s in Isa ia s, C h . 40-55, F r e ib u rg , 1907. i s Is . L I I I , 4 a n d 1 1 .

48

TH E W O R K OF R ED EM PTIO N

in mind w hen he w r o t e : W h o his ow n self bore our s i n s 2 in his body upon the tree . . . by 0 whose stripes y ou w ere healed. F o r you w e re as sheep g o in g a s t r a y ; but you are now converted to the shepherd and bishop of 3'our souls. 21 T h is tex t clearly inculcates C h ris ts vicarious atonement and describes its concrete realization ( H i s death on the C r o s s ) . St. P a u l is equally clear. C fr . 2 Cor. V , 2 1 : H im , w h o k n e w no sin, he hath made sin for us, that w e m ight be made the justice of God in him . T h e g ra p h ic phrase vv-w xapriav T rolrjaev avrov either m e a n s : H e hath made him w h o w as sinless a sinner, or, more probably, H e hath m ade him w ho w as sinless a sacrifice for sin.22 In either case St. P a u l asserts the d ogm a o f C h r is t s vicarious atonement. Special importance attaches to the m an y N e w T esta m e n t texts which speak of man as bein g bo u g h t 01* purch ased by the P recious Blood o f Christ. C fr. 1 Cor. V I , 20: F o r you are b o u g h t w ith a g re a t price. 23 1 Pet. I, 18 s q .: . . . y ou w e r e not redeemed 24 w ith corruptible things as g o ld and silver, . . . but with the pre cious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled. T h e se terms are borrow ed from
20 dvrjveyK ev, 21 i P e t . I I , 24 sq. 22 a fj.a p r [a = sa cr ificiu m ca lo . C f r . G a l. I ll, 13.
24 R e d e m p ti

pro

p ec-

C fr .

a lso

23 ijy o p d a B rjre . e s lis , XvTpu&rjTe.__ R o m . I l l , 24, E p h . I , 7, 1 T im . I I , 6.

SC R IP TU R A L PROOF

49

legal and mercantile u sa g e ; they mean that men w h o groan ed in the bondage of sin w ere re g a rd ed as free or redeemed by God as soon as C hrist had offered H is Precious Blood for them. A l l of w hich proves ( i ) the reality of the atone ment and ( 2 ) its vicarious character. ) Indirectly the Bible teaches the vicarious atonement in all those passages in w hich C hrist is called the second A d a m and contrasted with the progen itor of the human race. C fr. Rom. V , 14 s q q .: D eath reigned from A d a m unto Moses, even over them also w ho have not sinned a fte r the similitude of the transgression of A d am , w h o is a figure of him w h o w as to come. B u t not as the offence, so also the g ift. F o r if by the offence of one, m any died; much more the g r a c e of God, and the g ift, by the g ra c e of one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. . . . F o r if by one m a n s offence death reigned through one; much more they w ho receive abun dance of g race, and of the g ift, and of justice, shall reign in life throu gh one, Jesus Christ. T herefo re, 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. 1 Cor. X V , 22 s q q .: A s in A d a m all die, so also in Ch rist all shall be made alive, etc.
Adam , the physical and juridical head o f the human race, sinned vicariously, because he was the representa-

50

TH E W O RK OF R ED EM PTIO N

tive of all; in a similar manner Jesus Christ represented the whole race when H e restored it to justice. St. P a u ls parallel would be meaningless if our Saviour had not acted as the representative of the entire human race when he died on the Cross. I f H is rle as Redeemer had been confined to preaching and g iv in g a good example, as the Socinians allege, what need was there of H is suffering a cruel death? And if H e died, not in our stead, but m erely for our benefit, w hy do not the Socinians acclaim the holy m artyrs as so many redeem ers? Christ became our mediator and redeemer in the Scrip tural sense o f these terms only by complementing H is teaching and exam ple by an act o f true and adequate satisfaction fo r our sins. It is only in this sense that St. Peter, filled with the H oly Ghost, was able to e x cla im : N either is there salvation in any other name, 25 and St. Paul w rote to the C orin th ian s: Is Christ divided? W as Paul then [w ho was also a teacher o f nations and a m artyr] crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name o f Paul ? 26 It is only in this w ay that the name Jesus receives its full significance as Redeem er or Saviour o f the human race. In view o f the texts quoted it is incomprehensible how the M odernists can allege that the doctrine o f the sacri ficial death o f Christ is not evangelical, but originated with St. P au l. (See the Syllabus o f Pius X , prop. 38).

3. Proof fro m T r a d i t i o n . The F a th ers n early all couched their teach ing 011 the vicarious atonement in Scrip tural terms. a) T h e y did not treat purely soteriological
25 A c t s I V ,

12.

26 i C o r. I , 13.

PROOF FROM TR AD ITIO N

51

questions c x profcsso, but m erely adverted to them upon occasion. T h a t the Socinians made 110 attempt to base their teach ing upon P a tristic texts, w as due to the fact that H u g o Grotius had trium phantly demonstrated the vicarious atone ment from the w ritin g s of the F a th e rs .27 W e will quote but tw o o f the m any available texts. In accordance with the will of G o d / says St. Clem ent of Rome, our L o r d Jesus C hrist g a v e H is blood fo r us, and H is flesh for our flesh, and H is soul fo r our souls. 2S A n d St. P o ly ca rp : L e t us ever clin g to our hope and the p le d g e 29 o f our righteousness, which is C h rist Jesus, who bore our sins in H is ow n body on the tree, . . . and endured eve ryth in g for our sakes, that w e m ight live in H im . 3 0 b) O11 its philosophical side the dogm a of the vicarious atonement underw ent a process of de velopment, as is evidenced by the part which some o f the older F a th ers and ecclesiastical w riters a s signed to the Devil.
Th e question arose as fo llo w s : God and Satan are as it were tw o masters who contend for the possession o f mankind. H ence men by departing from God fell
27 I I . G r o tiu s , D e fe n s io F i d e i Cath o lic a e d e V e r ita te S a t i s f a c t i o n s , p u b lis h e d in 16 14 . 28 E p . ad C o r ., I , 49, 6.

ta v iu s , D e In c a r n ., X I I , 9 a n d T h o m a s s in , D o g m . T h e o l., I X , 7. C f r . also D o r h o lt, D ie L e h r e von d e r G e n u g tu u n g C h r is ti, pp. 62 sqq ., P a d e r b o r n 1891 a n d J . F . S . M u th , D ie H e ils ta t C h r is t i a ls ste llv e r tr e te n d e G e n u g tu u n g , pp. 169 sq q ., R a tisb o n 1904.

ap pa^ oivi. ad P h il., 8. M a n y ad d itio n a l p ro o fs fro m th e w r itin g s o f th e F a th e r s a r e to be fo u n d in P e30 E p .

29 t w

TH E W ORK OF REDEM PTIO N

under Satans power, by whom they are now kept in bondage. A s, 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 o f conquest? Hence, when God decided to free Satans captives, was He not bound in justice to recognize and take into consideration the D evils rights? M any o f the Fathers answered this question affirmatively. 31 St. Irenseus was the first to insist on the D evils alleged rights.32 Origen did not hesitate to say that Christ ransomed us with H is own blood from the power of Satan. 33 This, in itself blas phemous conception, which logically leads to the conclu sion that Christ gave H is blood, nay H is very soul to the Devil, was rejected by Adamantius (about 300), who indignantly branded it as all nonsense and blas 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 Origens notion was form ally rejected by Gregory o f Nazianzus, who declared that Christs death on the Cross effectively destroyed the tyranny of Satan. He says : F o r man to be sanctified by the humanity of God, it was necessary that H e Him self should free us from the tyrant, who had to be overcome by violence, and bring 11s back to H im self through the mediation of H is
3 1 J. R iv i re , Le D og m e de la D o ctrin e o f the A to n em en t, V o l. I I ,
33 In

R ed e m p tio n , P a ris, 19 0 5, (E n g lish translation by L . C ap padelta, in 2 vo ls., London 1909)- T h e above passage is quoted fro m V o l. I I , pp. 1 1 1 sq. o f the E n g lish translation . O ve r one-half o f the second volum e is devoted to a discussion o f T h e D e v il s R ig h ts.
32 C fr .

M a tth.,

pp. 1 1 3 sqq. 18 , 8 ; I n lo a n ., 6,

35. fi\aO(j>rinos a v o id . D e R ecta in D eu m F id e , I , 2 7 (M ig n e ,

34 iro W i]

P . G ., X I , 1 7 5 6 sq .). 35 C fr . R ivire-C ap p ad elta, The D o ctrin e o f the A to n em en t, V o l. I I , pp. 1.24 sqq.

K ivicre-C ap p ad elta ,

The

TH E R LE OF TH E D E V IL

53

Son. 38 There was a modicum o f truth in Origens the ory. B y the sin o f our first parents Satan had become, not indeed the absolute master o f the human race, but the instrument o f 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. V ery properly, therefore, does St. Augustine 38 attribute our release from the captivity of Satan to the sacrificial character of Christs death on the Cross and H is 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 o f 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. 39 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 o f Clairvaux who first developed this thought into the formal notion of vicarious atonement. The prince o f this world came and found nothing in the Saviour, he w rites; 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 D e A g n o P a sc h a li, 22 . 37 C fr . Jo h n X I I , 3 1 ;

X I V , 30 ; 2 the

teaching of S t. A u g u stin e c fr . R ivie re -C ap p ad elta, op. cit., I I , 14 6 sqq.

30 D e

C or. I V , 4 ; H eb. I I , 14. 38 D e T rin it., I V , 1 3 . On

T rin it., X I I I ,

1 3 , 14 , 15 .

54

TH E WORK OF REDEM PTIO N

the power of the Devil. B y what justice could this have been exacted from man, since it was man who owed and man who paid the debt? F or if one died for all, [says the Apostle, 2 Cor. V , 14 ], then all were d ead : 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 decaying doctrine which was now superfluous, if not actually dangerous. 41 The abuse-of-power theory made way for St. Anselm s fo r 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. W e 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. C fr. John III , 16 : God
4 0 " V c n it p rin cep s hu iu s m u n d i ct in S a lva to re n o n in ven it quidquant. E t quum nihilom iitus inn ocen ti m antis in iecit, itistissim e quos tenebat am isit, quando is qtti m orti nihil debebat, accepta m ortis inittria iu re iliu m , qu i o bn ox iu s crat, ct

N a m si n u n s ( in qu it) pro om nibus m ortu u s est, ergo om nes m ortui su nt (.? C o r. V , 1 4 ) : u l vid e lice t satisfoctio unitts om nibus im pu tetu r . . . quia caput et corp u s units est C h ristu s. S a tisfe cit ergo caput pro tnem bris, C h ristu s pro visce rib u s s u is ." D e E r r o r ib u s A b a c la rd i, cap. 6. * 1 R ivie re -C ap p a d elta , op. cit., I I , 220.

m ortis

dcbito

et

diaboli

so lvit

do-

1111110. Q ua cnim iustitia id secu nd o ab hom ine e x ig e r c t u r f H o m o siquidem qui debuit, homo qu i so lvit.

SATISFACTIO N AND M ERIT

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 o f H is 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 Gods 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 H arn ack43 and P fleiderer44 have raised against the theory of satisfaction championed by the Scholas tics, notably St. Anselm.
4. tio n T h e D is tin c tio n B e tw e e n S a tis fa c

a n d M e r i t . 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
44 R elig io n sp h ilo sop h ie, V o l. II, 2n d ed., B e r lin 18 8 4 , pp. 4 6 7 sqq.

42 C fr . also E p h . I , 3 sqq., I I , 4 sq q .; T it. I l l , 4 sq., and 1 P et. I , 3. 4 3 G ru n d riss d e r D o g m en g esch ich

te, 4th ed., pp. 30 4 sqq.

56

TH E WORK OF REDEM PTIO N

for the benefit of another and entitled to a re w ard.45 Satisfaction supposes a creditor who insists on receiving his just dues, merit a debtor bound to give a reward. I f the reward is a matter of justice, we have a meritmn dc 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 v ie w : ( I ) A s to their reality, (2 ) as to the time when they were acquired, (3 ) as to their object 01* 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 H is most holy Passion on the wood of the Cross. The same sacred Council employs the phrase : P e r meritmn unins medicttoris Dom ini nostri Iesit Christi, and anathematizes those who say, Homines sine Christi institia, per qitam nobis mernit instiHcari, ant per earn ipsam form aliter iustos esse/ 40 Isaias regarded the Redemption as a meritorious work. Is. L I I I , 10 : And the Lord was pleased to bruise him in infirm ity: if he shall lay down his life for sin, he shall see a long-lived seed [/. 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
* 5 " M e ritu m est opus bonum in fa vo rem o lterius tnercede v e l praem io d ig n u m ."
48 C on e. T r id .,

S ess. V , can. 3 ; S ess. V I , can . 10 . C f r . D e n z in g er-B a n n w a rt, E n c h ir idion, n. 799, 790, 820.

Se ss.

V I,

cap.

7;

T H E M ERITS OF CH RIST

57

materially identical; the Redeemer laid God under ob ligation while satisfying His just claims. But since He merited not only grace fo r us, but likewise extrinsic glory for Him self, His merits exceed the limits o f 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 H is 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 o f the term) outside of the period of His earthly pilgrimage (status viae). Hence the terminus ad quem was the moment o f H is death.47 That this is the teaching of H oly Scripture may be gathered from such texts as John IX , 4 s q .; Heb. IX , 12, X , 1 1 sqq. True, St. Paul teaches that the glorified Redeemer continues to make intercession for us in Heaven. 48 But the in tercession H e 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 L ord s merito rious actions? A man cannot perform any meritorious deeds before he has attained to the full use o f 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 concep47 T h e question w hether this lim itation o f C h rist s m erito rio us action

to an in testine n ecessity, is p u rely specu lative, and w ill be discussed in Esch a to lo gy. 48 Rom . V I I I , 3 4 ; H eb . V I I , 25.

is based upon a positive and free decree o f God, or w hether it is due

58

T H E WORK OF REDEM PTIO N

tion.^9 Hence the terminus a quo of His meritorious actions was the first moment of His existence as Godman.50

c) The principal object of Christs 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 Christs merits, is a theologically certain conclusion.51 Capreolus denied i t ; 52 but the Tridentine Council, in teaching, Ips'uts iustificationis exordium in adultis a D ei per Christum lesum praeveniente gratia sumendum e sse evidently employs the phrase per Christum le s u m in the sense o f per meritum Cliristi Iesu. It is likewise an article o f 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 o f Jesu s Christ.53 Our Lord Him self inculcates this by the parable o f the vine and its branches.54 Christ also merited a reward for Him self, which con sists chiefly in His extrinsic glorification after death. C fr. Luke X X I V , 26 : N onne haec oportuit pati Chri stum et ita intrare in gloriam su a m ? Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into his g lo r y ? Phil. II, 9 : Propter quod et Dens exaltavit ilium et donavit illi nomen, quod est super omne nomen
49 C fr . P o h le -P re u ss, C h risto lo g y, 53 C f r . C one. T rid e n t., S e ss . V I , pp. 2 5 9 sqq. cap. 1 6 ; S ess. X I V , cap. 8. (D e n so C fr . H eb. X , 5. z in g er-B a n n w a rt, n. 809, 90 4.) 51 C fr . 2 T im . I , 9. 04 Jo h n X V , 5. On the gra ce of >2 C fr . F . Ste n tru p , r S o teriolo gia , predestination c fr . S t. T h o m as, thes. 36 . T h e o l., 3a , qu. 19, art. 3.

T H E M ERITS OF CHRIST

59

Fo r which cause God also exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above all names. Heb. II, 9 : " Videmus Iesum propter passionem mortis gloria et honore coronatum W e see Jesus . . . for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor. It is conse quently unscriptural to hold, as Calvin did, that Christs love for the human race prompted Him to waive all claims to His own honor.55 In determining the scope o f Christs merits, Saint Thomas proceeds as follow s: 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. 56 Hence, he continues, Christ merited neither grace, nor knowledge, nor beati tude of soul, nor Divinity (/. e., the Hypostatic U nion). A s 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 o f 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 o f the atonement, which we shall treat below, Sect. 2, Art.

2 58
55 C f r . B eilarm in e, D e C h risto, V ,

B-io.
56 S'. T h e o l., 3a , qu. 19 , art. 3. 57 I. c. C fr . S im a r, L e h rb u ch der D ogm atik, V o l. I , 4th ed., pp. 53.2 sqq., F re ib u rg 18 9 9 .

58 O n the w hole su b ject dealt w ith in this subdivision o f ou r treatise consult P esch , P ra e le c tio n e s D o g m aticae, V o l. I V , 3rd ed., pp. 2 5 2 sqq., F r ib u r g i 190 9.

SECTION

THE PROPERTIES OF CHRIST'S VICARIOUS ATONE MENT

A R T IC L E i
IN T R IN S IC P E R F E C T IO N OF TH E ATO NEM ENT

Christs 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. B y 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. I f 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 m ajority of Catholic theologians. Proof. The reality of Christs vicarious atonement is an article of faith, with which we
60

ADEQ UACY OF TH E ATO NEM ENT

61

have already dealt {supra, Sect. i ) . In the present thesis we are merely concerned with its intrinsic properties. A s the Church has never defined these, the Scotists were free to estimate them differently than the m ajority of Catholic divines.
The Scotists and the Nominalists hold that Christs vicarious atonement derives its adequacy not from its own intrinsic merit, but from the accidental circumstance o f 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. C fr. 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 undefiled. 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 R e deemer was equivalent to the guilt of sin.
1 D e I n c a r n ., disp. 4, sect. 3, n. 1 1 . 2 P re tiu m , \ v r p o v . 3 P re tio V I , 20. m agno, n/Jiijs. 1 C or.

62

TH E WORK OF REDEM PTION

Moreover, the Bible tells us that the Godman im molated H im self in expiation for our sins. Hence the satisfaction He gave to H is Heavenly Father must be of equal value with Himself, and therefore, to say the least, adequate. C fr. I Tim. II, 5 sq .: There is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesu s: who gave himself a redemption for all (m'Aut/>ov). The graphic term avriXvrpov^ which St. Paul here employs instead of plain \vTpov} shows that he conceives the redemption for all as a full equivalent for sin. Quanta iniuria , tanta s a t i s f a c t i o 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 L o rd s sacrifice on the Cross, in contradistinction to the multiplicity of the inef fective offerings of the Levites. Cfr. Heb. IX , 12 and 28: B y his own blood he entered once 4 into the holies, having obtained eternal redemp tion. . . . So also Christ was offered once 5 to exhaust the sins of many. b) Patristic texts in support of our thesis will be found infra, p. 7 1. A convincing theologi cal argument for the adequacy of the atone ment may be deduced from the concept of our L ord s natural mediatorship {supra, Ch. I, Sect.
0
4 S e m e l, a ir a . c S e m e l, aira.%.

ADEQUACY OF TH E ATONEM ENT

63

) B y virtue of the 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.0 But an atonement, the expiatory power of which is, morally considered, infinite, cannot be conceived otherwise than as adequate. P) The Scotists and the Nominalists are con sequently in error when they teach that the meri torious and expiatory value of Christs 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 m ajority of Scotist theologians, including such later authors as Frassen, De Rada, and Henno, undoubtedly underestimated the meritoriousness of Christs 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 Christs human actions, because performed by the exalted person of the Godman, were invested with a certain equitable claim to
6 C fr . P o h le-P reu ss, C h ristolo g y, pp. 1 6 1 sqq. 7 Infin itas extrin seca ob benignam D e i acceptationem . 8 Infin itas intrinseca ob va lorem innatum .
9 S co tu s, C om m ent, in Q uatuor L ib ro s S e n t., I l l , dist. 19 . H a u zeu r and a fe w other Sco tists attem pted to reconcile their m aster s teach ing with the sententia com m unis, but in vain .

64

T H E W ORK OF REDEM PTIO N

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. A s 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. M astrius and a few others restrict the Scotistic theory to the thesis (which no one denies) that, to render H is atonement valid in actn secundo, our Divine Saviour had first to assure Him self of its acceptation on the part of God, not indeed ;p er modum principii dignificaulis, but per modum conditionis prcieviae. This is beside the question. W hat 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 Gods extrinsic acceptation. Their basic error consists in this that they fail to distinguish be tween the physical entity and the ethical value of Christs meritorious actions, confounding the finite character of the former with the infinity of the latter. Justly, therefore, do the Thomists 10
10 C fr . liillu art, D c In c a n t., iliss. 19 , art. 5.

ADEQ UACY OF TH E ATO NEM ENT

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 principium quod, employing the finite nature merely as principium quo. W ere 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 I I : 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 Christs 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. c., measured by the stand ard of strict justice (secundum rigorem iustitiae).
In other words, it was not necessary for Gods 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
1 1 On the un certain teaching o f S co tu s c fr . P . M in g es, O. F . M ., C om p end . T h eo l. D ogm at. S p e cia lis, V o l. I, pp. 2 1 3 sqq., M o nachii 1 9 0 1 ; T heologisclie Q u a rla lsc h rifl, T u b in gen, 1907, pp. 241 sqq. O n the general su b ject o f this thesis c fr. also D e L u g o , D e M y s t. I n c a r n ., disp. 6, sect. 1 ; Scheeb en, D o g m alik, V o l. I l l , 2 5 1 , F r e ib u r g 18 8 2 .

66

TH E W ORK OF REDEM PTIO N

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 D e Deo U n o 12 to show that the only kind of. relation possible between God and H is 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 debtors 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 histitiae. However, the sententia communior rests on fairly solid ground.
a) That Christ fulfilled the first of the conditions enumerated was shown in Thesis I. /?) Condition number two demands that debtor and
12 C f r . P o h le-I reuss, G o d : H is K n o w a b ility , E s se n c e and A ttrib u te s, pp. 4 5 7 sqq.

ADEQUACY OF TFIE ATONEM ENT

67

creditor must be separate and distinct persons. " Satisfactio debet esse ad alterum. No one can be his own debtor. How could Christ fulfil this condition? Since He is Him self 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. Humanitys creditor was not the Father alone, but the whole Trinity.13 The right solution seems to be th is: In atoning for our sins, Christ acts both as man and as God, and hence makes satisfaction virtually as a double person: ( 1 ) the man Jesu s makes satisfaction to God for our sins in H is human nature, as if He were a different person from the Logos; (2) The Logos, as God, accepts this satisfaction. I f Christ, as man, was able to practice the virtues of obedience and worship towards Him self as God, it can be no contradiction to say that, as man, H e gave satisfaction to Him self, qua God, ac cording to the strict measure o f justice. W e must, however, beware of misinterpreting the ex pression duplex persona moralis, as Berruyer (a pupil of Hardouin) did when he asserted that the humanity o f our Lord was a quasi-sup position, to which, as to a distinct human person, must be ascribed certain actions of Christ which had 110 intrinsic hypostatic connexion with the P er son o f the Logos.14 y) The third of the conditions enumerated above is
13 W h a t does it m ean to be the m ediator betw een G od and m e n ? asks S t. A u g u stin e , and an sw e rs the question as fo llo w s : I t m eans to be a m ediator not betw een the F a th e r and m en, but betw een G od and m en. W h a t is G o d ? H e is F a th e r, So n , an d H o ly Ghost. . . . C h rist w as constituted m ediator betw een this T r in it y and the in firm ity

E n n a r . in P s ., 29 , 2 , 1. 14 On this dangerou s erro r see L e g ra n d , D e In c a rn ., diss. 1 1 , P a ris i8 6 0 ; von Sch a zle r, D a s Dogm a vo n d er M e n sc h w e rd u n g G ottes, 24, F r e ib u r g 1 8 7 0 ; Scheeb en, D ogm atik, V o l. I l l , pp. 29 sqq., F r e ib u r g 1 8 8 2 ; B . D orh olt, D ie L e h re von d e r Gem igtu u n g C hristi, pp. 4 3 5 sqq., T aderborn 18 9 1.

and

in iq u ity

of

m en .

68

TH E WORK OF REDEM PTIO N

that the debtor must pay his liability out of his own be longings. Satisfactio debet fieri ex bonis propriis. Did Christ fulfil this condition ? A s He was a man, His power o f giving satisfaction for our sins (vis merendi sive satisfaciendi) must have been a grace, i. e., a free gift o f God. and consequently the atonement cannot have been a payment made by Him out of His own means. Even the supernatural merits o f a justified man, being due to pure grace, cannot satisfy rigorous justice. Indeed we may broadly say that, as man possesses nothingo f his own, but has received everything he has from God, whether by creation or by grace, so Christs human nature, which was the principium quo o f His meritorious and expiatory ac tion, was not H is own but a gift o f the debtor, i. e., God. This objection may be met as follow s: 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 o f 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.1'1 8) We come to the fourth condition: Satisf actio
15

pp.

C fr . P o h le-P reu ss, 1 3 2 sqq.

C h rislo lo g y,

1 C fr . Y sam b ert, D e M y st. In c a m ., disp. 6, art. 2 - 3 , P a r is 16 3 9 .

ADEQ UACY OF TH E ATO NEM ENT

69

debet esse ex alias i n d e b i t i s 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 o f 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. ( 1 ) The rigor iustitiac, 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. Satisfactio 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

T H E WORK OF REDEM PTIO N

surrendering his right to personal satisfaction. He does not remit the debt, nor any part thereof, but merely com mutes it into something o f equal value.17

Thesis I I I : The satisfaction which Christ made for our sins was more than adequate and rigorous; it was superabundant.
This thesis may be characterized as com
munis, since it is held by practically all theolog

ical schools. Proof, a) A Scriptural argument may be drawn from St. P auls antithetical sentences in tracing the analogy between Adam and Christ. C fr. Rom. V , 1 5 : 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. 19 And even more point edly Rom. V , 20: Where sin abounded,20 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 C fr . on the su b ject o f these condition s and their fulfilm ent b y 19 In

18 M itlto m agis, 7ro\\a> /jLaW ov. p lu rc s a bu nd a vit, e l s t o v s

C h rist: F ra n z e lin , D c V erb o In c a r n ., thes. 4 7 , Rom e 1 8 8 1 (n ew edition, 1 9 1 0 ) ; B. D orlio lt, D ie L e h r e von d c r G en u gtu u n g C h rist:, pp. 4 24 sqq., I adcrborn 1 8 9 1 : T ep e. Inst. T h c o L . V o l. Ill, pp. 6 3 9 sgq., P a ris 1896.

iro W o v s irep ia a tva ev20 A b u n d a v it, irX eo vaa ev, 21 S u p e ra b u n d a n t gratia, vrrepe22 C'fr. irc p ia a fv a e v tj X PSKpli. i , 3 - 8 ; Jo h n X , 10 .

TH E ATONEM ENT SU PERABU N D AN T

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 its. 23 St. Chrysostom exemplifies this truth as follow s: Our experience has been like that of a man who was cast into prison with his w ife 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) I f Christs 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
23 C atech ., 3 3 , c. 1 3 . 2 4 Horn, in E p . ad R o m ., 10, 2. A d d itio n al P atristic texts apud P eta v., X I I , 9 and T h o m assin , I X , 9. C fr . also B . D o rh olt, D ie L e h r e von d er G e nu gtu u ng C h risti, pp. 3 7 6 sqq., 4 1 9 sq q .; M u th , D ie H eilstat C h risti, pp. 2 2 8 sqq.

72

TH E WORK OF REDEM PTIO N

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 Godman. The dignity of Christs 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. 20 A s a matter of fact, the intrinsic moral value of an action varies in proportion to the dignity of him who perform s 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 Christs vicari ous atonement, it is not necessary to have recourse to its superabundant m erit; the proposition follows as a corollary from the fact of its mere adequacy. I f no one but a Godman was able to give adequate satisfaction for our sins, each and every one of Christs 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. A s to the question, why the meritorious actions of our Lord had of necessity to culminate in His dolorous pas sion and death, St. Thomas s a y s : I f we regard the amount paid for the redemption o f the human race, any suffering undergone by Christ, even without death, would
2o " O p e r a C h r is li D o m in i habuisse va lorem absolute el sim p lieiter in finitum ad sa tisfa cien du m et m eren dum apud D e u m ." D e I n c a r n ., disp. 4 , sect. 4, 11. 3 . On the untenableness o f the Sco tistic o f extrin sic acceptation v. th eo ry supra,

pp. 63 sqq. 2 G 6 . T h e o l., 3a . qu. 4 8, a rt. 2 , ad 3. C f r . S u a re z , op. eit., n. 17 sqq.

TH E ATO N EM EN T SU PERA BU N D A N T

73

have sufficed for the redemption of the human race, on account of the infinite dignity o f H is person. . . . But if we regard the payment of the price, it must be ob served that no other suffering less than Christs death was deemed sufficient by God the Father and by Christ Him self to redeem the human race. 27

P) 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 H oly See. Am ong the propositions of B ajus condemned by Pope Pius V in the year 1567 is the follow ing: 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 H is Person/ How high is this value to be rated? Evidently it must have corresponded to the infinite dignity of the Godman, 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 ccU nigeni27 " S i ergo lo quam ur de red em p tione hum ani g e n e ris quantum ad quantitatem pretii, sic quaelibet passio C h risti etiam sin e m orte su ffecis set od red em p tio nem hum ani ge-

n e ris a D eo P a tre et C hristo aliae passiones C h risti absque m o rte. Q uodlib. 2 , a rt 2. C fr . D o rh olt, op. cit., pp. 405 sqq. 28 O pera iustitiae et tem perantiae, quas C h ristu s fe c it, e x dignitate p ersonae operantis non tra xeru n t m aiorem va lo rem . P ro p . 19 (D en z in g er-B a n n w a rt, E n c h ir id io n , n. 10 19 ).

neris p ro p ter infinitam dignitatem personae . . . S i autem loquam u r quantum ad deputationem pretii, sic dicendum est quod non sunt d ep u tatae ad redem ptionem hum ani g e -

T H E WORK OF RED EM PTIO N

tus of Pope Clement V I, A. D. 13 4 3 : 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 [H y postatic] Union with the Logos, but streams of it, like unto a river. . . . T hat 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. W e may, however, safely assume that Clement V I intended to represent the treasure of C hrists merits as actually infinite, for this is the obvious meaning of his words, considered both in
29 " N o n guttam sa n g u in is m odicam , quae tam en p ro p ter u nionem ad V erb u m pro red em p tio n e totius hum ani g en e ris su ffecisset, sed copiose velu t quoddam p ro flu vu im noscitur effudisse . . . Q uantum ergo e xin d e , ut nec su p erva cu a , inanis et su per flua tantae effusionis m isera-

tio re d d eretu r, thcsaurum m ilitanti E c c lc s ia c o c q u is k it , v o le n s suis thesaurizare filiis piu s P a te r, nt sic sit infinitus thesau ru s hotninibus, quo qu i usi sunt D e i am icitiae participes sunt effecti. D en zin ger B a n m v a rt, E n c h ir id io n , n. 55 0 .

CH RIST DIED FOR A L L

75

themselves and in connection with the context. The doctrine of the superabundant merits of Jesus Christ and H is 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
A R T IC L E 2
E X T R IN S IC P E R F E C T IO N OR U N IV E R S A L IT Y OF TH E

ATO NEM ENT

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 o f the atonement objectively coincides with the universality o f Gods will to save the entire human race (voluntas 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. O f the faith ful, 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 hereti30 In connection w ith the S a cram en t o f

P en an ce.

76

T H E W ORK OF RED EM PTIO N

cally asserted that It savours of Sem i-Pelagianism to say that Christ died, or shed H is 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, /. e. (in the New Testament) all who have received the Sacrament of Baptism, be they in fants or adults. F o r 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 Thessalonians: For God hath not appointed us unto wrath, but unto the purchasing* of salva tion by our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us. 3 A gain, Christ Himself, assuredly the most faithl " S e m ip e la g ia n u m est d ice re , C h ristu m pro o m nibus om nino hom inibus m ortuu m esse out sangu inem fu d isse . " P r o p . D a m n . la n s e n ii, 5 (D e n z in g e r-B a n m v a rt, n. 10 9 6 ) . E n c h ir id io n , 2 " . . . qu i p ro p ter nos hom ines et p ro p ter nostram salutem de scen d ii de coelis. 3 1 T h e ss. V , 9 sq.

CH RIST DIED FOR A L L

77

fui exponent of the Divine W ill, in the touching prayer which He pronounced as the H igh Priest of humanity, included all the faithful, in fact, indirectly, the whole human race. Cfr. John X V I I , 20 sq. : N o n pro eis [scil. Apostolis]
autem rogo tantum, sed et pro eis qui credituri su n t 4 per verbum eorum in me, . . . ut credat mundus / quia tit me misisti And not for them [/. 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 rrsaltern fidei
proxim o.

Proof. The Provincial Council of Quiercy (A . D. 853) defined against Gottschalk: A s 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 H e has not suffered; though not all
4 irepl t w v iriffrevoPTU V. 5 h a K cr/jLos 7Tiarevffri. 6 D e In carti., X I I I , 2 sq. 7 n the m isrepresentation A u g u stin e s teach ing b y the Ja n se n ists consult D echam ps, D e H a e r e s i Jansentan a , 1. I I , disp. 7 . o f S t.

;8

T H E WORK OF REDEM PTIO N

are redeemed by the m ystery of H is passion. 8 Pope A lexander V II I, A. D. 1690, form ally con demned the proposition that Christ gave H im 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 H is blood, for our sins; and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole w orld/ 10 a) This Tridentine teaching is thoroughly Scriptural, in fact it is couched in the very lan guage of Holy W rit. Cfr. 1 John II, 2 : E t ipse est propitiatio 11 pro pcccatis nostris, non pro
nostris autem tantum, seel cticim pro totius m itn d i 12 He is the propitiation for our sins:

and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. 1 Tim. II, 6 must be interpreted in consonance with the text just quoted. Qui
8 "C h r is t u s le s u s D . N . , sicut n u lu s homo est, fa it v e l erit, cu iu s natura in illo assum pta non fu e rit, ita tiullus est, fu it v e l erit hom o, pro quo passus non fn e rit, licet non om ncs passionis eiits m ysterio re dim a n tu r. T h e co n tro versies incident to the C ou n cil o f V a le n c e ( A . D . 8 5 5 ) w ere due to a m isunderstand ing. C f r . B. D o rh olt, D ie L e h r e von d er G e n u gtu u n g C h risti, pp. 3 2 3 sqq. 9 " . . . dedit sem etipsum pro nobis oblationem D e o , non pro solis electis, se d pro om nibu s et so lis fidelibu s. (D e n z in g e r-B a n n w a rt, En ch irid io n , n. 12 9 4 .) 10 " H u n c proposuit D e u s propitiatorem p er fidem in sa n g u in e ipsiu s pro peccatis n o stris, non solum autem pro nostris, sed etiam pro totius m u n d i." C one. T r id ., S e ss . V I , cap. 2 (D e n z in g e r-B a n n w a rt, n. 7 9 4 )1 1 IXaa/xos'\o v r o v k 6<j xov.

12 dX X a

Kal irepl

CH RIST DIED FOR A L L

79

dedit redcmptioncm semetipsum pro omnibus [scil. hominibits] Who gave himself a redemp tion for all [?. e., for all m en].5 The context

shows that St. Paul means to emphasize the universality of Gods will to save all men. W e 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. S i nuns pro omnibus 13 mortuus est, ergo omnes 14 mortui sunt I f 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 Gods 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 Predestinarianism. It is to be noted that the famous A frican Doctor was warm ly defended against this calumnious charge by one of his contempo raneous disciples, St. Prosper of Aquitaine.10
i s virep w a v r w v ' 1 4 ot ira vre s. 15 F o r an explan ation o f this te x t see A l. S c h fe r , E rk l r u n g d e r beid en B r ie fe an die K o rin th e r, pp. 4 3 9 sqq., M n ster 19 0 3 . 16 W e cannot en ter into the contro v e rs y here. T h e student w ill find it ex h au stiv ely treated by D rholt, L e h r e vo n d er G en u gtu u n g C h risti, P ad erb o rn 18 9 6 , pp. 3 1 7 sqq., by T rica ssin , D e P ra ed estin a tione, p. I , sect. 7 , punct. 4 sqq., an d b y F ra n z e lin , D e D eo U n o , thes. 3 2 , R om e 18 8 3 . T h e fa te o f unbaptized in fa n ts w ill be discussed in V o l. V I I o f this series.

So

TH E WORK OF REDEM PTIO N

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
( a 7r o K a r a o r a c r t s
7r a i 'T w i ')

y/aS closely related

tO

another, harbored by the same learned but erratic divine, v iz .; 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.
. . . . 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.1S 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 Tertullian, yet a restoration was never promised
5 5 3 ' 17
17 C fr . D e n z in g e r, E n c h ir id io n , ed. 9, n. 19 3 and 198 . F r . D iekam p ( D ie o rig en istisch en S tre itig k e ite n iwt 6. Ja h rh itn d e rt u n d das V . allgem eine K o n sil, M n ste r 18 9 9 ) has put a quietus on an ancien t co n tro v ersy b y show ing that O rigen ism w as con-

G en eral C ou n cil in 5 5 3 , though the acta o f the la tter do not m ention the fact. C fr . C h r. P esch , S . J . , T h co log isch e Z e itfra g e n , V o l. I I , F r e ib u r g 19 0 1. i s C fr . P oh le-P reu ss, G od the A u thor o f N a tu r e and the S u p c rn a tu ra l, pp. 34 0 sqq.

demned both by the C oun cil o f Constantinople in 5 4 3 an d by the F ift h

W H Y SOME A R E LOST

81

them. No charge about the salvation of angels did Christ ever receive from the Fath er; and that which the Father neither promised nor com manded, Christ could not have undertaken. 19

Thesis I V : 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 H e died for all, yet not all receive the benefit of H is death, but those only unto whom the merit of H is Passion is communicated/ 20 According to H oly Scripture, the universality of Christs 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, v is .: bap tism, faith, contrition, cooperation with grace, perseverance. C fr. M ark X V I, 16 : Q u icred iderit et baptisatus fuerit, salvits erit; qui vero non crcdiderit, condemnabitiir He that be-

lieveth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned.
19 D e C a m e C h risti, c. 14 . C f r . D o rh olt, L e lir e vo n d er G e n u gtu u n g C h risti, pp. 3 5 3 sqq. O n the participation o f the good angels in the m erits o f the R edeem er see P oh leP re u ss, C h risto lo g y, pp. 2 4 3 sqq.

,20 V erunt etsi ille pro om nibus m ortu u s est, non om nes tatnen eins beneficium recip iu n t, sed ii dttmtaxat, quibu s m eritum passionis com m u n ica tu r. S e ss. V I, cap. 3. D e n z in g er-B a n n w a rt, n. 7 9 5 .

82

T H E W ORK OF RED EM PTIO N

The blood of thy L ord , observes St. A ugus tine, is given for thee, if thou w ilt; if thou wilt not, it is not given for thee. 21
Theologians distinguish between Gods antecedent and H is consequent will to save men. Antecedently He willed to save all men without exception, even those who are lost; volntate consequenti, however, the damned are in fact, though not in principle, excluded from the fruits o f the Redemption. It is correct to say, however, in spite o f 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 o f 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 snfficientiam, non tamcn secundum cfcaciam. 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 H is death made sufficient satis faction for the sins o f 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 o f the first man was, after a fashion, the universal cause o f damnation. But it is nec essary that the universal cause be applied to each one
2 1 S e r m ., 3 4 4 , n. 4.

W HY SOME A R E LOST

83

in particular, that each may participate in its effect. The effect of the sin o f our first parents descends to each one o f us by the propagation of the flesh, while the effect o f our Saviours 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
2 2 " Q ua m vis autcm sufficienter pro peccatis hum ani g en e ris stid tnorfe sa tisfecerit, sunt tamen u n ic u iqu e rem ed ia pro priae salu tis qua erend a . M o r s enim C h risti est quasi quaedam u n iversa lis causa salutis, sicut peccatum p rim i ho m in is fu it quasi u n iversa lis causa dam nationis. O portet autcm u n iversa lem causam applicari ad unu m quo d qu e sp ecia liter, ut effectum univ c rsa lis causae participet. E ffe c tu s igitu r p ecca ti p rim i p arentis p erven it ad u nu m qu em q u e p er c arn is originem , effectus autein m ortis C h risti p ertingit ad u n u in qu em qu e p er spiritu alem reg en era tio n em . . . et ideo oportet qu o d nnu squ isqu e quaerat re g en e ra ri p er C hristu m et alia suscip ere, in qu ibu s v irtu s m ortis C h risti o pera tu r. C ontra G ent., I V , 5 5 , sub. fin. 23 C fr . D o rh olt, op. cit., pp. 3 0 7 sqq., 3 3 0 sqq.

SECTION
TH E CONCRETE R E A L IZ A T IO N

3
OF C H R IS T S V IC A

R IO U S A T O N E M E N T

111 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 ? W e p r a y : B y Thy holy Cross Thou hast redeemed the world. This does not imply that our Divine Saviours previous actions had no reference to the purpose of the Redemption. His whole life, from H is conception to His death on the Cross, was a chain o f expiatory actions, each in itself sufficient to redeem the world in actu primo. But it was an essential feature of the scheme of salvation that in actu secundo, i. e., actually, no satisfaction was accept able but that which had its consummation in the trag edy 011 Golgotha. In the present Section, therefore, we shall first treat o f Christs Death on the Cross (Article 1) and then of two subsequent events o f peculiar soteriological import, via.: His Descent into Hell (Article 2) and His Glori ous Resurrection (Article 3 ).

84

CH R ISTS DEATH

85

A R T IC L E 1
C h r i s t 's
d e a t h o n t h e

.
cr o ss

W e are here considering the death of our D i vine Redeemer not as a sacrifice, but merely as the means of our salvation. It was by H is passion and death that Jesus actually redeemed mankind. The circumstance that H is death was a bloody sacrifice constitutes Him a priest; this aspect of the matter will receive due attention in P art II, Chapter 1, infra. 1. C h r i s t s D e a t h t h e E f f i c i e n t C a u s e o f o u r R e d e m p tio n . 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: O f this justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the g lo ry of God and of Jesu s Christ, . . . while the efficient cause is a m erciful God; . . . but the m eritorious cause is H is most beloved only-begotten Son, our L o rd Jesu s Christ, who . . . merited justification for us by H is most holy Passion on the wood of the Cross and made satisfaction fo r us to God the F ath er. 1
1 " H u iu s iustificationis causae le s u s C h ristu s, qu i . . . sua sanctissunt finalis quidem gloria D e i et sim a passione in ligno c n ic is nobis C h risti, . . . efficiens vero m iseriiustificationem m eruit et pro nobis cors D e u s, . . . m eritoria autem dilectissim us U n ig e n itu s suu s D . N . D eo P a t ri [sc il. p er ap prop ria tio nem ] sa tisfe cit. C on e. T rid .,

86

T H E WORK OF RED EM PTIO N

So important a dogma must loom large in the New Testament and be at least foreshadowed in the Old. a) A part 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 , 3 invariably describes it as a dolorous passion fol lowed by death.4 The 2 1s t 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. A ll they that saw me have laughed me to scorn: they have spoken with the lips, and w agged the head. . . . M y strength is dried up like a pot sherd, and my tongue hath cleaved to my ja w s: 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
S e ss . V I , cap. w a rt, n. 7 9 9 ). 7 (D en z in g er-B a n n 4
3 Is. X L I I , 1 - 9 ; X L I X , 1 sq q .; L ,

sqq.,

L III,

sqq.

C fr.

M a a s,

2 On these and other types o f the op. cit., V o l. I I , pp. 2 3 1 sqq. su fferin g M essia s see A . J . M a a s, S . 4 See su p ra , pp. 46 sq. J . , C hrist in T y p e a n d P ro p h e c y , t> P s. X X I , 7 sqq. C f r . M a a s, op. V o l. I I , pp. 3 2 2 - 3 4 3 . cit., V o l. I I , pp. 2 6 4 - 2 8 7 .

CH RISTS DEATH

87

b) The New Testament fairly swarms with passages in support of the dogma. Christ H im self says: Filin s hominis non venit ministrari ,
sed ministrare, et dare animam sitam redeniptionem 9 pro in ultis The Son of man is not

come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many. 7 And again: S ic enim Dens dilexit mundum, ut
Filium suum unigenitum daret,s ut omuis qui credit in eiun, non pereat, sed habeat vitam aeternam 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 pepereit, he says, sed pro nobis omni bus tra d id it10 ilium He spared not even his own Son, but delivered him up for us all. 11 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 effnsione non fit rem issio 13 Without shedding of blood there is no remission. 14 Therefore, too, subjective salvation, i. e., the application of
6 XiiTpov ransom . 7 M atth. X X , 2 8 . 8 edcoKev 9 Jo h n I I I , 16 . 1 irapedwKi>' 1 1 R om . V I I I , 32 . 1 2 C fr . M atth. X X V I , 28. Kal x ^ p is a i fi a r e K x v t r i a s ev

y iv e r a i

acf>e<ns-

14 H eb . I X , 2 2 .

88

TH E WORK OF REDEM PTIO N

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. T h e C o n g r u it y o f C h r i s t 's D e a t h on t h e C ro ss. It w as fitting that Christ should die for us on the Cross. T h e reasons are adm irably developed by St. Thom as.17 W e must confine ourselves to a sum m ary of the most important of them.
a) It would have been unbecoming for the Redeemer to die of old age or disease,1S or to fall beneath the blows o f an assassin. H is 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 H is teaching. Nothing could have been more conducive to the spread o f 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 o f enthusiastic ad herents than many years o f teaching could have done. W hat 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 o f 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 P et. I , 2 : " aspersioncm sailg uinis le sti C h risti. C iv . Heb. I X , 1 3 sq. W 'C o n s u n im a tt n n e s t." Jo h n X I X , 30 . T h e P a tristic argu m ent

is developed b y T ep e, lu s t. T h e o l., V o l. I l l , pp. 6 5 1 sqq. 17 S'. T h e o l., 3a , qu. 46, art. 1 - 4 , 1 1 ; qu. 4 7 , a rt. 4 ; qu. 50, art. 1. i s C fr . P o h le-P reu ss, C h risto lo g y, pp. 8 1 sqq.

CH R ISTS 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 o f virtue. From both points of view the cruel drama enacted on Golgotha wras 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 o f the body.19 Hence it was eminently proper that our Divine Redeemer should by His bodily death de stroy the spell o f spiritual death and thereby restore man to that corporeal immortality which had been one of the prerogatives o f the human race in Paradise, but was fo r feited by sin. There is a striking parallel also between the first sinners desire to be like unto God and the self humiliation o f the Godman, between the tree of knowl edge and the wood of the Cross. The antithesis be tween Christs passion and death on the one hand, and sin 011 the other, may be traced in detail. Thus the unholy trinity of vices which we have inherited from our first parents concupiscence o f the eyes, concupiscence of the flesh, and pride of life received a tremendous blow by the bitter passion and death o f our Saviour, concupis cence of the eyes in the distribution of his garments, concupiscence o f the flesh in His disrobing and scourg ing, and pride of life in the imposition of the thorny crown and the crucifixion. /?) Nothing could produce a more impressive idea of the hideousness o f sin than the contemplation o f the
19 C fr . Rom . V , 7 sqq.

T H E WORK OF REDEM PTIO N

mangled and blood-stained body of our crucified R e deemer.-0 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 o f 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 o f 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 ch arity: 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. 22 Our crucified Redeemer is, moreover, a living and at tractive model o f 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? Y et the Passion of Christ has deprived both of their sting. St. Teresa had no other desire than either to die or to suffer (aut mori ant pati). Death, too, so terrible to human nature, has lost its horrors. With the crucifix clasped in his hands and the name o f the R e 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 o f refuge.23
20 On the ex ten sive and in ten sive m agnitude o f o u r L o r d s su fferin g see C fr . P esch , P r a e l. D ogm at., V o l. I V , pp. 26 7 sq q .; A . K lu g e , D a s S e e le n le id e n des IV elterl se rs, M a in z 19 0 5 . 2 1 H eb . V I,
6.

22 1 Jo h n IV 7, 10 . 23 C fr . the R om an C atech ism , P a r t I , ch. 5 , qu. 4, 1 4 ; B illu a rt, D e M y s t. C h risti, diss. 9, a rt. 1, and O sw ald , D ie E rl s u n g in C hristo J e s it, V o l. I I , 5, P ad erb o rn 18 8 7 .

CH RISTS D ESCENT INTO H E L L

91

A R T IC L E 2
C h r i s t s d e sce n t in to h e ll

The Oriental and the ancient Roman versions of the so-called Apostles Creed do not mention Christs Descent into hell. Blit the doctrine is contained in the Spanish, Gallic, and Aquilean re censions and in the symbol Qiiicunque wrongly attributed to St. Athanasius. Hence the descen sus ad inferos is commonly regarded as an article of faith. The Fourth Lateran Council (A . D. 1 2 1 5 ) teaches somewhat more explicitly: He descended into hell, . . . but H e 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 Calvins 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 defined,
1 " D escen d it ad in fe rn o s, . . . z in g er-B a n n w a rt, se d d escendit in anim a et re su rrex it 4 2 9 .) in c a m e : ascenditque p a rite r in u t r o q u e ." Caput F ir m ite r . (D en E n c h ir id io n } n. 2 D e M y st. V ita e C h risti, disp. 4 3, sect. 2, n. 7. 3 In s t., I I , 16 , 10.

TH E WORK OF REDEM PTIO N

but it is theologically certain that it was the socalled limbus patrnm ( sinus A b ra h a e). i. P r o o f o f t h e D ogm a fro m S a c r e d S c r ip t u r e a n d T r a d it i o n . The dogma of Christs Descent into hell is clearly contained both in Sacred Scripture and Tradition. a) Ps. X V , 10 : N on derelinques animam meant in inferno / ncc dabis Sanctum titum 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 C h rist: Providens [D avid] locutus
cst de resnrrectione Christi, quia neque derelictus est in inferno neque earo eius vidit corruptionem

Foreseeing this, he [D avid] spoke of the resur rection of Christ. F or neither was he left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption. 5 The Greek term which the V ulgate renders by infernum is P v . It cannot mean grave, as Beza contended, because the soul of Christ was not buried; nor can it mean death (which is Calvins 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.0
4 ri)v 'p i x y v els adovc A c ts I I , 3 1 . C fi\ A c ts X I I I , 3 5 . 6 C fr . B ellarm in e, D e C hristo, IN ',
6 - 1 2 ; M a a s, C hrist in T y p e and P ro p h e c y , V o l. I , pp. 14 0 sq q.; V o l. I I , pp. 3 3 8 sqq., esp. p. 3 7 2 .

C H R IST S DESCENT INTO H E LL

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 Christs 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 partes terrae cannot be applied to Christs 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 o f Christ preached10 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. Irenseus s a y s : For three days He dwelt in the place where the dead were. 11 Tertullian mentions Christs Descent into hell in several passages of his works. W e shall quote but one. Nor did He ascend into the heights of heaven before descending into the lower parts o f the earth, that He might there make the patriarchs and prophets partakers of H im self. 12 St. Augustine speaks with the authority of both Scripture
els r a K a r w r e p a fiep-q Tijs 777s. 8 E p h . I V , 9 sq. 9 1 Pet. I l l , 18 sqq. *0 etcripve p ra edicavit. 11 Nunc autem trib us diebu s con versa tu s est, u b i erant m o r tu i." A d v . H a erese s, V , 3 1 , 1 ; c f r . also A d v . H a erese s, I V , 2 7 , 2 . 1 2 " N e c ante ascendit in sublim iora coeloru m , quam d escendit in infe rio ra terraru m , ut illic patriarchas et proplietas com potes su i f a c e r e t ." D e A n in ta, c. 5 5 ; c fr . also c. 4, 7.

TH E WORK OF REDEM PTIO N

and Tradition when he says: W ho but an unbeliever would deny that Christ was in the nether world? 13

2.

M e a n in g o f t h e T e rm H e l l . In fer-

) 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 ( limbits in fa n tiu m ); or (d) the abode of the just men who lived before the coming of Christ ( limbus patriun). To which of these four places did Christ descend? a) The soul of our Lord did not descend to the abode of the damned.
Calvins blasphemous assertion that the soul o f Christ, from the beginning of His sacred Passion in the Garden of Gethsemane to the Resurrection, dwelled in the abode o f the damned, and there suffered the poena damni, is based on an untenable exaggeration o f the notion of vicarious atonement.11 It is not true, as Calvin held, that Christs Descent into hell constituted the climax o f the atonement. The atonement culminated on the Cross. ( Consummatnm c s t f ) Nor can we conceive o f any reasonable motive why our Lord should have descended into the gehenna of the damned. The hu man beings confined in that aw ful dungeon were abso13 " Q uis ergo n isi infid elis ttegaP . L ., X X X I I I , 7 1 0 ) . ve rit fu isse apud in fe r o s C h ris t u m ? itC fr . B ella rm in e, D e E p . 104 ad E v o d in m , c. 2 , 3 (M ig n e , V , 8.

mun ( St/s, xarwrara^ Hebrew,

C h risto ,

C H R IST S D ESCENT INTO H E L L

lutely irredeemable, even as the demons themselves.15 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 so u l; it was accomplished by H is virtual or dynamic presence, i. e., the exercise of H is divine power. Certain ancient ecclesiastical writers 17 held that on the occasion of H is 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 patram.

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.
W e 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
15 V . supra, Sect. 2, A r t . 2 , Thesis 4. 16 " D e scen d e n te C hristo ad in-

fe ro s c red id isse in crd u lo s et om nes exin de liberato s. D e H a e r ., 79. 17 E . 9-, C lem ent o f A le x a n d r ia and O rigen.

96

TH E WORK OF RED EM PTIO N

evidence. Tw o 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 o f an early beatitude. 1S 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 o f Christ merited the favor of being released from the temporal sufferings of purgatory on the occasion o f His descent. 19

c) W as it perhaps the mbits pueronun, i. e., the abode of children who die in the state of o rig 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 o f these children, be cause they have once for all arrived at their destination.
18 5 . T h e o l., 3 a , qu 5 1 , a rt. 3 : " l i l i s ve ro , qu i d elin e b o n tu r in p u rgatorio, spem g loria e co n sequ en d ae d ed it. 19 . . qui iam sufdcienter p u rgati erant, v e l etiani qui. duiu adhuc

v iv e r e n t, m eru eru nt p er fidem et devotio n cm ad m ortem C h risti, u t eo descend ente liberaren tu r a temp orali p u rgato rii poen a. (Ib id .) C fr . T.illuart, D e M y st. C h risti, diss. 1 1 , art. 3.

CH RIST'S DESCENT INTO H ELL

97

Nor can H e 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. A s these infants are absolutely irredeem able in virtue of Christs voluntas salvifica consequents,20 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 o f our Saviour.21 Their fate does not involve cruelty nor injustice on the part o f God, because, though deprived of the beatific vision, they enjoy a certain measure o f natural happiness.22

d) Consequently, the only place to which the soul of Christ can have descended during the triduum intervening between H is death and the Resurrection, is the limbus patnun, sometimes also called bosom of Abraham .
The limbus patnim 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 into the holies [/. e., Heaven] 23 was not yet
20 V . su pra, S ect. 2, A r t . 2 , T h e sis 4. . 2 1 C fr . S t. Th o m as, .S'. T h e o l., 3 a , qu. 52 , art. 7 : " P u e r i autcm , qui cum o rig in ali peccato d ecessera n t, nullo m odo fu e ra n t con iu n cti passion i C h risti p e r fidem et dilcctionem . N e q u e enim fidem propriam habere pa tu era n t, 'quia non habuerunt usum lib eri a rbitrii, n equ e p er fidem parentu m aut per a liquod fid ci sacram entum [sc il. baptistnum ] fu e ra n t a peccata o rig in ali m undati. E t ideo d escensu s C h risti ad in fe ro s h u iu sm ad i p u eros non li beravit ab in fe r n o . 22 C fr . P o h le-P reu ss, G od the A u th o r o f N a tu r e and the S u p e r natural, pp. 300 sqq. 23 C fr . H eb . X , 19 .

98

TH E WORK OF REDEM PTIO N

made manifest, whilst the former tabernacle [i. e.} the Old Testament] was yet standing. We may also infer the (form er)' existence of such a place from the fact that Holy Scripture adverts to a state of imprisonment as an intermediary stage on the w ay to Heaven.

3. S p e c u la t io n s R e g a r d in g t h e L o c a t io n o f t h e L im b o . T h e w ord 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 w as situated on the confines of hell, somewhere near the su rface of the earth. D ante and M ilton place the limbo at the outermost circle of hell.24 Since the geocentric has been sup planted by the Copernican w orld-view , we know that the ancient notions of above' and below are purely relative. Hence the traditional view with reg ard to the site of hell and the limbo does not appertain to the substance of dogma. T he m eagre data furnished by Revelation do not enable us to draw up a topographical map of the nether world. W e know no more about the whereabouts of hell than we know about the location of w hat w as once the limbo of the Fath ers. T he theological argum ents of certain Scholastic w riters, based on the geocentric con ception of the universe, can claim no probability, much less certitude.25
24

M ilto n , P a r a d ise L o st, I I I , 440 in

25 On

sqq.

the

the limbo see P . J . T o n e r C atholic E n c y c lo p e d ia , V o l.

CH R ISTS D ESCENT INTO H E L L

99

4. T h e S o te r io lo g ic a l S ig n ific a n c e o f C h r i s t s D e s c e n t in t o H e l l . Christologically our L o rd s Descent into hell must be conceived as an interm ediary stage between glorification and abasement. It partook of abasement in respect of the external circum stance of place, but it did not entail upon H is human nature any substantial or intrinsic alteration.20 From the soteriological point o f view the question as to the m eaning of C h rists Descent into hell re solves itself into another, nam ely, W hat w as its object or purpose?

W hat can have been our Saviours purpose in visiting the patriarchs? W e may safely assume that H is 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. L X V I I , 19 :
Ascendens in altnm captivcim duxit captivitatem to the inmates of the limbo, as if he

wished to say: Ascending into Heaven Christ leads aw ay with Him those who had been impris oned in the limbo.27
W e are informed o f the object o f our L ord s De scent into the limbo by St. Peter, who says in his
I X , pp. 2 5 6 sq q .; M am ach i, D e A n im a b u s lu sto ru m in S in n A b ra h a e ante C h risti M o rtem , R om e 17 0 6 . 26 C fr . I I . S im a r, D ogm atik, V o l. I , 3rd ed., p. 5 3 8 , F r e ib u r g 18 9 9 . 27 C f r . E p h . I V , 8.

100

TH E W ORK OF RED EM PTIO N

first E p is t le :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 o f 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. W hat 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 Christs preaching (Kypvy/xa) as a gospel, which means a message of joy. NeKpoi? ei^yyeAio-#?;, 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 o f N o e ? 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 ( x a l ) some who had abused Gods
28 i T et. 2 i v w
Trvei'/JLacriv

Ill,
Kal

18

sqq. ei>
K r jp v ^ e v ,

31 C f r .

St.

A u g u stin e ,

Ep.

ad

r o ts

<}>v\aKEvod.,
33 34 1

16 4 . p raedicavit. P et. I V , 6.

ir o p e v O e ls

32 7 ropei'f?et5.

3 a.TreiOrjcracii' 1rore.

TH E RESU RRECTIO N

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 fre e d ; for their formal admission into the heavenly abode of the Blessed did not take place till the day of His Ascension.36 N ever theless, in view of our L ord s remark to the penitent th ie f: This day thou shalt be with me in paradise, we must hold that the patriarchs were forthwith ad mitted to the beatific vision o f God.37 A R T IC L E 3
TH E R E S U R R E C T IO N

i.

T h e R e la tio n

o f C h r i s t s R e s u r r e c t io n

t o H is D e a t h . Christs 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 C fr . Hundhausen, P asto ra lsch reib en des

D a s erste A p o ste lfiir -

l i C o r. X V , 2 1

14 .

sten

P e tru s,

pp.

343

sqq.,

Mainz

1873. C fr. Ps. L X V I I , 19 . 37 C fr . the C atechism of the C oun cil o f T r e n t, P a r t I , C h. 6, Q u. 6. T h e reasons w h y it w as meet that C h rist should descend into hell
36

Cor. X V , 1 3 . F o r an apologetic treatment of the Resurrection we refer the student to Devivier-Sasia, C hristian A p o lo g e tics,
V o l. I , pp. 19 7 sqq., S a n Jo se , C a l., 19 0 3 ; G . W . B . M a rsh , T h e R e su rrection o f C hrist, I s it a F a c t f London 19 0 5 ; and other sim ilar treatises.

are

developed

by

S t.

Tho m as,

S'.

T lieo l., 3a , qu. 5 2 , art. 1.

T H E WORK OF REDEM PTIO N

Christs entrance into the state of glory which He had earned for Himself by H is 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 o f 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 R esur rection of our Lord was necessary, in order to complete the mystery o f 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 A p ostle: H e was delivered up for our sins, and rose again for our justification. G That nothing, therefore, might be wanting to the salvation o f 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. C fr. Luke X X IV , 46 s q .: Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise
3 C f r . L u k e X X I V , 26. V . sup ra, pp. 58 sq. 4 T h e sole cause o f our redcm ption w as the S a v io u r s death on

the C ro ss. ( C f r . su pra, pp. 8 5 sqq.) r. P art 1 , Cli. 6, Q11. 12 . c Horn. I V , 25.

TH E RESU RRECTIO N

103

again from the dead, the third day, that penance and remission o f 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 o f sin and infusion of a new life. A s Christ died and rose again from the dead, so shall we die to sin and arise to spiritual life. C fr. Rom. V I, 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. F o r 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 o f 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. C fr. Rom. V I, 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. T h e R e su r r e c t io n of C h r is t a s a D o gm a . T he glorious Resurrection of our L o rd is a cardinal dogm a, nay the v ery foundation and keystone of Christian belief. F o r this reason the
7 C fr . S t . B o n a ve n tu re , Com m ent. in Q uatuor L ib r o s S e n t., I l l , dist. 19 , art. 1, qu. 1 : R atio m eren d i iustificationem a ttribuitur so li passioni, non re su rr e c tio n i; ratio v e ro term inandi et quietandi a ttribuitur re su rrectio n i, ad quam o rdin atu r iustificatio, non passioni.

8 C f r . 2 C o r. V , 1 5 . On the sub ject-m atter o f this subdivision the studen t m ay profitably consu lt S t. T h o m as, S . T h e o l., 3a , qu. 56 , art. 2 and H . S im a r, D ie T h e o lo g ie des hi. P a u lu s, 2n d ed., pp. 19 4 sqq., F r e ib u r g 18 8 3 .

104

TH E WORK OF REDEM PTIO N

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, v iz .: ( i ) Its reality or truth, and (2 ) the transfigured and glorified state of the risen R e deemer. To safeguard these two aspects of the dogma she strenuously insisted on the real re union of Christs soul with H is 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: I f any one assert that the body of our Lord after the Resurrection was ethereal and spherical in shape, . . . let him be anathema. 10 And the symbol of Pope Leo I X declares that Christ arose from the dead on the third day by a true resurrection of the flesh, to confirm which He ate with H is disciples not because He stood in need of food, but solely by H is will and power. 11 A ll 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. X I I , 40;
9 C fr . C one. L a te ra n . I V , Caput " F i r m i t e r " (su p ra , p. 9 1 ) . 10 " S i quis d ix c rit D o m in i corpu s post resu rrectio n em fu isse acthe-

re u m ct figura sphacrica, anathem a sit. D en z in g er s E n c h ir id io n , 9th ed., 11. 196. 1 1 D en zin g er-B a n m v a rt, n. 3 4 4 .

TH E RESU RRECTIO N

105

X X , 19 ; X X V I I , 6 3; M ark X , 34; Luke X V I I I , 3 3 ; 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. (M atth. X X V I I I , 17 sq.; Luke X X I V , 4 1 sqq.; John X X , 24 sqq.; 1 Cor. X V , 6 ). The Apostles would not have so courageously and uncompro misingly stood up for their faith in the R esur rection had they not seen and conversed with the risen Lord. Cfr. Acts IV , 3 3 : 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 H is Resurrection,13 and by the fact that H is risen body was endowed with certain attributes which man cannot enjoy except in a transfigured state.16
1 2 Svvd ftei fieya X ri, virtute m agna. 13 C f r . A c t s I I , 2 2 sq q.; I l l , 1 5 ; X , 40 sq q .; X I I I , 30 sqq. 14 : C or. X V , 1 4 ; c fr . Rom . X , 9.
15 M atth . X X V I I I , i sq q .; L u k e X X I V , 36 sq q.; Jo h n X X , 19 sqq. 16 T h is point w ill be developed in Esch a to lo gy.

io6

T H E WORK OF REDEM FTION

He retained the marks of His five wounds 17 for reasons o f congruity, which St. Thomas explains as follow s: It was becoming that the soul of Christ in the Resurrection should reassume the body with its wounds. First, for the glorification o f Christ H im self; secondly, to confirm His disciples in their faith in the Resurrection; third, that in supplicating the Father for us, H e might always remind Him of what He had suffered for m en; fourth to recall the divine mercy to those whom He had redeemed, by ex hibiting to them the marks of H is death; and, lastly, that on Judgment day He might show forth the justice o f the judgment by which [the wicked] are damned. 13 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, v iz .: ( i ) That H is R es 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 C f r . Jo h n X X , 2 7 ; A p o c. V , 6.

tu lerit, sem p er o ste n d a t; quarto

ut

T h e o l., 3 a , qu. 54, a rt. 4 : " C o n v e n ie n s fu it anim am C h risti in re su rrec tia n e co rp u s cum cicatricibus r e s u m e r e : prim o quidem p ro p ter gloriam ipsiu s C h risti . . secu nd o ad confirm andum corda discip u laru m circa fidem suae re su rr e c tio n is; tertio tit P a t ri pro no bis su p p lica n s, quale g en u s m o rtis pro hom ine p e r -

18 S .

stta m orte red em p lis, quant ntiserico rd ile r sint adiuti, pro p ositis eittsdem m ortis iitdiciis in s in u e t; postrem o ut in indicia [u ltim o ], quam iuste d a m n entu r, ibidem d en u n tiet. 19 On the whole su b ject c fr . B illu a rt, D e M y st. C h risti, diss. 12 , a rt. 4 and 6 ; G. B . T e p e , In s t. T h e o l., V o l. I , pp. 97 sqq., P a r is 18 9 4 .

T H E RESU RRECTIO N

107

own power, H e rose again from the grave; by virtue o f this example o f our Head we profess that there will be a resurrection o f the flesh for all the dead. 20 The phrase by His own p o w er ( virtute propria) points to an ac tive rising (resurgere) , which is more than a miraculous awakening ( resuscitari). The dogma is clearly contained in Sacred Scripture. C fr. 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 s q .: Therefore doth the Father love m e: because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No man taketh it away from m e: but I lay it down o f m yself, and I have power to lay it dow n: and I have power to take it up again. 22 Christ H im self ascribes this power to H is consubstantiality with the Father. John V , 2 1 : F o r as the Father raiseth up the dead, and giveth l i f e : so the Son also giveth life to whom he will. 23 Hence, if Holy Scripture elsewhere speaks o f our Lords being raised up by the F a th e r,24 this is obviously an appropriation, based on the fact that the efficient cause o f our Saviours Resur rection was not His humanity, which had been resolved into its constituent elements by death, but His Divinity, which remained hypostatically united with H is soul and body. The Roman Catechism explains this as follow s: 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 T e rtio quoqite die virtute prop ria sua suscitatus a sepulcro re su rr e x i t ; hoc ergo exem plo capitis nostri confitem ur vera m fieri re su rrectionem carn is om nium n to rtu o ru m ." D en z in g e r-B a n n w a rt, n. 28 6 . 2 1 y e p w t excitabo. 2 2 e ^o va ia v e 'x ira X iv "Ka^elu a v rr iv . 23 o vibs ovs 9ekei fwo7rotet. 24 A c t s I I , 2 4 sq q.; I l l , 1 3 sq q .; R om . V I I I , 1 1 ; G al. I , : .

io8

TH E WORK OF REDEM PTIO N

by His own power, might return to life and rise again from the dead. 25
R e a d i n g s : * Billuart, D e Incarnatione, diss. 19-20. I d e m , De M ysterio C hristi, diss. 9-12. St. Thomas, Sum m a Theologica, 3a, qu. 19 -2 2 ; qu. 24, 26; qu. 46-56. Beilarmine, D e Christo, 1 IV , . c. 6-16; 1 V , c. 1-10. De Lugo, D e M ysterio Incarnationis, . disp. 27 sqq..* Franzelin, D e V erbo Incarnato, sect. 4, Rome 1881. Oswald, Soteriologie, 2nd ed., Paderborn 1887. * Stentrup, S. J., So teriologia, 2 vols., Innsbruck 1889. G. B. Tepe, Institutiones Theologicae, Vol. I ll, pp. 617 sqq., Paris 1896 Chr. Pesch, S. J., P raeiection es Dogm aticae, Vol. IV , 3d ed., pp. 201 sqq., Freiburg 1909. Hunter, O utlines o f D ogm atic T h eology, Vol. II, pp. 506 sqq., London s. a. Wilhelm-Scannell, A M anual o f Catholic T h eology, Vol. II, pp. 181-19 5, 2r>d ed., London 1901. A . Ritter, Christus der E rl ser, Linz 1903.* B. Drholt, L eh re von der Genugtuung C hristi, Paderborn 1896. Muth, H eilstat C hristi als stellvertreten de Genugtuung, Ratisbon 1904. K. Staab, D ie L e h re vo n d er stellvertretenden G enugtuung, Paderborn 1908. Pell, L e h re des hl. A thanasius von der S n d e und E rlsu n g, Passau 1888. Strter, Erlsun gslehre des hl. Athanasius, Frei burg 1894. Weigl, H eilsleh re des hl. C yrill von A lexan d rien , Mainz 1905. * J . Rivire, L e D ogm e de la R dem ption, Paris 1905 (English translation, T he D octrine o f the Atonem ent, 2 vols., London 1909). E. Hugon, O. P., L e M ystre de la R dem ption (a speculative pendant to Rivieres L e D ogm e de la Redem ption, which is mainly historical), Paris 19 11. H. N. Oxenham, T h e Catholic D octrine o f the A tonem ent: A n H is torical In q u iry into its D evelopm ent in the C hurch, London 1865. (This work, which has been lately translated into French, must be read with caution. Cfr. L a C ivilt Cattolica, Quad. 1431, Feb. 5, 1910). J . Kleutgen, S. J., Th eologie der Vorzeit, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 336 sqq., Mnster 1870 (against Gnther). Friedlieb, L eben Jesu C hristi des E rl sers mit neuen historischen und chronologischen U ntersuchungen, Paderborn 1887. Grimm, L e ben Jesu nach den v ie r Evan gelien , 7 vols., 2nd ed., Ratisbon
25 Cat. R o m ., P . I , e. 6, qu. 8 : D ivin a vis tum in corp ore inerat, qua anim ae H erum coniu ngit, lu m in anim a, qua a d corpu s re v e rti pos-

set, qua et lieuit su virtu te re v iv iscere atque a m ortu is re su rg e re . " C f r . C h r. P esch , P ra c lc ct. D ogm at., V o l. I V , pp. 2 8 0 sqq.

THE RESU RRECTIO N

109

1890 sqq. Didon, O. P., Je su s Christ, English edition, London 1895. J. E . Belser, Geschichte des L eiden s und Sterbens, der A u fersteh un g und H im m elfahrt des H errn , Freiburg 1903. W . Humphrey, S. J., The One M ediator, London s. a. A. J. Maas, S. J., Christ in T ype and Prophecy, Vol. II, pp. 13 sqq., New York 1895. G. \V. B. Marsh, M essianic Ph ilosophy, pp. 24 sqq., London 1908. Freddi-Sullivan, S. J., Jesu s C hrist the W ord Incarnate, pp. 191 sqq., St. Louis 1904. J. Tixeront, H is toire des D ogm es, 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.
* T h e asterisk b efo re an a u th o r s nam e indicates that his treatm ent o f the question is esp ecially clear and thorough. A s S t. T h o m a s is in v a ria b ly the best guid e, the om ission o f the asterisk b efo re his nam e n eve r m eans that w e co nsider his w o rk in a n y w a y in fe rio r to that o f other w rite rs. T h e re are v ast stretches o f theology w hich he scarce ly 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 H igh Priest, (2 ) that of Prophet or Teacher, and (3 ) that of King.

no

CHAPTER I
Ch
r i s t s p r ie s t h o o d

S E C T IO N i
C h r i s t s d e a t h a tru e s a c r ific e

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.
1. D e fin itio n of th e T erm B lo o d y

S ac

r i f i c e / ' 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 H is 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

112

O FFIC ES OF TH E RED EEM ER

animal, the burning of cereals, the pouring out of a fluid, etc. (/3) A law ful minister or priest who offers the gift to God. (y) An exterior act of worship, consisting in the phys ical presentation of the gift. (S) A final end or objcct, which is the acknowledgment o f Gods supreme dominion and the appeasement o f His anger. Applying the Scholastic distinction between materia and form a, 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 form a, 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 o f Gods supreme dominion and the ap peasement o f His anger. The first o f 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 o f 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 C f r . S t . T h o m as, S . T lieo l., sa ae, qu. 8 5, a rt 2.

SA C RIFIC E

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 o f adoration (sacrificia latrutica), sacrifices of thanksgiving (sacrificia eucharistica), sacrifices o f sup plication or petition (sacricia impetratoria), and sacri fices of expiation 01* propitiation (sacrificia propitiatoria). A s 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. B y sacrificing an object over which he has control, and offering it up entirely to God, man acknowledges Gods 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 o f sac rifice. The acknowledgment of God as the sovereign Lord o f the universe has its human correlative in mans 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 present2 Jo s . D ahlm ann , S . J . , D e r I d e a Sophie im Z e ita lter d er O p fe rm ystik , lism us d er indischen R elig io n sp h ilo p. 22 , F r e ib u r g 19 0 1.

114

O FFIC ES OF TH E RED EEM ER

ing in his own stead some living or inanimate creature. This vicarious act assumes its deepest significance in the sacrifice o f propitiation, by which, in addition to m anifest 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 o f ani mals, he says, signifies the destruction o f 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 o f 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 o f the fact that Gods will to save all men and the legitimate institution of the sacri ficial rite confirm human expectation and constitute a rich source o f consolation.

d) The Sacrifice of the Cross is not only a true sacrifice, but in contradistinction to the sacrificium incnicntum (H ebrew, n0^ ) specifically a bloody sacrifice. W hat 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 5 . T h e o l., ia 2ae, qu. 10 2 , a rt. 3 , ad 5 : " P e r occisioncm anim alium significatur dcstructio p cccatorum ct quod hom ines crant d ig n i occisione pro p cccatis su is, ac si ilia auim alia loco corum o ccid eren tu r ad significaudant cxp iatio n cm pcccatoru m . C fr . N . G ieh r, T h e H o ly Sa c rific c o f the M a ss, pp. 3 5 sqq., 3rd ed., S t. L o u is 1908.

A BLOODY SA C R IFIC E

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 (victima, hostia). Its materia proxim a is the slaying of the victim, accompanied by an effusion of the life-giving fluid ( mactatio cum sanguinis effusione). In regard to the physical form a 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 o f 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 o f blood, does not necessarily indicate the purpose o f 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 law fully appointed priesthood.4 Third, because it is impossible to assume that Christs 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 law ful min ister, in acknowledgment of the supreme sovereignty of God, and especially to propitiate His anger. 5

2. T h e D o gm a . The Church has form ally

defined, against the Socinians and the Rationalists,

4 C fr . P . Sch o lz, D ie tm er des V o lk e s Isra e l, 6qq., R atisbo n 18 6 8 . hl. II, A lt e r C fr . B eca n u s, D e T rip lic i S a cri134 ficio, N a tu ra e , L e g is , Gratiae, O pusc. I I , Lugduni 16 3 1.

O FFIC ES OF TH E RED EEM ER

that Christs vicarious atonement was a bloody sacrifice, made for the purpose of reconciling the human race to God (sacrificium propitiatorium.)
The Council of Ephesus (A . D. 4 3 1) declared against N estorius: F or He offered Him self up for us as an odor of sweetness to God the Father. Hence if any one say that the Divine Logos Him self was not made our High Priest c and Apostle . . . let him be anathema. 7 The Council of Trent, in defining the Holy Sacrifice o f the Mass, bases its definition on the dogma that Christs bloody death on the Cross was a true sacrifice: Though H e was about to offer H im self 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, . . . H e offered up to God the Father H is 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 H im self in a bloody manner 011 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 H im self on the Cross, the manner alone of offering be ing different. 8
0 a p x ic p t a 7 "O b t u lit en im sem etipsu m pro no bis in o do rem suavitatis D e o et P a t ri. S i quis ergo P on tificcm ct A p o sto lu m n o stru m dicit fa ctu m non ipsu m D e i V crb in n . . ., anatlicma s i t ." S y n o d . E p h e s ., can. 10 . (D e n z in g cr-B a n n w a rt, n. 1 2 2 .) 8 E t s i sem cl seip su m in ara cru cis m orte in tcrccd ciitc D eo P a tri oblatu rus crat, . . . ut rclin q u crct sacrificium , quo cru en tu m illu d sem cl in cru ce pcra g cn d u m rep ra escn ta rctu r, . . . corpu s et sanguincm situm su b sp cciebu s panis et z'ini D e o P o tri obtulit. . . . [ I n M iss a ] idem ille C h ristu s . . . ine n tente im m olatur, qu i in ora cru cis sem cl scip su m cru en te obtulit . . . U n a cad cm qu c est hostia, idem nu n c o ffcrens sacerdotum m inistcrio, qui seipsum tunc in cru ce obtulit, sola

A BLOODY SA C R IFIC E

117

a) The Scriptural proof of our dogma is based partly on the Old and partly 011 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 L aw were merely types of Christs death on the Cross. Therefore Christs death must be as truly a vicarious sacrifice of blood and propitia tion as were the sacrifices of the Old Testament.
Proof of the M ajor 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 Jew s 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 o f the tabero ffercn d i ratione d ive rs . ( C o n c. 9 4 0 ; c fr . also can. 3 - 4 , ibid. n. 950, 9 5 1 .) T r id ., Sess. X X I I , cap. 1 and 2 D en zin ger B a n n w a rt, N o . 9 38 and

118

O FFIC ES OF TH E R ED EEM ER

nacle in the shape of a calf. Lev. IV , 13 -2 0 : And the ancients of the people shall put their hands upon the head thereof before the L o r d ; 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 fo llo w s: Then let him [the high priest] offer the living g o a t: and putting both hands upon his head, let him confess all the iniquities o f the children of Israel, and all their offences and sin s: 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 W hat was thus symbolized in the sacrificial rite is ex plicitly set forth in the prohibition of blood, Lev. X V I I , 1 1 : . . . 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. L I I I , 4 sqq.), derives its deeper significance from the sacrificial rite described by the same prophet (Is. L I I , 1 5 ; L I I I , 7, io ) .10 P roof of the Minor Premise. The minor premise of our syllogism can be demonstrated from St. P au ls E pis tle to the Hebrews, particularly Chapters 8 to 10. A s the Old L aw had but a shadow of the good things to
8 L e v . X V I , 9 ; X V I , 20 Sqq. 10 Suprct, p. 46. C f r . K n ab en b au er, E rk l r u n g d es Isaia s, F r e ib u r g 1 8 8 1 . P ro p h ete n

A BLOODY SA C R IFIC E

119

come, 11 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 o f 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 E pis tle. I f 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

/3) 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 LawT 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 ? 15 So also Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many. 16 In
1 1 H eb . X , i. 1 2 H eb . X , 4 - C f r . G al. I V , g. 13 C fr . F ra n z e lin , D e V erbo Incarnato, thes. 49, R om e 1 8 8 1 ; H u go W e iss, D ie m essianischen V o rb ild e r im A lte n Testam ent, F re ib u rg 19 0 5.

t 0 . > ecD
15 H eb . I X ,
13-14 . /x a p ria s H eb .

16 iral; wpooevexOtls e h rb iro\veveyK ev I X , 28.

O FFIC ES OF TH E R ED EEM ER
the which will we are sanctified by the oblation o f the body of Jesu s Christ alone. 17 But this man [Christ] offering one sacrifice for sins,18 for ever sitteth on the right hand o f God. 19 F or 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.
C fr. Matth. X X , 28 : Filins hominis non venit ministrari, sed ministrare et dare an imam sitam redcmptionem pro m u ltis22 The Son o f 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 o f that atonement. To give ones life 23 is a distinctly hieratic and sacrificial term ; for m an y 24 denotes vicarious satisfaction, and redemption 25 in dicates expiation. It follows from this important text that the expression for many or for all, 20 which occurs so frequently in the New Testament, when used in connection with sacrifice means, not only for the benefit of m any, but also instead of many. C fr. Eph. V , 2 : " Tradidit semetipsum pro nobis oblationem et hostiam D e o 21 in odorem suavitatis Christ . . . hath delivered himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness. 28 1 Tim. II, 6 :
17 H eb . X , 10 . /cas O voiav10 H eb . X , 1 2 . 20 m . y p 2 1 H eb. X , irpo<T(popa. 14 . * 24 v t I ir o \\w v > not m erely v ir ip iroW iop . Z \i>T pop (strictly, ra n so m ).

20 in r ip

ttoW w v ,

p ro m u ltis .

22 K al ovva t T ]v \pi<xvv a v r o v \ v r p o v v r l tto W w v 23 So vvat rr v ^ v \i}v .

27 irapeduK ev e a v r b v virkp -fi/xut' irpoffipopav K al O valav. 28 irpo<T(pop here m eans sacrifice in gen eral, O vala, bloody sacrifice.

A BLOODY SA C R IFIC E

121

" Qui dedit redemptionem semetipsum pro omnibus,2* testimonium temporibus suis Who gave himself a re demption for all, a testimony in due times. R eferring 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 F or Christ our pasch is sacrificed. The expiatory character of our L ord s death is expressly asserted in Rom. I l l , 2 5 : Quem proposuit Deus propitiationem S0 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 propitiatio31 pro pcccatis nostris, non pro nostris autem tantum, sed etiam pro totius mundi He is the propitia tion for our sin s: 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 N erva (A . D. 9 6-98),33 contains the following passage: For our sins he was going to offer the vessel o f the spirit [ i. e., H is 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
29 0 Sovs e a v r o v a v r lX v r p o u virep A i/r iX v T p o v here m eans a ransom give n v ic a rio u sly, b y a
tt&v t u v .

32 C fr . 2 C o r. V , 2 1 . 3 3 C fr . B a rd e n h e w e r-S h a h a n , P a iro lo g y, p. 24. 34 fieXXe . . . irpootpepeiv O va ia v. 3 5 E p . B a r n ., c. 7, n. 3. (E d . F u n k , I , 2 3 .)

represen tative. 30 IXaoTTipiov = a sacrifice o f propitiation.

31 IXaafios-

122

O FFIC ES OF TH E R ED EEM ER

the slaughtering pen, had to be made a sacrifice for all nations. 38

3. T h eo l o g ic a l P r o b l e m s . Christ vicari ously made atonement for us by immolating Him self; consequently, H e 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 ) W as it in H is 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 H is bloody sacrifice consist? a) The first question must be decided on Christological principles as follows. The victim ( victima, Jtostia) 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 H is Divine, but those of H is human nature.
T o assert that the human nature o f our Lord alone was sacrificed on the Cross would be equivalent to Nestorianism. T o hold that it was the Godhead as such that was crucified and sacrificed, would savor of Theopaschitic Monophysitism. Both heretical extremes are avoided by saying that the Divine Logos was indeed
00 A d i'. I n d ., c. 1 3 . F o r other P atristic texts b earin g on this subject see D orh olt, D ie L e h r e fo il d er C en u g tu u n g C h rist!, born 1 8 9 1 . 7 -10 , Patler-

THEOLOGICAL PRO BLEM S

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 H e offer the sacrifice o f the Cross (i . e., Him self) to God in H is human or in His Divine Nature? The correct answer depends on a true conception o f the nature o f 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 Christs humanity to have been absorbed and destroyed by H is 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. 15 7 4 ), 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 H is divine, but solely in His human nature.39
37 C fr . C on ciliu m E p h e s., can. 10 . V . su pra, p. 1 1 6. 38 F o r details consult B ellarm in e, D e C hristo, V , 2 - 3. 30 C fr . S t. T h o m as, S . T h e o l., 3a , qu. 2 2 , art. 2.

O FFIC ES OF TH E R ED EEM ER

b) The second question is: How are we to conceive the relation of Christ in H is 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 o f the Blessed Trinity as the sole acceptor of the sacrifice o f 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 s in ; 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 Him self 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, via.: that of sacrificial victim, that of the sacrificing priest, and that of the accepting God. A s God H e ac cepts His own sacrifice; as Godman (or Logos) He is both victim (victim a) and sacrificing priest (sacerdos), though only according to His human nature. St. Augustine
40 S u p ra , pp. 5 sqq. 41 V . D ivin e supra, pp. 67 sq. see On the A p p ro p riatio n s PohleP re u s s, T h e D ii'in e T rin it y , pp. 244 sqq.

THEOLOGICAL PRO BLEM S

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 Father, with whom He is one God, yet in the form o f a servant He chose rather to be than to receive a sacrifice, that not even by this instance any one might have occasion to suppose that sacrifice should be rendered to any creature. Thus He is both the Priest who offers and the Sacrifice offered. 42

c) A s regards the sacrificial act itself, it did not form ally consist in the killing of the victim.
To hold that it did, would involve the blasphemous conclusion that the sacrificing priests on Calvary were the brutal soldiers who tortured our Lord and nailed Him to the Cross. No, the real priest was Jesus Christ H im self ; H is executioners were merely unconscious in struments in the hands of Providence. I f Christ was the sacrificing priest, it follows that He alone performed the sacrificial act. This sacrificial act did not consist in self-immolation. That would have been sheer suicide. It consisted in the voluntary oblation of His Blood, which He allowed to be shed (extrinsic factor) and which He offered to A l mighty God with a true sacrificial intent (intrinsic factor). It was this voluntary oblation of H is life and blood
42 D e C iv . D e i, X , 20. " V e r u s ille m ediator, inquantum fo rm a m s e r v i accipiens m ediator effectus est D e i et hom initm , homo C h ristu s Ie su s, quum in fo rm a D e i sacrificitim cum P a tre sum at [ acceptet] , cum quo et units D e n s est, tainen in fo rm a s e r v i sa crificium m aluit esse quant su m ere, ne v e l hac occasione quisquam existim aret cu ilibet sa crificandum esse creaturae. P e r hoc et sacerdo s est, ipse offeren s, ipse et o b la tio ." ( C f r . D e T rin it ., I V , 14 , 19 ).

O FFIC ES OF TH E RED EEM ER

( oblatio vitae et sanguinis) which constituted the formal element, and consequently the essence of the sacrifice of the Cross.43 This also explains why martyrdom is not a true sac rifice. It has not been instituted as such by God, and, furthermore, no m artyr can dispose of his life and blood with the sovereign liberty enjoyed by our Lord, who had absolute control over all the circumstances surrounding H is death and gave up H is soul when and how He pleased.4 4
43 C f r . Jo h n X , 18 . 44 C fr . F ra n z e lin , D e V erb o In cornato, thes. 5 0 ; B e lse r, D a s E v a n gelium des hi. Jo h a n n e s, sqq., F r e ib u r g 19 0 5. pp. 511

SECTION
C H R IS T A TRUE

2
P R IE S T

Priest and Sacrifice being correlative terms, the priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ is a logical and necessary corollary of His sacrifice on the Cross. S a cred Scripture expressly confirms this deduction. The concept of priesthood embraces two essential elements, vis .: ( i ) unction or ordination, and (2 ) the offering o f sacrifice. T o these may be added, as an integral part, sacerdotal prayer. In the case o f Christ, moreover, the Bible lays special stress (3 ) on the eter nity of H is priesthood. W e shall develop these consid erations in the form of three separate theses.

Thesis I : Christs unction or ordination to the office of high priest took place at the moment of His In carnation.

This thesis voices the common teaching of Catholic divines. Proof. If, as we shall show in our next thesis, Christ was truly a priest according to the order of Melchisedech, 1 H is priesthood must have begun simultaneously with H is Incarnation, i. e., at the moment in which the Divine Logos as sumed human flesh in the womb of the V irgin. The Divine Logos could not have been a priest belH 'e b . V , 6 ; V I , 20.

127

128

O FFIC ES OF TH E R ED EEM ER

fore H is Incarnation, because then He was not yet the Godman. Nor was He anointed or conse crated by any special act subsequent to H is Incar nation. Hence H is ordination must have coin cided with the inception of the Hypostatic Union.
This view is confirmed by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Hebrews. Heb. X , 5 : Ideo ingrediens m itnditm 2 dicit: Hostiam ct oblationcm noluisti, corpus autem aptasti m ih i W herefore when he cometh into the world, he saith : Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldest n o t: but a body thou hast fitted to me. 3 Here the fitting of a body for the sacrifice of the Cross, and consequently the beginning o f Christs priesthood, is represented as coincident with His coming into the w orld, i. c His conception. In the fifth chapter of the same Epistle the Apostle emphasizes the fact that every high priest taken from among men, is ordained for men in the things that apper tain to God, and then declares that Christ did not or dain Him self, but was called by God. Heb. V , 4 s q .: N cc quisquam sumit sibi honorem, scd qui vocatur a Deo 4 tamquam A aro n ; sic et Christus non semetipsum clarificavit, at pontifex ficret,5 sed qui locutus est ad einn [ P a te r ]: F ilin s mens es tit, ego hodie genui te Neither doth any man take the honor to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was. So Christ also did not glorify himself, that he might be made a high p riest; but he that said unto h im : Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. G The call to the priesthood which Christ received from His Father was
2 flcTepxo/JLivos d s top 3 C f r . P s. X X X I X , 7. 4 xaXov/J-epos
Koafiov-

r' yevrjO rjpat a p x te p e a 0 H eb. V , 4 sq.

a n d tov 0eoi>-

CH RIST A TRU E P R IE ST

129

the command to redeem the human race. This command went into effect at the moment of His conception. Con sequently, Christs priesthood began simultaneously with the iinio hypostatica. A third argument for our thesis is based on the S a viours proper name, Christus, which means the Anointed One Kar frxrjv-7 Whereas the Levites o f the Old Testa ment were anointed to the ministry by an accidental unction with visible oil,8 the Godman Jesus Christ, by virtue o f the Hypostatic Union, is substantially anointed with the invisible oil o f Divinity. This sub stantial unction, on account o f the object and pur pose o f the Redemption, stands in intimate relation ship to the priestly function which H e exercised in offer ing the sacrifice of the Cross, and therefore the Hypo static Union as such must be regarded as Christs substantial ordination to the priesthood. Some of the Fathers appear to teach that our L ord s ordination took place before His Incarnation. It is to be noted, however, that their manner of expression is distinctly proleptic. W hat they mean is, that it was by H is Incarnation that the not yet incarnate Logos was constituted a priest. Certain other Fathers seem to regard Christs baptism in the Jordan as the beginning of His priesthood. Rightly understood, however, these Fathers do not assert that Christ became a high priest when He received baptism, but merely that he exercised His priesthood for the first time on that occasion. There is a clear-cut distinction between an office and the exer cise of its functions; the former differs from the latter as potency differs from act.9
7 C fr . P o h le-P reu ss, C h ristolo g y, 1 sq q.; L e v . 9 C f r . P e ta v iu s, D e In c a r n ., X I I , 3 and 1 1 . pp. 2 2 8 sq. 8 C fr. Exod. X X I X , V I I I , 1 sqq.

i 3o

O FFIC ES OF TH E RED EEM ER

Thesis I I : During His terrestrial life Christ was a true high priest who exercised His sacerdotal func tions by offering sacrifice and prayer.

This proposition embodies an article of faith. Proof. The Council of Trent defines: " Quoniam sub priori Testamento teste Apostolo Paulo propter levitici sacerdotii imbecillitatem consitmmatio non erat, oportuit Deo Patre misericordiarum ita ordinante sacerdotem alium secundum ordinem Mclchisedech surgere D. N. Iesum Chri stum, qiti posset omnes, quotqitot sancticandi essent, consummare et ad perfectum adducere! A nglice: Forasmuch as, under the former Testa ment, according to the testimony of the Apostle Paul, there was no perfection, because of the weakness of the Levitical priesthood; there was need, God the Father of mercies so ordaining, that another priest should rise, according to the order of Melchisedech, our Lord Jesus Christ, who might consummate, and lead to what is per fect, as many as were to be sanctified.' 10 The heretical antithesis of this dogma is the Socinian teaching that the priesthood of our Lord was in no sense an earthly but exclusively a heavenly priesthood.11 a) That the priesthood of our Divine Lord
10 C one. T r id ., S ess. X X I I , cap. i . (D e n z in g e r-B a n n w a rt, n. 9 3 8 .) i l C f r . F . So cin u s, S e rv a to re , P . I I , c. 15 . De C hristo

CH RIST A TRU E P R IE ST

13 1

was really and truly an earthly priesthood can easily be proved from Sacred Scripture. a) To begin with the Old Testament, we need but point to Psalm C IX , the Messianic character of which is guaranteed by Christ H im self.12 The fourth verse reads as follows: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchi sedech. Melchisedech was an earthly priest; consequently the priesthood of Christ must be an earthly priesthood.13 ft) The prophet Isaias, pointing to the Man of sorrows, i. c., the future Messias, presages that he shall sprinkle many nations. 14 This sprinkling, from the context, can only mean a sacrificial sprinkling with blood (aspersio san guinis ) . 15 y) No other sacred writer has portrayed the earthly priesthood of our Lord so grandly as St. Paul, whose Epistle to the Hebrews constitutes one prolonged refutation of Socinianism.16 The gist of this Epistle may be summarized as follows: The priesthood of Melchisedech was far superior to the Levitical priesthood, but the priesthood of Christ is infinitely superior even
1 2 M atth . X X I I I , 4 3 sqq. 13 On the h eresy o f the M elch isedechians (w h o held that M elch isedech w as not a m an but an in carn ation o f the L o g o s ) see S t . A u g u stin e, D e H a e re s., n. 3 4 ; c fr . B lu n t, D ictio n a ry o f S e c ts, pp. 30 4 sq., n ew im pression, Lo n d o n 19 0 3 . 14 Is. L I I , 15 . 15 C fr . Is . L III, 3 sq q .; Lev.

X V I , 18 sq .; H eb . I X , 14 sqq.
16 A detailed a n a ly sis of S t. P a u l s E p istle to the H eb rew s will be fo u n d in F ra n z e lin , D e V erb o In carn ato, thes. 4 8, n. ii; c fr . also C h r. P esch , P ra e l. D ogm at., V o l. I V , 3 r d ed., pp. 2 9 1 sq.

O FFIC ES OF TH E RED EEM ER

to the priesthood of Melchisedech. Therefore, Christ is the holiest, the greatest, the most perfect, in fact the sole H igh Priest, and He exercised H is priesthood in the perfect sacrifice of the Cross.17 b) But the sacrifice of the Cross was not the only sacerdotal function performed by our Divine Redeemer. He also officiated as H igh Priest when, at the L ast Supper, He instituted the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and when He pronounced the sublime prayer for His disciples recorded in the seventeenth chapter of the Gospel of St. John.18
A priest does not always pray in his official capacity as p riest; some of his prayers are strictly private and personal. It is only when he pronounces portions of the sacrificial rite, such as the Mass, or liturgical prayers inti mately connected therewith, as those of the Breviary, that his prayer assumes a sacerdotal or hieratic character. Christs prayer for His disciples was a strictly sacerdotal or hieratic act, because of its intimate relation to the sacri fice of the Cross. The same is true o f the prayers which He uttered at the crucifixion. It is rather difficult to draw a clear-cut line of demarcation between strictly hieratic and purely private prayers in the case o f our Divine Lord, because H is whole interior life was inseparably inter woven with His mission as the Saviour of mankind, and therefore also with H is priesthood. However, we may apply the term private in a wider sense to those
l " T h e P a tristic argum en t fo r our thesis is developed by P esch, op. cit., pp. 29 2 sq. T h e teaching o f the Sch o la stics on C h rist s earth ly priesthood m ay be best studied in S t. T h o m as, Su m m a T hcologtca, 3a , qu. i s Jo h n 2 2 art. 1. X V I I , 1-2 6 .

CH RIST A TRU E P R IE ST

133

prayers which He offered up, not for His Apostles, or the human race in general, but for Him self, in order to obtain personal favors from His Heavenly Father, as, for instance, when He asked on Mount Olivet that the chalice be removed from His lips,19 or when He petitioned for H is own glorification. There is an essential difference between prayer and sacrifice, which should be emphasized here. Christ was able to pray for Him self, but He was not able to offer sacrifice for Him self. This has been clearly defined by the Council o f Ephesus (A . D. 4 3 1) : I f any one . . . assert that H e [Christ] offered Him self as a sacrifice for Him self, and not rather for us alone, (fo r He who knew absolutely no sin needed no sacrifice), let him be anathema. 20

Thesis I I I : Christs priesthood continues everlast ingly in Heaven.

This proposition also embodies an article of faith. Proof. In Christology 21 we concluded from the eternity of Christs priesthood to the insep arability of the Hypostatic Union. Here we have to prove the antecedent. The eternity of Christs priesthood is an article of faith, because clearly contained in Sacred Scripture. But the manner in which He exercises H is sacerdotal
10 C f r . H eb . V , 7 . 20 " S i qitis . . . d icit, qu o d p ro se obtulisset sem etip sum oblationem , ct non potius pro nobis so lis ( no n cnim eguit oblatione, qui peccatum om nino n e sc iv it), anathem a sit. Cone. E p h ., can. 10 (D en zin g erB a n n w a rt, n . 1 2 2 ) . O n C h rist s p ra yin g c fr . S t . T h o m as, S . T h e o l., 3 a , qu. 2 1 and L . Ja n ss e n s, D e D e o -H o m in e , V o l. I , pp. 7 20 sqq., F r e ib u r g 19 0 1. 21 P o h le-P reu ss, C hristolo g y, pp. 7 4 sqq.

134

O FFIC ES OF TH E RED EEM ER

office in Heaven remains to be determined by the ological reasoning. a) The eternity of our L ord s priesthood is taught both directly and indirectly in St. P au ls Epistle to the Hebrews.
a ) The Apostle expressly applies to Christ the M es sianic verse : Thou art a priest for ever 22 according to the order o f Melchised'ech. 23 That for ever in this passage means eternity, not a parte ante but a parte post, and in the strict sense o f the term, appears from St. P au ls w ay of arguing in Heb. ATI, I sqq., where he opposes our Lords everlasting priesthood to the tem poral priesthood of the Levites. Moreover, he distinctly says in Heb. V I I , 23 sq .: A lii quidem plitres facti sunt saccrdotes, idcirco quod morte prohibcrentur pcrm anere; hie autcm eo quod maneat in aeternum,-i sempitcrnum habet sacerdotiuni-r And the others indeed were made many priests, because by reason o f death they were not suffered to continue: but this, for that he continueth for ever, hath an everlasting priesthood.

( ) R egarding the manner in which Christ ex 3 ercises H is eternal priesthood in Heaven, Revela tion teaches us nothing beyond the fact that He is always living to make intercession for us, 20 which is a truly sacerdotal function, because, as St. Paul assures us, it bears an intimate relation to the sacrifice of the Cross. Hence we may
22 els to p a lu v a - 3 P s. C I X , 4. S ia r b fieveiv a lu v a . 25 dTra.paf3a.Tov a vro v els
to v

e^et

2 Ileb . V I I , 2 5 ;

lepwavvrjv. R om . V I I I , 34 .

r i)v

CH RIST A TRU E P R IE ST

135

conclude that our Lord's intercession for us in Heaven consists in everlastingly asserting the sacrifice of the Cross.
C fr. Heb. V II, 24 sqq.: Sempiternum habet sacerdotium ; w ide et salvare in perpetumn potest aceedentes per semetipsum ad Deum, semper vivens ad interpellandum pro nobis: talis en im 27 decebat ut nobis esset pontifex,28 . . . qui non habet necessitatem quotidie . . . hostias o fferre; hoc enim fecit semel seipsum offere n d o [He] hath an everlasting priesthood, whereby he is able also to save for ever them that come to God by him ; always living to make intercession for us. F or it was befitting that we should have such a high priest . . . who needeth not daily . . . to offer sacrifices . . . for this he did once, in offering himself. St. John, too, describes Christs heavenly intercession as intimately connected with and based upon the sacri fice of the Cross. Cfr. 1 John II, 1 sq .: S ed et si quis peccaverit, advocatum 29 habemus apud Patrem Iesitm Christum instum ; et ipse est propitiatio30 pro peccatis nostris But if any man sin, we have an advo cate with the Father, Jesus Christ the ju st: and he is the propitiation for our sins. The same Apostle in the Apocalypse represents Christ figuratively as a slain lamb, i. e., a transfigured sacrificial victim. Apoc. V , 6 : E t vidi . . . Agnum stantem tamquam occisum 31 And I saw . . . a Lamb standing as it were slain. In this light St. Ambroses conception of the relation existing between Christs heavenly intercession and the marks of the five wounds in His glorified body, as indelible witnesses
27 -yp28 dpxtepevs 29 7 apKXrjTovT
30 i\a<xfi6s = a pitiation. sacrifice of p ro

3 1 ws <7(p a y p v o v '

136

O FFIC ES OF TH E RED EEM ER

o f H is bloody sacrifice, must appeal to us as profoundly significant: H e refused to relinquish the wounds which He had received for us, but preferred to take them with Him to Heaven, in order to exhibit [them] to His Heavenly Father [as] the purchase price of our liberty. 32

b) The doctrine of Christs eternal priesthood in Heaven has given rise to three separate theo logical problems: () W hat is the precise na ture of H is everlasting intercession for us? (/?) Does He continue to offer a true sacrifice in Heaven? (y) H ow can H is priesthood endure after the L ast Judgment, when His intercession must of necessity cease? ) Theologians are not agreed as to whether Christs heavenly intercession for the human race is to be conceived as merely implicit {inter pretativa), or as explicit {fonnalis).
The form er view is held by Yasquez and Thomassin, the latter and more probable one by Petavius. A s Christ actually prayed for us while on earth, there is no reason to assume that H is continued intercession in Heaven is silent or merely implicit, especially in view of the promise which He gave His Apostles that He would ask the Father to send them another Paraclete. C fr. John X I V , 16 : And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete. W hy weaken the term ask or petition {rogare, ipwrdv) to prop the
32 S t. A m b ro se , I n L u c ., X , n. 1 7 0 : V u ln e ra accepla pro n o bis coelo in fe r r e m aluit, abolere noluit, u t D eo P a t r i nostrae pretia libertas o sten d eret.

CH RIST A TRU E PR IE ST

137

doubtful hypothesis that His intercession is merely vir tual ? Certain o f the Fathers seem to contradict the view de fended by Petavius. But the construction put upon their utterances by Vasquez and Thomassin is untenable. In reality these Fathers merely wish to emphasize the fact that the theandric prayer of Jesus has none of the de fects necessarily inherent in purely human prayer, such as indigence, a feeling of helplessness and guilt, an ap peal to mercy, etc. The theandric intercession of our heavenly Advocate is based upon the infinite satisfaction which H e has given for us, and hence is in no wise an humble supplication for grace, but a confident asser tion of His merits on behalf of those whom He has re deemed. This is one o f the reasons why the Church does not pray or instruct her children to p ra y : Lord Jesus, intercede for u s ! but: Christ, hear u s ! Christ, have mercy on u s ! 33

) Out* second question, it may be well to premise, has nothing whatever to do with the Socinian error that Jesus offered no true sacri fice 011 earth but became the H igh Priest of hu manity only after H is Ascension into Heaven. Accepting the sacrificial character of H is death, theologians merely ask: Does He continue to offer a true sacrifice for us in Heaven?
Thalhofer 34 answered this question in the affirmative, and his view has been adopted by L. Z i ll 35 and P.
33 C fr . F ra n z e lin , D e V erb o I n carnato, thes. 5 1 , n. iii; D e L u g o , D e M y st. In carn atio n is, disp. 2 7 , sect. 4, n. 6 1 sqq. 34 D a s O p fe r d es A lte n u n d N e u e n B u n d e s , pp. 2 0 1 sqq., R atisb on 18 7 0 . 35 D e r B r i e f an die H e b r e r, pp. 4 30 sqq., M ain z 18 7 9 .

i 38

O FFIC ES OF TH E RED EEM ER

Schoulza.30 The purpose of these writers in taking the position they do is tw ofold: ( i ) to gain a basis for a reasonable explanation of the metaphysical essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass, and (2) to give a tangible con tent to the Scriptural teaching of Christs eternal priest hood. Thalhofer declares the form al element of sacrifice to consist, not in the exterior oblation of the victim, which is in some manner or other transformed, but solely in the interior disposition o f the sacrificing priest. But this theory is contrary to the common teaching of Catholic divines and does not square with certain generally ad mitted facts. Granted that the disposition of the sac rificing priest is the intrinsic and invisible form a, and consequently the most important part of a sacrifice; yet it can never supply the extrinsic physical form. Christs constant pointing to His wounds, of which Thalhofer makes so much, is merely a significant gesture which effects no intrinsic transformation of the kind strictly demanded by the notion of sacrifice. Zill attempted to construct a Scriptural basis for Thalhofers theory, but his deductions had already been substantially refuted by Tournely in his argument against Faustus Socinus.37 St. Paul, far from asserting that Christ offers sacrifice in Heaven, or that He continues His earthly sacrifice there, expressly declares that our Lord merely asserts ad modum intcrpellationis and forever the sacrifice H e has once for all consummated on the Cross. This interpella tion can in no wise be construed as a sacrifice.38
80 L itu r g ia Catholica F i d e i M a g istra, In su lis 1 9 0 1. 37 T o u r n e ly , D e In c a r n ., qu. 5, art. 2 ; c fr . F ra n z e lin , D e V e r b o I n carnato, p. 5 3 9 . 38 C fr . F . S ten tru p , So te rio lo g ia , thes. 8 2 ; P esch , P r a e l. D ogm at., V o l. I V , 3rd cd ., pp. 300 sqq.

CH RIST A TRU E P R IE ST
y ) There remains the third question:

139

How .can Christs priesthood endure forever, since after the Last Judgment not only the hypothetical sacrifice construed by Thalhofer, but likewise H is intercession for us must needs cease?
There can be no doubt whatever that our L ord s priestly intercession in Heaven will end with the last M ass celebrated on earth. Nevertheless, H is priesthood will continue, in a threefold respect. ( 1 ) He will re main a priest for e v e r in dignity (secundum digni tatem), because H is sacerdotal character stands or falls with the Hypostatic Union, and consequently is indelible and incapable of being lost.39 (2) Christs priesthood endures eternally in respect of its effectiveness (secun dum effectum ), in so far as the fruits of the sacrifice o f the Cross are unceasingly renewed in the grace and glory enjoyed by the Elect in Heaven.40 (3) Christ remains the eternal High Priest of humanity secundum affectum; for, while H e does not offer up a perpetual sacrifice in the strict and proper sense of the term, H e causes a sweet burnt-offering of unending adoration and thanksgiving to rise before the throne of the Most Holy Trinity, which is after all the ultimate purpose and end of all creation.
39 C fr . sqq. T h e sis I, su p ra , pp. 12 7 sa crificii con sequ u n tu r. F in is autem sacrificii qu od C h rista s obtulit, non fu e ru n t bona tem poralia, sed aeterna, quae p er eius m ortem adip is c im u r." L . c., ad 2 : " L i c e t passio et m ors C h risti de caetero non sint iteranda, tam en v irtu s illiu s hostiae sem el oblatae p erm anet in a etern u m .

40 C fr . S t. Th o m a s, .S'. T h e o l., 3 a , qu. 22 , art. 5 : " I n officio sacerdotis duo possunt c o n sid e r a r i: prim o q u id em ipsa oblatio sacrificii, secu nd o ipsa sacrificii consiunm atio, quae qu idem consistit in hoc, quod illi p ro qu ibus sacrificiitm o ffertu r, finem

10

C H A P T E R II
Ch
r is t s p r o p h e t ic a l o f f ic e

i. D e f i n i t i o n o f t h e T e rm P r o p h e t / T he w ord Prophet is etym ologically derived from the G reek verb to say beforehand, to foretell (H ebr. = v a t e s , seer). In a w ider sense it signifies a teacher ( inagister, SiSdcjKaXos; H ebr. ^ = speaker, o ra to r).1
The Bible employs the term Prophet in both mean ings, most frequently however in the latter. Old Testa ment prophetism was not limited to extraordinary pre dictions o f future events, but comprised primarily the ordinary teaching office, which was clothed with di vine authority and exercised by instruction, admonition, warnings, and threats. The so-called prophetic schools o f the Jew s were colleges founded for the training of professional teachers of religion, not o f prophets in the strict sense of the term.2

T o say that Christ exercised the office or func tion of a prophet, is equivalent to saying that He possessed in the highest degree the g ift of prophecy ( donum propJietiae) and the vocation
1 C fr . Maas, C h rist in T y p e a n d P ro p h e c y , V o l. I, pp. 8 2 sqq. 2 C fr . R . C o m e ly , In tro d . S p c c . in L ib ro s V . T ., V o l. I I , pp. 26 7 sqq., P a ris 1 8 8 7 ; M a a s, op. cit., V o l. I , 10 8 sqq.

140

CH RIST A TRU E PROPHET

of a teacher ( magisterium ). Soteriology deals with Him only as a teacher. 2. T h e P r o p h e t ic T e a c h in g O f f ic e of C h r is t . T he Old Testam ent prophets hailed the future M essias as a teacher of truth, and when Jesu s C hrist appeared in Palestine, H e actually exercised the functions of a teacher in the most exalted sense of the term.
a) Moses, who both as the founder of a religion and a teacher par excellence, is a prominent type of the Messias, uttered the famous prophecy registered in Deut. X V I I I , 1 5 : The Lord thy God will raise up a prophet3 of thy nation and of thy brethren like unto m e: him thou shalt hear. 4 This passage is expressly applied to Christ in the New Testament.5 Isaias foretells that the coming Messias will deliver humanity from sin and error. Is. L X I , 1 s q .: The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord hath anointed m e : he hath sent me to preach to the meek, to heal the contrite of heart, and to preach a release to the captives, and deliverance to them that are shut u p ; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God: to comfort all that mourn. Christ Him self publicly read this passage in the syna gogue at Nazareth, and when he had folded the book,
NOJ 'T 4 C f r . D eut. X V I I I , 18 . 5 A c t s I I I , 2 2 sqq. B e penitent, th erefo re, and be co nverted , that y o u r sins m ay be blotted o u t; that when the tim es o f refreshm ent shall come from the presen ce o f the L o r d , and he shall send him w ho hath been preached unto yo u , Je su 9 3 C h rist, whom heaven indeed m ust receive, until the tim es o f the restitution o f all thin gs, w hich God hath spoken by the m outh o f his holy prophets, fro m the b eginning o f the w o r]d . F o r M o ses sa id ; A prophet shaU the L o r d y o u r God raise up unt0 yo u o f yo u r hrethren, like unto m e : him yo u shall hear. . .

142

O FFIC ES OF TH E R ED EEM ER
This day is fulfilled this scrip

said (Luke IV , 2 1 ) : ture in your ears. 0

b) The New Testament has confirmed the fu l filment of the Old Testament prophecies. It has also demonstrated their truth. When Jesu s was engaged in recruiting H is disciples, Philip said to Nathanael: W e have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus the son of Joseph of N a z a re th /'7 It was with the utmost confidence that our Lord appealed to M oses: Think not that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one that accuseth you, Moses, in whom you trust. For if you did be lieve Moses, you would perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of me.' s A fter He had fed five thousand people with a few loaves of bread, those who had witnessed the miracle enthusiastically exclaimed: This is of a truth the prophet that is to come into the w o r ld /'9 When He had raised the widows son to life, there came a fear on those about Him, and they glorified God, saying: A great prophet10 is risen up among us; and, God hath visited his people/ 11 c) Christ exercised H is teaching office by jour neying about Palestine and preaching the glad tidings of salvation.
0 C fr . M atth . V , 7 Jo h n 1, 4 5 . 8 Jo h n V , 4 5 sq. 5.
k 6< / .ov. j j

9 0 npo<priTr)s 0 e p x o fie fo s els to v Jo h n V I , 14. 10 npofprjrrjs x e y a s a i L u k e V I I , 16.

CH RIST A TRU E PRO PH ET

143

St. Matthew records that the people were in admira tion at his doctrine; for he was teaching them as one having power, and not as the scribes and Pharisees. 12 He presented Him self as the absolute Teacher of truth. C fr. John X V I I I , 3 7 : F o r this was I born, and for this came I into the world, that I should give testimony to the truth. F or it was His Father who spoke through Him,13 and He Himself was the way, and the truth, and the life. 14 Consequently, there can be no other teacher beside or above H im : Neither be ye called m asters; for one is your master,15 Christ. 16 Acknowl edging Him as the sovereign teacher of mankind, Nico demus s a y s : Rabbi, we know that thou art come a teacher from G o d ; for no man can do these signs which thou dost, unless God be with him. 17 Even so great a teacher as St. John the Baptist literally paled in the glorious halo which encircled the Divine M aster: He was not the light, but was to give testimony o f the light. 18 N or must we forget the power o f our Saviours ex ample, which more effectively even than His words prompted men to embrace the truth and lead a virtuous life. Fully realizing that Exam ple serves where pre cept fails, St. Luke in writing his Gospel, as he him self admits,19 was chiefly concerned with the things which Jesus began to do and to teach. 20 That it was the Redeemers express purpose to set a good example is manifest from His own declaration in John X I I I , 1 5 : For I have given you an example,21 that as I have
12 13 14 15 16 M atth. V I I , 2 8 sq. C fr . Jo h n X I V , i o ; X V I I , 8 . Jo h n X I V , 6. M a g ister, K a 07]y rjT 7 ]S. M atth. X X I I I , 10 . C f r . Jo h n 18 Jo h n I , 8. C fr . P o h le-P reu ss, C h ristolo g y, pp. 3 1 sq q .; H . S ch e ll, Ja liv e und, C h ristu s, pp. 4 0 3 sqq., P ad erb o rn 19 0 5. 19 A c t s I , 1. 20 iroielv r e K al SidaaK eip. 2 1 {n ro d eiyfia

X I I I , 13. 1 7 Jo h n I I I , 2.

144

O FFIC ES OF THE RED EEM ER

done to you, so you do also. St. Paul strongly insists on the importance of our being made comformable to the image of the Son of God,22 and did not rest until Christ had been formed in all his hearers.23 Christ was the beau-idal of virtue, because He was without sin ; and H is example was most effective, because l ie was im pelled by supreme charity. This accounts for the inex haustible power which flows from the Imitation of Christ and never ceases to purify, ennoble, energize, and rejuvenate men and to lead them on to moral perfection. In confirmation of this truth we need but point to the lives o f the Saints.24

d) For an adequate theological explanation of the singular greatness and perfection of Christs prophetical office we must go to its fountainhead, the Hypostatic Union.
a) Endowed with a fulness of knowledge unparalleled in the history o f the human race, Jesus was in a position to propound His teaching with absolute certainty and ir resistible conviction.25 Equipped with miraculous pow ers and the gift o f prophecy, He was able to confirm and seal His words by signs and miracles. A s the super natural Head o f grace, He was in the altogether unique position of one able to enlighten his hearers with the torch of faith and to fire their hearts with His grace. In all three of these respects He has absolutely no peer among men, and it is sheer folly to compare Him with Socrates
22 R om . V I I I , 29. 23 G al. I V , 19 . 2 4 C fr . S . R au e , O. F . M ., C h ri1st us als E r sie itc r. E in c m cthodisch e S t u d ie itber das hi. E va n g c liu m , 2n d cd ., F r e ib u r g 19 0 2 . F o r the teachn g o f the F a th e rs consult T eta v iu s, D e I near n., I I , 1 0 ; S ten tru p , S o tc riologia, thes. 1 3 4 sqq. 25 C fr . P o h le-P reu ss, C h risto lo g y, PP- 249 sqq.

CH RIST A TRU E PR O rH ET

145

or even with the greatest of the prophets, Moses and John the Baptist (3 ) Nor can it be urged as an argument against the sublimity of H is prophetical office, that Jesus addressed Him self only to the Jew s o f Palestine. He had excellent reasons for confining H is personal activity to that particu lar nation and country. We will enumerate four of the principal ones given by St. Thomas.26 ( 1 ) He had to fulfil the promises which God had made to the Jew s in the Old Testament. (2 ) It was becoming that the Gos pel should reach the gentiles through the instrumentality of Gods Chosen People. (3 ) Jesus had to pay due re gard to the peculiar mentality o f the Jew ish nation. (4) The method H e chose was better adapted than any other to demonstrate the triumphant power of the Cross. A fter H is Resurrection He sent out His disciples to teach and baptize all nations, and when He had ascended into Heaven, He appointed a special Apostle for the gentiles. His teaching was as open and public as the scene of His activity. Unlike the pagan philosophers, H e made no distinction between esoteric and exoteric truths. His motto w a s : That which I tell you in the dark, speak ye in the light: and that which you hear in the ear, preach ye upon the housetops. 27 y) Our Divine Lord had very good reasons fo r dis daining to consign H is heavenly teaching to books. It eminently befitted H is high office as Teacher o f man kind to employ the most perfect mode of teaching, namely oral instruction, which goes straight to the heart and reaches all, even those who are unable to read. It was for this same reason, in the opinion o f St. Thomas, that He commanded H is Church to instruct by word of mouth
27 M atth. X , 2 7 . 20 S . T h e o l., 3a , qu. 4 2, a rt. 1. C fr . S t. T hom as, S . T h e o l., 3a , qu. 4 2, art. 3.

146

O FFIC ES OF TH E R ED EEM ER

and constituted oral tradition a source o f faith side by side with Sacred Scripture. Some of the wisest men of antiquity ( e. g., Socrates and Pythagoras) exercised a tremendous influence over succeeding generations without ever having recourse to the stylus or the pen. Oral in struction was admirably adapted to the propagation of Christianity. Had our Lord presented H is teaching in the form o f bookish lore, consigned to parchment or papy rus, it would have become a veritable apple of discord. Then again, in the words of St. Thomas, those who refused to believe what the Apostles wrote, would not have believed Christ Him self had He consigned H is doc trines to writing. 2S

T h e E c c l e s ia s t ic a l M a g is t e r iu m a C on of C h r is t s P r o p h e t ic a l O f f i c e . A s the priesthood of our D ivine L o rd is con tinued on earth by the celebration of the H oly Sacrifice of the M ass and the adm inistration of the Sacram ents, especially H o ly O rders, so H is prophetic office is continued by the m agisterium o f the Catholic Church.
t in u a t io n

3.

a) The very fact that Christ established a Church to teach all nations shows that He wished her to continue H is prophetical office. H e guaranteed her H is special assistance and promised to be with her all days, even to the consummation of the world. 20 H aving established her as a teacher, H e sent her the Spirit of Truth, who
28 S T h e o l., 1 c. O n the apoc. ryphal correspo nd ence betw een our L o rd and A b g a r, K in g o f E d e ssa , c fr . R . A . Lip siu s, D ie edessen ische A b g a rsa g e kritiseh un tersu ch t, B ra u n sch w e ig 18 8 0 ; J. T ix e ro n t, L e s O rig in es de E g lis e d E d e s s e et a L g e n d e d A b g a r , P a r is 18 8 8 ; H . L e cle rq , a rt. " A b g a r in the Catholic E n c y c lo p e d ia , V o l. I, pp. 4 2 sq. 29 M atth . X X V I I I , 20.

CH RIST A TRU E PROPHET

147

informs and vivifies her as the soul informs and actu ates the body, and enables her to keep the deposit of faith intact against all attempts at diminution or distortion. Thus the infallibility of the Church and o f her Supreme Pontiff ultimately rests upon the prophetic office of Christ Him self, who is the infallible source and teacher of all truth.30 b) This explains why the Church participates in the prerogatives o f the prophetic office as exercised by her Divine Founder. A s the faithful custodian of the deposit of faith she teaches the whole truth. There is no higher magisterium conceivable than hers. The spiritual church expected by the Montanists and the Johan nine church imagined by some modern heretics are pure figments. Christianity is the absolute religion and cannot be measured by the inadequate yardstick of comparative science. The Catholic Church, through her connexion with Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, enjoys a truly divine authority, by which she proclaims with infallible certainty the dogmas o f faith and morals and condemns heretical errors whenever the necessity arises. H er anathemas are as truly binding on all men as her dogmatic definitions. Finally, she is endowed with un limited adaptability, which enables her to adjust herself to all times and circumstances, provided they do not run counter to the orthodox faith and the eternal principles of true morality. No matter how times may change, the Catholic Church, ever old and ever young, fills them with her own spirit, overcomes error and sin, and directs all legitimate efforts for the betterment o f the race into their divinely appointed channels. There is no error so novel,
30 C fr . P . J . T o n e r, a rt. In fa llib ility in the C atholic E n c y c lo p e d ia , V o l. V II, pp. 790 s q q .; J . P oh le, a rt. U n fe h lb a rk e it in H e r d e r s K irch e n le x ik o n , V o l. X I I , pp. 24* sqq.

1 48

O FFIC ES OF TH E RED EEM ER

no intellectual malady so grave that the Church is not able to counteract it with antidotes from her spiritual pharmacopoeia. Our own time furnishes a most instruc tive exemplification of this truth. It is a period of transition and fermentation. Pius X has vigorously condemned the Modernistic errors endangering the faith, and there is no doubt that they can be effectively warded off if the nations will listen to the voice of Holy Mother Church.31
31 C fr . H. P esch , S . J ., D ie sociale B ef h ig u n g B e rlin 1 9 1 1 . d e r K ir c h e . 3d ed.,

CHAPTER III
Ch
r is t s k in g s h ip

i. D e fin it io n o f th e T e r m . T he word king (rex, /WAev?,) denotes a sovereign invested with supreme authority over a nation, country or tribe. a) K in gsh ip includes three separate and distinct functions: legislative, ju diciary, and executive, which together constitute the supreme power of jurisdiction or governm ent.

The royal dominium iurisdictionis must not be con founded with what is known as the right of ownership ( dominium proprictatis) . The latter is directed to the possession of impersonal objects, while the former im plies the governance of free persons or subjects. The two differ both logically and in fact, and neither can be directly deduced from the other. The ruling power of a king or emperor by no means implies the possession o f property rights either in his subjects or their belong ings. The subjects o f a monarch are as free to possess private property as the monarch himself, not to speak of the right of personal liberty. It may be well to observe, however, that these limi tations apply to earthly kings only. God, being the Crea149

i5o

O FFIC ES OF TH E R ED EEM ER

tor and Lord o f the universe, is the absolute owner of all things, including men and their belongings.1

b) The royal power with its various func tions may be either secular or spiritual. The former is instituted for mans earthly, the latter for his spiritual benefit. Christ's is a spiritual kingdom, and will continue as such throughout eternity. H oly Scripture and the Church fre quently liken H is kingship to the office of a shep herd, to emphasize the loving care with which H e rules us and provides for our necessities. 2. C h r is t s E a r t i i l y K in g s h i p a s T a u g h t i n S a cred S c r ip t u r e . B oth the Old and the New T estam ent represent our L o rd Jesu s Christ as a true K in g , who descended upon this terres trial planet to establish a spiritual kingdom. T h is kingdom is the Catholic Church. C hrist did not come as a w orld ly monarch, but as the bishop of our souls. 2
a) I f we examine the Messianic prophecies o f the Old Testament we find the kingdom of Israel, or throne o f David, represented as a type o f the Messianic kingdom that was to come. C fr. 2 Kings V II, 12 s q .: I will raise up thy [D avids] seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house [i. e., temple, church] to my name, and I will establish the throne of
1 C fr . P o h le-P rcu ss. pp. 28 6 sqq. 2 C fr . I P e t. I I , 2 5 . G o d : H is K n o w a b ility , Essen ce and A ttrib u te s,

CH RIST A TRU E KING

151

his kingdom for ever. The same prediction is made in Psalms II, X X X , X X X V I I , X L V , L X X I I , and C IX . Isaias,3 Daniel,4 and Z ach arias5 depict the Messias in glowing colours as a Ruler, as the Prince o f peace and the mighty General of a great army. These prophecies were all fulfilled, though not in the manner anticipated by the carnal-minded Jew s. The Messias came as a King, but not with the pomp o f an earthly sovereign, nor for the purpose o f freeing the Jew ish nation from the yoke of its oppressors. Nevertheless the New Testament hails the lowly in fant born of the Blessed V irgin as a great King. Even before his birth the Archangel informs His Mother that The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father, and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. 6 The wise men hurried to His manger from the fa r E ast and anxiously inquired: Where is he that is born king of the J e w s ? 7 Y et when, after the miraculous multiplication o f loaves, the Jew s tried to take him by force and make him king, Jesus fled again into the mountain himself alone. 8 And when, in the face of death, Pilate asked H im : A rt thou a king then ? He answ ered: Thou sayest that I am a king. 0 A fter they had crucified Him, they put over his head his cause w ritten: This is Jesus the K ing of the Jew s. 10 Sorely disappointed in their worldly hopes, and still enmeshed in political am bitions, the two disciples who went to Emmaus lamented: But we hoped, that it was he that should have redeemed Israel. 11
3 Is. I X , 6 sqq., n . 4 5 6 7 D an. V I I , J 3 sqq. Zach. I X . L u k e I, 3 2 sq. M atth. I I , 2. 8 Jo h n V I , 15 . 9 Jo h n X V I I I , 3 7 . 10 M atth . X X V I I , 3 7 1 1 Luke X X I V , 2 1. C fr . A c t s I, 6.

152

O FFIC ES OF TH E RED EEM ER

b) This seeming contradiction between the Old Testament prophecies and the actual life of our Lord Jesus Christ finds its solution in the Churchs teaching that H is is a purely spiritual kingdom. C fr. Is. L X , 18 sqq.; Jer. X X I I I , 5 sqq.; Ezech. X X X V I I , 2 1 sqq. F o r the sake of greater clearness, it will be advisable to separate the quaestio iuris from the quaestio facti, and to treat each on its own merits.
a) The quaestio facti. Taking the facts as we know them, there can be no doubt that Christ never intended to establish an earthly kingdom. H e fled when the Jew s attempted to make him king.12 H e acknowledged the Roman Em peror as the legitimate ruler of Palestine and commanded the Jew s to render to Csesar the things that are G e sa rs, and to God the things that are Gods. 13 H e consistently refused to interfere in secular affairs, as when he said to the man wrho asked Him to ad judicate a question of inheritance: Who hath ap pointed me judge, or divider, over y o u ? 14 And He expressly declared before P ila te : 15 M y kingdom is not of this world. I f my kingdom were of this world, my servants would certainly strive that I should not be delivered to the Je w s : but now my kingdom is not from hence. 16 /?) The quaestio iuris. W hat first strikes 11s from the juridic point of view is: Did Christ merely refrain from asserting His legal claim to secular kingship, or
12 13 14 15 10 Jo h n V I , 1 5 . M attli. X X I I , 2 1 . L u k e X I I , 14 . Jo h n X V I I I , 36. C fr . F e rd . Steu tru p , gia, thes. 13 8 . F o r a critical refu tation o f L o i s y s erro rs see M . L e p in , C hrist and the G o sp e l (E n g lish t r .) , Ph iladelphia 19 10 , espeSo teriolo ially pp. 4 7 5 sqq.

CH RIST A T R U E KING

153

had He no such claim, at least in actu prim of Catholic theologians agree that as the Son of David Christ possessed no dynastic title to the kingdom o f Ju d a ; first, because His Messianic kingdom extended fa r beyond the limits of Palestine, in fact embraced the whole w orld; and secondly, because neither the Blessed Virgin M ary nor St. Joseph, though both descended from the house o f David, had any hereditary claim to the throne which had been irretrievably lost under Jechonias.17 There is another point on which theologians are also o f one mind. B y virtue of His spiritual kingship the Godman possesses at least indirect power over all secular affairs, for else His spiritual power could not be conceived as absolutely un limited, which would have imperiled the purpose of the Incarnation. This indirect power over worldly affairs is technically known as potestas indirecta in temporalia. Its counterpart is the potestas directa in temporalia, and in regard to this there exists a long-drawn-out con troversy among theologians. Gregory of Valentia and Cardinal B ellarm ine18 hold that Christ had no direct jurisdiction in secular or temporal matters, while S u a rez19 and De L u g o 20 maintain that He had. The affirmative opinion appeals to us as more probable, though the Scriptural texts marshalled in its favor by De Lugo 21 cannot be said to be absolutely convincing. These texts (Matth. X X V I I I , 18 ; Acts X , 36 ; 1 Cor. X V , 2 7 ; Apoc. I, 5 and X I X , 16 ) can be explained partly by the doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum,22 partly by reference to our L ords spiritual kingdom. De Lugos theological arguments, however, are very strong
17 C fr . J e r . X X I I , 30 . 18 D e R o m . P o n tifice, V , 4 19 D e M y st. V ita e C h risti, 4 2 , sect. 2 . disp. 20 D e M y st. In c a r n ., disp. 30 , x. sq. 2 1 L . c., n. 5. 22 C f r . P o h le-P reu ss, C h risto lo g y, pp. 18 4 sqq.

154

O FFIC ES OF TH E R ED EEM ER

indeed. Take this one, for example. Christs direct jurisdiction in matters temporal is based on the Hypo static Union. On account o f the Hypostatic Union His sacred humanity was entitled to such excellencies and prerogatives as the power of working miracles, the ful ness o f knowledge, the highest measure o f the beatific vision, the dignity o f headship over all creatures,23 etc. And it is but reasonable to conclude that there must have been due to Him in a similar w ay that other pre rogative which we may call kingship over all crea tures.24 From this point of view it may be argued that the theandric dignity of our Lord, flowing from the H y postatic Union, gave Him an imprescriptible claim to royal power, so that, had He willed, He could have deposed all the kings and princes of this world and con stituted Him self the Head of a universal monarchy. Bellarm ines apprehension that this teaching might exert a pernicious influence on the papacy, is absolutely groundless. For, in the first place, Christs vice-gerent on earth is not Christ Him self, and secondly, the pre rogatives and powers enjoyed by our Lord, even- those of a purely spiritual nature, are not eo ipso enjoyed by the Pope. Christ was able to do many things in the spiritual realm, rightly observes De Lugo, which the Pope cannot do; for example, institute sacraments, con fer grace through other than sacramental channels, etc. 25 These considerations also explain why Christ declared Him self legally exempt from the obligation of paying taxes and paid the didrachmas solely to avoid scan dal.26
23 C f r . P o h le -P re u ss, C h risto lo g y, PP. 2 39 SQQ" 24 D e L u g o , I. c n. 8. 25 L . c., n. n . 28 C fr . M atth . X V I I , 2 3 sqq.

CH RIST A TRU E KING

155

The question as to the property rights enjoyed by our Divine Saviour may be solved by the same principle which we have applied to that of H is temporal ju ris diction. Vasquez was inconsistent in rejecting De Lugos solution of the former problem after accepting his view of the latter.27 For, while it is perfectly true that the Godman never laid claim to earthly goods, but lived in such abject poverty that He literally had not where to lay his head, 28 this does not argue that He had no legal right to acquire worldly possessions. The simple truth is that He had renounced this right for good reasons. It is an article of faith, defined by Pope John X X I I in his Constitution Quum inter nonnullos that Christ actually possessed at least a few things as His personal property.29

C h r is t s H e a v e n l y K in g s h i p , or t h e D ogma of H is A s c e n sio n a n d S it t in g a t t h e R ig h t H a n d of t h e F a t h e r . T he R esu rrec tion of our L o rd and H is Descent into hell m erely form ed the prelim inaries of H is kin gly office. It w as by H is glorious Ascension that H e took fo r m al possession of H is royal throne in H eaven, which H oly Scripture describes as sitting at the righ t hand of God. Both H is Ascension and H is sittin g at the righ t hand of God are funda m ental articles of faith, as m ay be judged from the fact that they have been incorporated into the A postles Creed.
27 D e I n c a r n ., disp. 8 7 , cap. 6. 28 L u k e I X , 58. C fr . S t. Th o m as, Su m m a T h e o l., 3 a , qu. 40, art. 29 D en z in g er-B a n n w a rt, n. 494. 3.

3.

11

1 56

O FFIC ES OF THE R ED EEM ER

a) There is no need of entering into a detailed Scrip tural argument to prove these dogmas. Our Lord Him self clearly predicted His Ascension into Heaven,30 and the prophecy was fulfilled in the presence of many wit nesses. M ark X V I, 19 : And the Lord Jesus, after He had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God." 31 The argument from Tradition is copiously developed by Suarez in the 51st disputation of his famous treatise D e M ysteriis Vitae Christi. Our Lord ascended by H is own might, says the Roman Catechism, and was not raised aloft by the power of another, as was Elias, who ' went up in a fiery chariot into heaven (4 Kings II, 1 1 ) , or as was the prophet Habacuc (Dan. X IV , 35 sqq.), 01* Philip the deacon (A cts Y H I, 39 ), who, borne through the air by the divine power, traversed far distant parts of the earth. Neither did He ascend into heaven solely as God, by the supreme power of the Divinity, but also as m an ; for although the Ascension could not have taken place by natural power, yet that virtue with which the blessed soul of Christ had been endowed, was capable of moving the body as it pleased; and his body, now glorified, readily obeyed the command of the actuating soul. And thus we believe that Christ, as God and man, ascended by His own power into heaven. 32 The phrase, sitteth on the right hand of God, must not, of course, be interpreted literally, since with God there is neither right nor left. It is a figurative ex pression, intended to denote the exalted station occupied
30 Jo h n V I , 6 3 ; X I V , 1 sq q .; X V I , 28. 31 ' 0 fitv o v v Kvpios 1i)<tovs fx era X aX ^crat a v r o t s avrfK-r)jx(pOT] e h -rbv o vpa vo v Ka't Kadiffev k Se^tHv r o i Qeov3 - Cat. R o m ., P . I, c. 7 , qu. 2. C fr . S . Th o m as, 5 . T lieo l., 3 a , qu.

57. art. 1 .

CHRIST A TRU E KING

157

by our Lord in heaven,33 and also His calm, immutable possession o f glory and jurisdiction over the whole universe.34 It is in His capacity o f royal judge that Jesus will one day reappear with great power and m aj esty to judge the living and the dead. 35

b) The two dogmas under consideration have both a Christological and a Soteriological bearing.
a) From the Christological point of view our Saviours Ascension as well as His sitting on the right hand of the Father signalize the beginning, or rather the con tinuation, of the status cxaltationis, of which H is R esur rection and Descent into hell were mere preludes. H is humiliation (status exinanitionis) in the form o f a servant, 3G H is poverty, suffering, and death, made way for an eternal kingship in Heaven. The truly regal splendor of our Divine Redeemer during and after His Ascension is more strongly emphasized in the Apostolic Epistles than in the Gospels. In the Epistles the epithet Lord (Dominus, o Kvpios) nearly always connotes royal dominion. C fr. 1 Tim. V I, 1 5 : Who is the Blessed and only Mighty, K ing of kings, and Lord of lords. It is only since His Ascension into Heaven that Christ rules the universe conjointly with the Father, though this joint dominion will not reach its highest perfection till the day of the Last Judgment, when all creation will lie in absolute subjection under His feet. 37 /?) From the Soteriological point o f view it would be wrong to represent Christs Ascension (not to speak of H is Resurrection and Descent into hell) as the total or
33 C fr . H eb . I , 1 3 . 34 C fr . E p h . I , 20 sqq. 3 5 C fr . S t. T h o m as, S . T h e o l., 3 a , qu. 58. C liristolo g y, pp. 95 sq. 37 C f r . Ep h . I , 2 2 sq q .; H eb . I I , 8. 36 C fr . P o h le-P reu ss,

158

O FFIC ES OF TH E R ED EEM ER

even partial cause ( causa meritoria) of our Redemption. The atonement was effected solely by the sacrifice of the Cross. Nevertheless St. Paul w rites: Jesus . . . en tered . . . into heaven itself, that he may appear now in the presence of God for us. 38 In other words, He con tinues to exercise H is mediatorial office in Heaven. How are we to understand this? St. Thomas explains it as fo llo w s: Christs Ascension is the cause of our salvation in a twofold way, first on our part, and sec ondly on His. On our part, in so far as H is Ascension directs our minds to Him. . . . On H is part, in so far as He ascended for our salvation, ( i ) to prepare for us the w ay to Heaven, . . . (2) because Christ entered Heaven, as the High Priest entered the Holy of holies, to make intercession for u s ; 30 . . . (3 ) in order that, seated as Lord God on the throne of Heaven, He might thence send us divine gifts. 40 A s is apparent from the last-mentioned two points, Christs kingship is closely bound up with His priesthood. In fact it may be said in a general way that the three functions or offices o f our Divine Redeemer are so closely inter twined that they cannot be separated. For the special benefit of canonists we would observe that the threefold character of these functions furnishes no adequate basis for the current division of the power of the Church into potcstas ordinis, potcstas magisterii, and potcstas iurisdictionis . 4 1 The traditional division into potcstas ordinis and potcstas iurisdictionis is the only adequate and correct one from the dogmatic point of view.42
to v

VVV iK p a vio d riva i rep irpoaw nw 0 eoO vwep H eb . I X , 24 . 39 Ile b . V I I , 2 5 . 40 S'. T h e o l., 3a , qu. 5 7 , a rt. 6. 3S

4 1 T h is divisio n is em ployed by W a lte r , P h illips, R ich te r, llin sc h iu s, and others. -* C fr . Scheeb en, D o g m atik , V o l.

CHRIST A TRU E KING 4.

159

C h r is t s K i n g s h ip a s C o n t in u e d in H is C h u r c h on E a r t h . W e have shown that our

Divine Redeemer did not claim secular 01* tem poral jurisdiction. It follows a fortiori that the Church which H e has established is a purely spiritual kingdom and must confine herself to the government of souls.
a) The Catholic Church was not established as a polit ical power. She represents that peaceful Messianic king dom which was foreshadowed by the Old Testament prophets and which the Prince of Peace founded with His Precious Blood. Hence the hierarchical order displayed in the papacy, episcopate, priesthood, and diaconate, is purely spiritual. Hence, too, the means o f sanctification which the Church employs (prayer, sacrifice, and the sacraments) are of an exclusively spiritual character. Christ, who was the K ing of Kings, did not disturb the earthly monarchs of His time in their jurisdiction, and it cannot be the mission o f H is Church to grasp at political power or treat temporal rulers as her vassals. Hers is a purely spiritual dominion for the sanctification of souls. Being Gods kingdom on earth, the Church exists in and for this world, but is not of it. The theory of a few medieval canonists that she enjoys direct jurisdiction over all nations and rulers, has no foundation either in Sacred Scripture or in history. It is unevangelical for the reason that Christ never claimed such power. It is unhistorical because the donation o f Constantine, on which it rests, is a fiction.43 This theory, which was
I , p. 6 7, F r e ib u r g 1 8 7 3 ; C av a g n is, In stil. Ittris P u b l. E c cle sia e , 4th ed., V o l. I, p. 24 , R om e 190 6. 43 C fr . L . D uchesne, T h e B eg in r in g s o f the T em p o ra l S o v e r e ig n ty o f the P o p e s (E n g lish t r .) , p. 120 ,

O FFIC ES OF TH E R ED EEM ER
inspired by the imposing phenomenon of the Holy Roman Empire, has never been adopted by the Church, nor is it maintained by the m ajority of her theologians and canon ists. The relation between Church and State still re mains a knotty problem.44 Harnack seriously distorts the truth when he s a y s : The Roman Church in this way privily pushed itself into the place of the Roman worldempire, of which it is the actual continuation; the empire has not perished, but has only undergone a transform a tion. I f we assert, and mean the assertion to hold good even of the present time, that the Roman Church is the old Roman Em pire consecrated by the Gospel, that is no mere clever rem ark/ but the recognition of the true state of the matter historically, and the most appropriate and fruitful w ay of describing the character of this Church. It still governs the nations; its popes rule like Trajan and Marcus A urelius; Peter and Paul have taken the place of Romulus and R em u s; the bishops and arch bishops, o f the proconsuls; the troops of priests and monks correspond to the legions; the Jesuits, to the im perial body-guard. The continued influence of the old Empire and its institutions may be traced in detail, down to individual legal ordinances, nay, even in the very clothes. That is no church like the evangelical com munities, or the national churches of the E a s t ; it is a political creation, and as imposing as a world-empire, because the continuation of the Roman Em pire. 45 The possession of political power may be useful, nay, rela tively speaking, necessary to insure to the Pope the free and untrammelled exercise of his spiritual functions; but
Lo n do n 19 0 8 ; J . P . K irsch in the C atho lic E n c y c lo p e d ia , V o l. V . pp. 1 1 8 sqq. 44 C fr . J . Pohle in H e r d e r s K ir ch en lex ik on , V o l. X I I , 2 2 9 sqq. D a s l l esen d c s C liristen tiinis, p. 1 5 7 . L eip zig 19 0 2 (E n g lish t r .: 1 liat is C h ristia n ity ? p. 270 , 2nd 1 c d N e w Y o rk 19 0 8 ).

CH RIST A TRU E KING

i 6i

it does not enter into the essence of the papacy, which for centuries has flourished without it and still commands the highest respect in spite of its spoliation by the Italian government.

b) The Church exercises a truly royal domin ion over the souls of men, and hence must be enti tled to all the prerogatives of a spiritual kingship. That is to say, within the limits of her divinely or dained constitution, she possesses legislative as well as judicial power over her members, includ ing the executive right of inflicting punishment.4 0 There can be no exercise of judicial power with out the power of compulsion (potcstas coactiva s. vindicativa) and it is, moreover, a formally de fined dogma that the Church possesses this power.4 7
The penalties which she is authorized to inflict are, of course, predominantly spiritual (penitential acts, ec clesiastical censures, and especially excommunication).4 8 But she can also impose temporal and bodily punish ments (poenae temporales et corporales). We know that she has exercised this power, and it would be temera rious to deny that she possesses it.4 0 Has the Church also the power to put malefactors to death ( ins gladii) ? Canonists are not agreed on this point, though all admit that if the Church decides to inflict the death penalty, the sentence must be carried
40 C fr . M atth. X V I , 1 9 ; X V I I I , 15 sqq. 47 C fr . D e n z in g e r-B a n n w a rt, E n c hiridion , n. 499, 640, 15 0 4 sq. 48 C fr . 1 C or. I V , 2 1 ; V , 5 : 2 C or. X I I I , 1 s q .; 1 T im . I , 20. 49 C fr . B o u ix , D e Iu d ic ., V o l. I , p. 66, P a ris 18 5 5 .

162

O FFIC ES OF TH E R ED EEM ER

out by the secular power ( brachium saccitlare), because it would be unbecoming for the Spouse of Christ to stain her hands with blood, even if a deadly crime had been per petrated against her. It is a historical fact that the Church has never pro nounced (much less, of course, executed) the death sen tence or claimed the right to inflict it. Whenever, in the Middle Ages, she found herself constrained to pro nounce judgment for a crime which the secular power was wont to punish by death ( e. g. voluntary and obsti nate heresy), she invariably turned the culprit over to the State. The cruel practice of burning heretics has fortunately ceased and will never be revived. Regarded from the standpoint of religious principle, the question of the ins gladii is purely academic. The great m ajority of canonists seem to hold that the Church does not possess the right of inflicting capital punishment. The contrary teaching of Tarquini and De Luca 50 has occasioned much unfavorable criticism, and Cavagnis undoubtedly voices the conviction of most contemporary canonists when he says 51 that the so-called ins gladii has no solid basis either in Scripture or Tradition. Our D i vine Redeemer did not approve the infliction of capital punishment,52 nay. He restrained His followers from inflicting bodily injury.50 St. Paul, in spite of his sever ity, never took recourse to any but spiritual measures. The great Pope Nicholas I said: Gods holy Church has no other sword than the spiritual; she does not kill, she dispenses life. 54 H er kingdom is purely spiritual,
50 In st, lu r i s E c c l. P u b l., V o l. I , pp. 2 6 1 sqq., R om e 19 0 1. 51 In st. I u r is P u b l. E c c l., 4th ed., V o l. I, pp. 90 sqq., R om e 19 0 6. 02 C f r . L u k e I X , 5 3 sqq. 03 C fr . M atth . X X V I , 52 . 54 Sa n cta D e i E c cle sia gladium non habct nisi spiritualetn, non occidit, sc d rirific a t. ( D c c r . G ra l., c. 6, causa 3 3 , qu. 2 .)

CH RIST A TRU E KIN G

163

and hence she must leave the infliction o f capital pun ishment to the secular power.55

The most determined opponent of the Churchs royal office is modern Liberalism, which employs all the powers of civil government to obstruct the exercise of her spiritual jurisdiction or to circumscribe that jurisdiction as narrowly as pos sible. Am ong the means invented for this pur pose are the so-called ins circa sacra, the appellatio tamquam ab abusu, 50 and the placet um regium ,57 in a word the whole iniquitous system known in English-speaking countries as Caesaropapism or Erastianism 58 and based on the per nicious fallacy that the State is supreme in ecclesiastical affairs.
R e a d i n g s : * St. Thom as, Summa Theologica, 3a, qu. 22, and the Commentators. A. Charre, Le Sacrifice de IHomme-Dieu, Paris 1899. * V . T halhofer, Das O pfer des A lten und Neuen Bundes, Ratisbon 1870. I d e m , Die Opferlehre des Hebrer briefes, D illingen 1855. W . Schenz, Die priesterliche Ttigkeit des Messias nach dem Propheten Isaias, Ratisbon 1892. J . Grim al, L e Sacerdoce et le Sacrifice de Notre Seigneur Jesus Christ, P aris 1908.* F r. Schmid, Christus als Prophet, nach den Evangelien dargestellt, B rixen 1892. Tanner, S. J., Cruen-

tum Christi Sacrificium, Incruentum Missae Sacrificium E xpli55 C fr . A. V erm e e rsch , S. J., olic E n c y c lo p e d ia , V o l. I, pp. 650 T o lera n ce (tr. b y W . H . P a g e ), pp. 58 sqq., L o n d o n 1 9 1 3 ; J . P o h le, a rt. T o le ra tio n in the C atholic E n c y clopedia, V o l. X I V ; J . K e atin g , S . J . , in T h e M o n th , N o . 58 2 , pp. 607
S qq_

SQQ. 57 C fr . S . L u z io in the C atholic E n c y c lo p e d ia , s. v . E x e q u a tu r , PP< 707 s<558 0 n the tru e m eaning o f this loosely used term see B . W a r d in the C alhoU c E n c y c lo p e d ia , pp. 5 1 4 sqq. V o l. V,

56 C fr . R . L . B u rtse ll in the Cath-

O FFIC ES OF TH E RED EEM ER

catum, P ragu e 1669. B . Bartm ann, Das Himmelreich und sein Knig nach den Synoptikern, Paderborn 1904. A . J . M aas, S. J., Christ in Type and Prophecy, 2 vols., New Y o rk 1893-5. MLepin, Christ and the Gospel, or Jesus the Messiah and Son of God, Philadelphia 1910. W ilhelm -Scannell, A Manual o f Cath olic Theology, V ol. II, pp. 196-207, 2nd ed., London 1901. W. Hum phrey, S. J., The One Mediator, pp. 1- 4 1, London s. a.
Other authorities quoted in the foot-notes.

INDEX
A Ablard, 54. Adam , 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33, 40, 42, 49 sq. Adam antius, 52. Adequacy of the atonement, 60 sqq. ^ Adoration, 112 . "AtSrs 92 sqq. ons, 6. A lbert the Great, 30. A lexand er V I I I , 78. Ambrose Catharinus, 31. Am brose. St., 29, 135 sq. Angels, 16 sq., 33 sq., 80 sq. Anselm, St., 2 1, 54, 55. Avr'CkvTpov} 62. Apocatastasis, 80. Berruyer, 67. Beza, 92. Blavatsky, Madame, 44. B ody o f Christ, Glorified, 105 sq. Bonaventure, St., 26 sq. Books, W hy Christ wrote no, 145 sq. Bougaud, 3 1. C Csesaropapism, 163. Calvin, 10 sq., 75, 91, 92, 94. Calvinists, 123. Capital punishment, H as the Church the right to inflict it? 16 1 sqq. Capreolus, 58. Cavagnis, 162. Child, W hy Christ came into the w orld as a, 17 sq. Christ, Our M ediator, 7 sqq; H is Incarnation, 13 sqq.; W hy H e assumed a human rather than an angelic na ture, 16 sq q .; W hy H e came into the w orld as a child, 17 sq.; Gained merits fo r us, 56 s q .; When ? 57 s q .; The principal object o f H is m eri torious actions, 58 sq .; A d e quacy of H is atonement, 60 sqq.; Superabundance there of, 70 sqq.; Died for all the faithful, 75 sqq .; Died for all men, 77 sqq.; H is death on the cross, 85 sq q .; H is

Appellatio tamquam ab abusu,

163. . Ascension, C hrists, 155 sqq. Athanasius, St., 15, 29. Atonement, V icarious, 35 sqq. ; Properties af, 60 sqq. ; R e al ization of, 84 sqq. Augustine, St., 10, 16, 21, 22, 29, 33, 42, 53, 67, 79, 82, 93, 95, 124 sq. B Baju s, 73. Baptism, 103. Baptism o f Christ, 129. Barnabas, Epistle of, 12 1. Bellarm ine, 153, 154. Bernard of C lairvau x, St., 53. Bernard of Siena, 3 1.

166

IN DEX
Eternity of Christs priesthood, 133 sqq. Expiation, 112 , 12 1. F Faber, F. W ., 31. Francis de Sales, St., 31. Franzelin, 66. Frassen, 63. Funke, B ., 21.
G

descent into hell, 91 sq q .; H is Resurrection, 10 1 sq q .; H is priesthood, i n sqq., 127 sqq.; H is intercession for us in H eaven, 135 sqq.; H is prophetical office, 140 sqq-; H is kingship, 149 sqq.; H is Ascension and sitting at the right hand of the Father, 155 sqq. Christus, 129. Chrysostom , St. John, 7 1. Church, The Catholic, 146 sqq., 159 sqq. Clement V I , 74Clement of Rom e, St., 51. Congruity o f the Redemption, 13 sqq. _ Constantine, Donation of, 159Cross, 85 sqq.; Sacrifice of the 114 sqq. Cyril of Jerusalem , St., 71. D Damascene, St. John, 16. Dante, 98. David, 153. Death of Christ, 85 sqq., i n sqq. De Luca, 162. Deluge, 100 sq. De Lugo, 26, 153 sqq. Dem iurge, 6. De Rada, 63. Descent into hell, Christs. 91 sqq. D evil, R ole of the, in the In carnation, 51 sqq. Diekamp, F r. 80. Dominus, 15 7Dorholt, B., 2 1, 41. Du Cappucce, 31. Duns Scotus, 30, 63. Durandus, 91. E Ephesus, T hird General Coun cil of, 44 sq., 116. Erastianism , 163.

Gay, 3 1. Gnosticism, 41, 43 sq. Gcrttschalk, 77. G regory of Nazianzus, 52. G regory o f Nyssa, St., 52. G regory of Valentia, 26, 66, ^ J53 Grotius, H ugo, 51. H H arnack, 55, 160. H ell, Christs descent into, 91 sqq. Henno, 63. H ierarchy, 159. H oly Orders, 146. H oly Ram an Em pire, 160. Homo gloriosus, 26, 30. Homo passibilis, 26, 30. Hypostatic Union, 14, 22, 63, 65, 74. 123, 129, 133, 139, 144, 154-

I
Imitation of Christ, 144.

Impeccantia, 42.
Incarnation, The, 13 sqq., 19, 2 1 sq., 25 sqq., 127 sq. Infcriorcs partes terras, 93. Infer num. 94. Infinite value of Christs atone ment, 72. Innocent X , 76. Trenreus, St., 52, 93. Isaias, 45 sqq., 13 1, 141 sq.

IN D E X
Iits circa sacra, 163. Ins gladii, 16 1 sqq.

i 7

J
Jansenists, 79. Jansenius, 75 sq. Janssens, L., 26. Jew ish sacrifice, 1 17 sq. Joh n X X I I , 155. Jo h n the Baptist, 143. Joseph, St., 153. Judge, Christ the royal, 157. Jurisdiction o f the Church, 159 sq. Justification, 103. K Kenosis, 20. K ing, 149 sq. K in g o f the Je w s, 15 1. Kingship, Christ s, 149 sqq. Kleutgen, 26. L L a st Judgm ent, 157. L a st Supper, 132. Lateran, Fourth Council of the, 91. Leo IX , 104. Lessius, 1 7, 26, 33. Leibniz, 19. Liberalism , 163. Lim bo, Speculations regarding the location of, 98. Limbits patrum, 91 sq., 94, 95Limbus pucrorum, 96 sqq. Logos, 6, 24. Luke, St., 143. Lu ll, Raym ond, 19. Lutheranism , 40. M M agisterium , T h e ecclesiasti cal, 146 sqq. M alebranche, 19. Man o f Sorrow s, 13 1.

M artyrdom not a true sacrifice, 126. M ary B. V ., 153. Mass, 116, 132, 146. M astrius, 64. M ediator, 5 sqq. Mediator natnralis, 7. M ediator per gratiam, 7. Mediatorship, 5 sqq. Melchisedech, 127? 130, 13 1 sq. M erit, 55 sqq. M erits of Christ, 56 sqq. Meritum de condigno, 56. Meritum de congrno, 56. M essias, 14 1. Milton, 98. Modernism, 50, 148. Monophysitism, 122, 123. Montanism, 147. M osaic sacrifices, 1 1 7 sqq. Moses, 14 1, 142, 145. N Necessity of the Redemption, 18 sqq. Nestorianism, 122, 123. Nicholas I, 162. Nominalists, 61.

O
Offices o f the Redeemer, n o sqq. Optimism, 19 sq. Ordination to the priesthood, Christs, 127 sqq. Origen, 52, 80. Origenism, 104. O ur Father, The, 43. P Pantheism, 41. Paraclete, 136 sq. Passion, Christs, 72, 86 sqq. Paul, St., 38, 48, 50, 76, 79, 103, 105, 118 sqq., 128 sq., 130, 13 1 sq., 134, 138, 144, 162. Pelagianism , 4 1 sqq. Pell, G. A., 41.

IN D E X
Perfection o f the atonement, Intrinsic, 60 sqq. ; Extrinsic, 75 sqq. Pesch, Chr., 26. Petavius, 26, 77, 136 sq. Peter, St., 99 sq. Pfleiderer, 55. Pilate, 15 1, 152. Pius V , 73Pius X , 148. Place tit in regiitm, 163. Plato, 95. Pcrlycarp, St., 51. Pope, 154. Potcstas coactiva of the Church, 16 1. Poverty of Christ, 155. P rayers of Christ, 132 sq. Precious Blood, 48 sq., 61 sq., 88. _ Predestinarianism , 75 sqq. Predestination, 75. Predestination of the Re deemer, 24 sqq. Priest, Christ a true, i n sqq., 127 sqq. Priesthood o f Christ, i n sqq., 127 sqq. Prophet, Christ as a, 140 sqq. Prosper o f Aquitaine, 79. Punishment, The Churchs right to inflict, 161. Purgatory, 94, 95 sq. R Rationalism , 38, 41 sqq., 115 . Reatus culpae, 36. Rcatus poenae, 36, 37. Redemption, Congruity of the, 13 sqq.; Necessity of the, 18 sqq.; A free gift of God, 20 sqq. ; Predestination of the, 24 sqq.; Through Christ's vicarious atonement, 35 sqq. Resurrection, The, 10 1 sqq. R ichard of St. Victor, 21. R igor iustitiae, 66, 69. R isi, 31. Rivire, J., 52. Rupert of Deutz, 30. S Sacrifice, i n sqq. Sacrifice, Bloody, i n sqq. Sacrificial act, Christ's, 125 sq. Satisfaction, 35 sqq., 55 sqq., 60 sqq. Schell, 3 1. Schaulza, P., 137 sq. Scotists, 25 sq., 30 sqq., 61, 63 sq. Second Person of the Trinity, W hy did H e become incar nate? 15 sq. Servant of Gfpd, 46 sq. Shepherd, Christ our, 150. Sin, Grievous, 36 sq. Sitting at the right hand of God the Father, 155 sqq. Socinianism , 38, 42 sq., 5 1, 115 , 123, 130, 131, 137Socinus, Faustus, 42, 138. Socinus, Laelius, 42. Socrates, 88, 95, 144. Sprinkling of the blood of Christ, 88. Stancarus, Francis, 123. Status exaltationis, 157. Status e.vinaiutioiiis, 157. Stentrup, 26. Suarez, 22, 3 1, 33, 61, 66, 69, 7 i, 156. T Tanner, 66. Tarquini, 162. Teacher, Christ as a, 140 sqq. Tem poral power of the papacy, 160 sq. Tepe, 26. Teresa, St., 90. Tertullian, So, 93, 12 1 sq. Thalhofer, 137 sq., 139. Theosophy, 4 1, 44. Thom as, St., On the functions o f mediatorship, 8 ; On the m ystery of the Incarnation, 14 s q .; On the motive of the Incarnation, 26 s q .; On the infinity of grievous sin, 36;

IN D EX
On the scope of Christ's merits, 59; On the dignity of Christs flesh, 72 ; On the ne cessity of Christ's Passion, 72 sq. ; On the universality o f the atonement, 82 sq. ;O n the congruity of Christs death on the cross, 88 sq. ; On H is descent into hell, 96; On sacrifice, 1 1 4 ; On the priesthood, 13 9 ; On the ques tion why Christ confined H is personal activity to one par ticular time and country, 145 ; On the question why thie Redeem er taught only by word of mouth, 145 sq. ; On Christs Ascension, 158. Thom assin, 136 sq. Thom ists, 26 sqq., 64 sq. Toledo, Eleventh Council of, 106 sq. Toleration, 163. Toletus, Card., 26, 29. Tournely, 2 1, 138. Tradition, 145 sq. Trent, Council of, 45, 56, 58, 78, 8 1, 85, 116 , 124, 130. Trium ph over hell, C hrists 95. U

169

Unigenitus, Bull, 73 sq.

Unction of Christ, 127 sqq.

U niversality of the atonement, 75 sqq. V Vasquez, 26, 136 sq., 155. V icarious atonement, 35 sqq.; Properties of, 60 sqq. Voluntas salvifica, 75, 82, 97. W W yclif, 18 sq. Y Ysam bert, 31. Z Zill, L., 137, 138. Zwinglians, 123.