✝ Catholic Treasury Network
Home ›Tracts›Soteriology›The Dogma of Christ's Vicarious Atonement Proved from Revelation
Pohle-PreussSoteriologyChapter 2

The Dogma of Christ's Vicarious Atonement Proved from Revelation

Article 2: The Dogma of Christ’s Vicarious Atonement Proved from Revelation

1. Various Heresies and the Teaching of the Church

The heretical opinions that have arisen in course of time with regard to the dogma of Christ’s vicarious atonement owe their inspiration either to Rationalism or to Pantheism. The Rationalist error that the idea of individual liberty absolutely excludes original sin, found its embodiment in Pelagianism and Socinianism, two heretical systems which, though not contemporaneous, agreed in denying original sin and the atonement. Pantheism, which merges all individuals into one Absolute Being and regards sin as a function of the Godhead, gave birth to Gnosticism and modern Theosophy.

a) All these heresies are based on a radically wrong conception of the nature of sin.

(α) Pelagianism rests on the fundamental fallacy that sin is essentially the free act of an individual and cannot be conceived as moral guilt incurred by propagation (original sin). In consequence of this basic error, the Pelagians wrongly held that the grace of Christ has for its object not the redemption of the whole human race by the effacement of an inherited sin of nature, but the setting up of an ideal or pattern of virtue in accordance with which the individual is obliged to regulate his personal conduct. Christ gave us “a good example” to counteract the “bad example” set by Adam. Pelagianism credited the sinner with sufficient strength to arise after falling, nay to attain to a state of perfect sinlessness1 without supernatural aid, and hence denied the necessity of grace and unduly exaggerated the moral capacity of human nature.2

The soteriological consequences implied in Pelagius’ system were expressly drawn by Socinianism. This heresy originated towards the close of the sixteenth century by way of a reaction against “orthodox” Protestantism. Its founders were Laelius Socinus and his nephew Faustus, both natives of Siena, Italy. Faustus Socinus (1539–1604) systematized and developed the teachings of his uncle in several works: De Christo Servatore, De Officio Christi, and Brevis Discursus de Ratione Salutis Nostrae ex Sermonibus Fausti Socini.3 Socinianism denied the Trinity, the Divinity of Jesus Christ, the necessity of supernatural grace, and the dogma of the vicarious atonement. Its champions alleged that Christ is properly speaking neither our Saviour nor a true high priest, but merely a teacher pointing the way to salvation. The chief object of His coming was to inculcate the “Our Father.” To the Socinians have succeeded the modern Unitarians, who are distinguished from their predecessors principally by the denial of the miraculous conception of our Lord and the repudiation of His worship. The Socinian theology also had considerable influence in forming the modern Rationalist school.4

Hermes and Günther5 held an intermediate position between the Catholic dogma and these heretical vagaries.

(β) Diametrically opposed to the soteriological teaching of the Pelagians and Socinians is that of the Gnostics and Theosophists.

Gnosticism was at bottom a Manichaean heresy. Its votaries held that, since the human soul is part of that principle (hyle) which is essentially bad, sin cannot be a moral delinquency, and for a man to be redeemed from sin implies no more than that his soul is freed from the shackles of the material body. The human nature of Christ was regarded by the Gnostics as purely fictitious and apparitional, because the Divine Logos could not possibly unite Himself with matter, which is essentially evil. In such a system, needless to say, there was no room for the Redemption, much less for a vicarious atonement.

Theosophy is subject to similar delusions. Being radically Pantheistic, it regards sin as a cosmic factor of equal necessity and importance with virtue. Good and evil to the Theosophist are two world-powers endowed with equal rights. Sin is merely a limitation of infinity. The Absolute Being alone, conceived as an impersonal spirit, is unbounded and sinless. Each individual human soul is part and parcel of the Absolute, and as such its own God. In other words, the Deity becomes incarnate in every human being. The human race may be said to have been redeemed by Christ only in the sense that He was the first to enlighten men on the true relationship between the finite and the infinite, between good and evil. The real redemption of man consists in his re-absorption into the infinite ocean of being, out of which he has temporarily emerged like a foam-crested wave.6

b) Though the Church has never formally (in terminis) defined the doctrine of the vicarious atonement,7 she has nevertheless inculcated the substance of it so often and so vigorously that it may be said to be one of the cardinal dogmas of the Catholic religion. The Third General Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) solemnly defined: “If any one therefore says that [Christ] offered Himself up as a sacrifice for Himself, and not solely for us,8 let him be anathema.”9 Still more clearly the Council of Trent: “If any one asserts that this sin of Adam … is taken away … by any other remedy than the merit of the one Mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in His own blood, made unto us justice, sanctification and redemption, … let him be anathema.”10 In another place the same Council says: “[Christ] by His most holy passion on the wood of the Cross merited justification for us and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father.”11 The last-quoted phrase closely resembles the technical terminology of the Schools.

2. Proof from Sacred Scripture

The vicarious atonement is clearly inculcated both by the Old and the New Testament, though not, of course, in the technical terms of modern theology.

a) Isaias gives graphic expression to it in the famous prophecy which describes the suffering of the “Servant of God.”

The Messianic character of this prophecy is sufficiently established by such New Testament texts as Mark XV, 28, Luke XXII, 37, Acts VIII, 33, I Pet. II, 22 sqq.12 We quote its salient passages: “Surely he hath borne our infirmities, and carried our sorrows, and we have thought him as it were a leper, and as one struck by God and afflicted. But he was wounded for our iniquities, he was bruised for our sins; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his bruises we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray, every one hath turned aside into his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was offered13 because it was his own will,14 and he opened not his mouth; he shall be led as a sheep to the slaughter… . For the wickedness of my people have I struck him… . Because his soul hath labored, he shall see and be filled; by his knowledge shall this my just servant justify many, and he shall bear their iniquities … he hath borne the sins of many, and hath prayed for the transgressors.”15

The vicarious character of the “Servant’s” suffering is asserted no less than eight times in this passage: (1) “He hath borne our infirmities;” (2) He has “carried our sorrows;” (3) “He was wounded for our iniquities;” (4) “He was bruised for our sins;” (5) The “chastisement of our peace was upon him;”16 (6) “By his bruises we are healed;” (7) “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all;” (8) “He was offered because it was his own will.”17 The passage furthermore embraces all the essential elements of Christ’s vicarious atonement, to wit: (a) the substitution of the innocent Messias for guilty sinners; (b) the resulting remission of punishment and healing of the evil-doers; (c) the manner in which He made satisfaction, i.e., His sacrificial death.18

b) The New Testament inculcates the dogma of the vicarious atonement both directly and indirectly.

(α) The texts which teach it directly nearly all employ the phraseology of, and are dependent upon, Isaias. Take, e.g., the exclamation of John the Baptist recorded in John I, 29: “Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sin of the world.” The passage reads as follows in the original Greek: “Ἴδε ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου.” The ἁμαρτία τοῦ κόσμου is original sin. The verb αἴρω, like the Hebrew words נשא and סבל employed by Isaias,19 besides tollere, i.e., to take away, also means ferre or portare, i.e., to assume or bear for another.

St. Peter no doubt had the prophecy of Isaias in mind when he wrote: “Who his own self bore our sins20 in his body upon the tree … by whose stripes you were healed. For you were as sheep going astray; but you are now converted to the shepherd and bishop of your souls.”21 This text clearly inculcates Christ’s vicarious atonement and describes its concrete realization (His death on the Cross).

St. Paul is equally clear. Cfr. 2 Cor. V, 21: “Him, who knew no sin, he hath made sin for us, that we might be made the justice of God in him.” The graphic phrase ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν either means: He hath made him who was sinless a sinner, or, more probably, He hath made him who was sinless a sacrifice for sin.22 In either case St. Paul asserts the dogma of Christ’s vicarious atonement.

Special importance attaches to the many New Testament texts which speak of man as being “bought” or “purchased” by the Precious Blood of Christ. Cfr. I Cor. VI, 20: “For you are bought with a great price.”23 I Pet. I, 18 sq.: ”… you were not redeemed24 with corruptible things as gold and silver, … but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled.” These terms are borrowed from legal and mercantile usage; they mean that men who groaned in the bondage of sin were regarded as free or redeemed by God as soon as Christ had offered His Precious Blood for them. All of which proves (1) the reality of the atonement and (2) its vicarious character.

(β) Indirectly the Bible teaches the vicarious atonement in all those passages in which Christ is called the “second Adam” and contrasted with the progenitor of the human race. Cfr. Rom. V, 14 sqq.: “Death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of him who was to come. But not as the offence, so also the gift. For if by the offence of one, many died; much more the grace of God, and the gift, by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many… . For if by one man’s offence death reigned through one; much more they who receive abundance of grace, and of the gift, and of justice, shall reign in life through one, Jesus Christ. Therefore, as by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life,” etc. I Cor. XV, 22 sqq.: “As in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive,” etc.

Adam, the physical and juridical head of the human race, sinned vicariously, because he was the representative of all; in a similar manner Jesus Christ represented the whole race when He restored it to justice. St. Paul’s parallel would be meaningless if our Saviour had not acted as the representative of the entire human race when he died on the Cross. If His role as Redeemer had been confined to preaching and giving a good example, as the Socinians allege, what need was there of His suffering a cruel death? And if He died, not in our stead, but merely “for our benefit,” why do not the Socinians acclaim the holy martyrs as so many redeemers? Christ became our “mediator” and “redeemer” in the Scriptural sense of these terms only by complementing His teaching and example by an act of true and adequate satisfaction for our sins. It is only in this sense that St. Peter, “filled with the Holy Ghost,” was able to exclaim: “Neither is there salvation in any other name,”25 and St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “Is Christ divided? Was Paul then [who was also a teacher of nations and a martyr] crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”26 It is only in this way that the name “Jesus” receives its full significance as “Redeemer” or “Saviour” of the human race.

In view of the texts quoted it is incomprehensible how the Modernists can allege that “the doctrine of the sacrificial death of Christ is not evangelical, but originated with St. Paul.” (See the Syllabus of Pius X, prop. 38).

3. Proof from Tradition

The Fathers nearly all couched their teaching on the vicarious atonement in Scriptural terms.

a) They did not treat purely soteriological questions ex professo, but merely adverted to them upon occasion. That the Socinians made no attempt to base their teaching upon Patristic texts, was due to the fact that Hugo Grotius had triumphantly demonstrated the vicarious atonement from the writings of the Fathers.27 We will quote but two of the many available texts. “In accordance with the will of God,” says St. Clement of Rome, “our Lord Jesus Christ gave His blood for us, and His flesh for our flesh, and His soul for our souls.”28 And St. Polycarp: “Let us ever cling to our hope and the pledge29 of our righteousness, which is Christ Jesus, who bore our sins in His own body on the tree, … and endured everything for our sakes, that we might live in Him.”30

b) On its philosophical side the dogma of the vicarious atonement underwent a process of development, as is evidenced by the part which some of the older Fathers and ecclesiastical writers assigned to the Devil.

“The question arose as follows: God and Satan are as it were two masters who contend for the possession of mankind. Hence men by departing from God fell under Satan’s power, by whom they are now kept in bondage. As, moreover, men had fallen into his power, not unwillingly, but of their own choice, may we not say that the Devil has over them a real right, a right of property and a right of conquest? Hence, when God decided to free Satan’s captives, was He not bound in justice to recognize and take into consideration the Devil’s rights? Many of the Fathers answered this question affirmatively.”31 St. Irenaeus was the first to insist on the Devil’s alleged rights.32 Origen did not hesitate to say that Christ “ransomed us with His own blood from the power of Satan.”33 This, in itself blasphemous conception, which logically leads to the conclusion that Christ gave His blood, nay His very soul to the Devil, was rejected by Adamantius (about 300), who indignantly branded it as “all nonsense and blasphemy.”34 Saint Gregory of Nyssa followed in Origen’s footsteps. But by pushing the theory to its logical conclusions, he unconsciously demonstrated its absurdity.35

Origen’s notion was formally rejected by Gregory of Nazianzus, who declared that Christ’s death on the Cross effectively destroyed the tyranny of Satan. He says: “For man to be sanctified by the humanity of God, it was necessary that He Himself should free us from the tyrant, who had to be overcome by violence, and bring us back to Himself through the mediation of His Son.”36 There was a modicum of truth in Origen’s theory. By the sin of our first parents Satan had become, not indeed the absolute master of the human race, but the instrument of divine wrath.37 But when Jesus Christ, who was the Mediator between God and the human race, gave adequate satisfaction to the offended Deity, the reign of the Devil ceased. Very properly, therefore, does St. Augustine38 attribute our release from the captivity of Satan to the sacrificial character of Christ’s death on the Cross and His triumph over Satan to righteousness 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 righteousness by which the Devil was conquered? What, except the righteousness of Christ? In this redemption the blood of Christ was given, as it were, as a price for us, by accepting which the Devil was not enriched, but bound, that we might be loosed from his bonds.”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 of Clairvaux who first developed this thought into the formal notion of vicarious atonement. “The prince of this world came and found nothing in the Saviour,” he writes; “and when he nevertheless laid hands upon the innocent one, he rightly lost those who were his captives, when He who owed nothing to death, accepting the injury of death, rightly released him who was guilty of sin, both from the debt of death and the power of the Devil. By what justice could this have been exacted from man, since it was man who owed and man who paid the debt? For ‘if one died for all,’ [says the Apostle, 2 Cor. V, 14], ‘then all were dead’: that, namely, the satisfaction of one be imputed to all … because the one head and body is Christ. The head therefore gave satisfaction for the members, Christ for His bowels.”40 Abélard, 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 forensic theory of satisfaction, which, after having been purged of its harsher features by St. Thomas, became the common teaching of the Schoolmen.

Theology has a right, nay the duty, to subject this theory, both in its original Patristic form and in the shape which it assumed under the hands of the medieval Scholastics, to respectful criticism. We do not deny that the theory may be defensible within certain carefully defined limits. But as onesidedly developed by the Scholastics, it does not embody the whole truth which we are able to gather from Divine Revelation. Revelation contains certain seed-thoughts which the Fathers and Schoolmen failed to appreciate at their full value. The sacrifice of the Divine Logos was dictated by infinite love and mercy as well as by strict justice. Cfr. John III, 16: “God so loved the world as to give his only begotten Son.”42 God must not be conceived as an angry tyrant, who unmercifully slays his Son in order to avenge himself on the human race and thereby, as it were, to gratify the Devil, who gloats over the misfortune of others. God is just, but He is also a loving Father, who punishes His wayward children in the person of His beloved Son to show them the malice of sin by a terrible example.

In other words, we cannot harmonize all the revealed elements of the atonement unless we give due emphasis to the ethical factor. The purely forensic theory of satisfaction must be supplemented and deepened by the “ethical theory of reconciliation,” which accentuates God’s love for Christ and the human race, and also the moral purpose of the Redemption, i.e., the internal redemption of man by regeneration in God. Thus only shall we be able to refute the objections—more or less well founded—which Harnack43 and Pfleiderer44 have raised against the theory of satisfaction championed by the Scholastics, notably St. Anselm.

4. The Distinction Between “Satisfaction” and “Merit”

Entitatively considered, an act of satisfaction may also be a meritorious act. Nevertheless there is both a logical and a real distinction between satisfaction and merit as such. Satisfaction, in the narrower sense of the term, is reparation made for an offence, while merit may be defined as a good work performed for the benefit of another and entitled to a reward.45 Satisfaction supposes a creditor who insists on receiving his just dues, merit a debtor bound to give a reward. If the reward is a matter of justice, we have a meritum de condigno, if it is merely a matter of equity, a meritum de congruo.

The merits of Christ may be regarded from a fourfold point of view: (1) As to their reality, (2) as to the time when they were acquired, (3) as to their object or purpose, and (4) as to the scope of their application.

a) It is an article of faith that the Redeemer gained merits for us.

Christ, says the Tridentine Council, “merited justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the Cross.” The same sacred Council employs the phrase: “Per meritum unius mediatoris Domini nostri Iesu Christi,” and anathematizes those who say, “Homines sine Christi iustitia, per quam nobis meruit iustificari, aut per eam ipsam formaliter iustos esse.”46 Isaias regarded the Redemption as a meritorious work. Is. LIII, 10: “And the Lord was pleased to bruise him in infirmity: if he shall lay down his life for sin, he shall see a long-lived seed [i.e., spiritual progeny] and the will of the Lord shall be prosperous in his hand.” Here satisfaction and merit are so nearly alike as to be materially identical; the Redeemer laid God under obligation while satisfying His just claims. But since He merited not only grace for us, but likewise extrinsic glory for Himself, His merits exceed the limits of the satisfaction which He gave to His Heavenly Father, because He did not need to give any satisfaction for Himself.

b) When did Christ perform His meritorious actions? In attempting to answer this question we must distinguish between the terminus a quo and the terminus ad quem.

Our Lord performed no meritorious actions (in the technical sense of the term) outside of the period of His earthly pilgrimage (status viae). Hence the terminus ad quem was the moment of His death.47 That this is the teaching of Holy Scripture may be gathered from such texts as John IX, 4 sq.; Heb. IX, 12, X, 11 sqq. True, St. Paul teaches that the glorified Redeemer continues to “make intercession for us in Heaven.”48 But the intercession He makes for us in Heaven is based on the merits which He gained on earth and aims solely at the application of these merits to individual men.

Which was the terminus a quo of our Lord’s meritorious actions? A man cannot perform any meritorious deeds before he has attained to the full use of reason and free-will, which generally occurs about the seventh year. In the Godman Jesus Christ, human consciousness awoke when the Godhead became hypostatically united with manhood, that is to say, at the instant of His conception.49 Hence the terminus a quo of His meritorious actions was the first moment of His existence as Godman.50

c) The principal object of Christ’s meritorious actions was the justification of sinners.

It is an article of faith that our Divine Saviour merited for us the forgiveness of all sins, including original sin, and, in addition, sanctifying grace. That the actual graces required for and during the process of justification also flow from the thesaurus of Christ’s merits, is a theologically certain conclusion.51 Capreolus denied it;52 but the Tridentine Council, in teaching, “Ipsius iustificationis exordium in adultis a Dei per Christum Iesum praeveniente gratia sumendum esse,” evidently employs the phrase “per Christum Iesum” in the sense of “per meritum Christi Iesu.” It is likewise an article of faith that man, in the state of grace which follows justification, receives all the graces and merits which come to him solely from the treasury of the merits of Jesus Christ.53 Our Lord Himself inculcates this by the parable of the vine and its branches.54

Christ also merited a reward for Himself, which consists chiefly in His extrinsic glorification after death. Cfr. Luke XXIV, 26: “Nonne haec oportuit pati Christum et ita intrare in gloriam suam?—Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into his glory?” Phil. II, 9: “Propter quod et Deus exaltavit illum et donavit illi nomen, quod est super omne nomen—For 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—We see Jesus … for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor.” It is consequently unscriptural to hold, as Calvin did, that Christ’s love for the human race prompted Him to waive all claims to His own honor.55

In determining the scope of Christ’s merits, Saint Thomas proceeds as follows: “Since every perfection and noble quality must be attributed to Christ, it follows that He possessed by merit whatever others possess by merit, unless it be something which would detract from His dignity and perfection more than could be gained by merit.”56 Hence, he continues, “Christ merited neither grace, nor knowledge, nor beatitude of soul, nor Divinity (i.e., the Hypostatic Union). As only that can be merited which one does not yet possess, Christ would have lacked all these perfections, and therefore it is plain that He merited only such things as the glory of the body, and whatever pertains to its extrinsic excellence, e.g., the ascension, adoration, etc.”57

d) The question: Who participates in the merits of Christ? coincides with that regarding the universality of the atonement, which we shall treat below, Sect. 2, Art. 2.58

Footnotes

  1. Impeccantia, ἀναμαρτησία. ↩

  2. Cfr. Blunt’s Dictionary of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties, and Schools of Religious Thought, pp. 415 sqq., New Impression, London 1903; also the Preface to P. Holmes’ translation of The Anti-Pelagian Works of Saint Augustine, Vol. I, pp. i sqq., Edinburgh 1872. St. Augustine treats at length of Pelagianism in the following books: De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia, Contra Duas Epistolas Pelagianorum, Enchiridion, De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, De Correptione et Gratia, De Praedestinatione Sanctorum, De Dono Perseverantiae, Contra Iulianum Pelagianum, De Gestis Pelagii, De Octo Dulcitii Quaestionibus, Comment. in Psalmos, Serm., 1 and 14, and in his Epistles to Paulinus, Optatus, Sextus, Celestine, Vitalis, and Valentine. Cfr. also the Varia Scripta et Monumenta ad Pelagianorum Historiam Pertinentia at the close of Vol. X of the Benedictine edition of St. Augustine’s works. ↩

  3. These writings are collected in the Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum, Vols. 1 and 2, Irenopoli 1656. ↩

  4. Blunt, Dictionary of Sects, etc., p. 568. For a detailed analysis of the Socinian teaching see A. Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, Vol. III, 4th ed., pp. 784 sqq., Freiburg 1910. ↩

  5. On the teaching of Hermes (†1831) and Günther (†1863), cfr. J. Kleutgen, S.J., Theologie der Vorzeit, Vol. III, pp. 457 sqq., Münster 1870. ↩

  6. On modern Theosophy cfr. Madame Blavatsky’s Isis Unveiled, The Secret Doctrine, and Key to Theosophy; also the numerous writings of Annie Besant, especially her Esoteric Christianity; A. P. Warrington, art. “Theosophy” in the Encyclopedia Americana, Vol. XV; E. R. Hull, S.J., Studies in Theosophy, 2nd ed., Bombay 1905; J. T. Driscoll in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, pp. 628 sqq. ↩

  7. Cfr. K. Martin, Conc. Vatican. Documentorum Collectio, p. 37, Paderborn 1873. ↩

  8. καὶ οὐχὶ δὴ ὑπὲρ αὑτοῦ ἡμῖν. Here is the whole passage in Latin: “Si quis ergo dicit, quod pro se obtulisset [Christus] semetipsum oblationem et non potius pro nobis solis, anathema sit.” ↩

  9. Conc. Ephes., can. 10 (Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 122).—Cfr. the Decretum pro Iacobitis (ibid., n. 711). ↩

  10. “Si quis hoc Adae peccatum … per aliud remedium asserit tolli quam per meritum unius mediatoris D. N. Iesu Christi, qui nos Deo reconciliavit in sanguine suo, factus nobis iustitia, sanctificatio et redemptio, … anathema sit.” Conc. Trident., Sess. V, can. 3 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 790). ↩

  11. “Qui … sua sanctissima passione in ligno crucis nobis iustificationem meruit et pro nobis Deo Patri satisfecit.” Conc. Trident., Sess. VI, cap. 7 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 799). We use Waterworth’s translation. ↩

  12. The argument is well developed by A. J. Maas, S.J., Christ in Type and Prophecy, Vol. II, pp. 231 sqq., New York 1895. ↩

  13. The Masoretic text has, he was called upon. (Cfr. Maas, l. c., p. 240, note.) ↩

  14. On certain textual difficulties connected with the Hebrew word na’aneh, see Maas, l. c., p. 241, note. ↩

  15. Is. LIII, 4–12. ↩

  16. That is: The punishment which was to procure our peace with God and with men, was inflicted on him. ↩

  17. In this clause the prophet rather describes the detail of the Servant’s sufferings than insists on its vicarious character; but this, too, may be inferred from the nature of the suffering. Cfr. Maas, Christ in Type and Prophecy, Vol. II, p. 240, note. ↩

  18. Cfr. F. Feldmann, Der Knecht Gottes in Isaias, Ch. 40–55, Freiburg, 1907. ↩

  19. Is. LIII, 4 and 11. ↩

  20. ἀνήνεγκεν. ↩

  21. 1 Pet. II, 24 sq. ↩

  22. ἁμαρτία = sacrificium pro peccato. Cfr. Gal. III, 13. ↩

  23. ἠγοράσθητε. ↩

  24. Redempti estis, ἐλυτρώθητε.—Cfr. also Rom. III, 24, Eph. I, 7, I Tim. II, 6. ↩

  25. Acts IV, 12. ↩

  26. 1 Cor. I, 13. ↩

  27. H. Grotius, Defensio Fidei Catholicae de Veritate Satisfactionis, published in 1614. ↩

  28. Ep. ad Cor., I, 49, 6. ↩

  29. τῷ ἀρραβῶνι. ↩

  30. Ep. ad Phil., 8.—Many additional proofs from the writings of the Fathers are to be found in Petavius, De Incarn., XII, 9 and Thomassin, Dogm. Theol., IX, 7. Cfr. also Dörholt, Die Lehre von der Genugtuung Christi, pp. 62 sqq., Paderborn 1891 and I. F. S. Muth, Die Heilstat Christi als stellvertretende Genugtuung, pp. 169 sqq., Ratisbon 1904. ↩

  31. J. Rivière, Le Dogme de la Rédemption, Paris, 1905, (English translation by L. Cappadelta, in 2 vols., London 1909). The above passage is quoted from Vol. II, pp. 111 sq. of the English translation. Over one-half of the second volume is devoted to a discussion of “The Devil’s Rights.” ↩

  32. Cfr. Rivière-Cappadelta, The Doctrine of the Atonement, Vol. II, pp. 113 sqq. ↩

  33. In Matth., 18, 8; In Ioan., 6, 35. ↩

  34. πολλὴ φλυαρία (from De Recta in Deum Fide, I, 27 (Migne, P. G., XI, 1756 sq.). ↩

  35. Cfr. Rivière-Cappadelta, The Doctrine of the Atonement, Vol. II, pp. 124 sqq. ↩

  36. De Agno Paschali, 22. ↩

  37. Cfr. John XII, 31; XIV, 30; 2 Cor. IV, 4; Heb. II, 14. ↩

  38. De Trinit., IV, 13.—On the teaching of St. Augustine cfr. Rivière-Cappadelta, op. cit., II, 146 sqq. ↩

  39. De Trinit., XIII, 13, 14, 15. ↩

  40. “Venit princeps huius mundi et in Salvatore non invenit quidquam. Et quum nihilominus innocenti mortis iniecit, iustissime quos tenebat amisit, quando is qui morti nihil debebat, accepta mortis iniuria iure illum, qui obnoxius erat, et mortis debito et diaboli solvit dominio. Qua enim iustitia id secundo ab homine exigeretur? Homo siquidem qui debuit, homo qui solvit. Nam si unus (inquit) pro omnibus mortuus est, ergo omnes mortui sunt (2 Cor. V, 14): ut videlicet satisfactio unius omnibus imputetur … quia caput et corpus unus est Christus. Satisfecit ergo caput pro membris, Christus pro visceribus suis.” De Erroribus Abaelardi, cap. 6. ↩

  41. Rivière-Cappadelta, op. cit., II, 220. ↩

  42. Cfr. also Eph. I, 3 sqq., II, 4 sqq.; Tit. III, 4 sq., and 1 Pet. I, 3. ↩

  43. Grundriss der Dogmengeschichte, § 2, 4th ed., pp. 304 sqq. ↩

  44. Religionsphilosophie, Vol. II, 2nd ed., Berlin 1884, pp. 467 sqq. ↩

  45. “Meritum est opus bonum in favorem alterius mercede vel praemio dignum.” ↩

  46. Conc. Trid., Sess. VI, cap. 7; Sess. V, can. 3; Sess. VI, can. 10. Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 799, 790, 820. ↩

  47. The question whether this limitation of Christ’s meritorious action is based upon a positive and free decree of God, or whether it is due to an intestine necessity, is purely speculative, and will be discussed in Eschatology. ↩

  48. Rom. VIII, 34; Heb. VII, 25. ↩

  49. Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, pp. 259 sqq. ↩

  50. Cfr. Heb. X, 5. ↩

  51. Cfr. 2 Tim. I, 9. ↩

  52. Cfr. F. Stentrup, Soteriologia, thes. 36. ↩

  53. Cfr. Conc. Trident., Sess. VI, cap. 16; Sess. XIV, cap. 8. (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 809, 904.) ↩

  54. John XV, 5. On the grace of predestination cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., 3a, qu. 19, art. 3. ↩

  55. Cfr. Bellarmine, De Christo, V, 8–10. ↩

  56. S. Theol., 3a, qu. 19, art. 3. ↩

  57. L. c.—Cfr. Simar, Lehrbuch der Dogmatik, Vol. I, 4th ed., pp. 532 sqq., Freiburg 1899. ↩

  58. On the whole subject dealt with in this subdivision of our treatise consult Pesch, Praelectiones Dogmaticae, Vol. IV, 3rd ed., pp. 252 sqq., Friburgi 1909. ↩