Extrinsic Perfection or Universality of the Atonement

Article 2: Extrinsic Perfection or Universality of the Atonement

If, as we have shown in the preceding Article, the satisfaction made for our sins by Christ was intrinsically perfect, there is a priori ground for assuming that it must have embraced all men without exception. In matter of fact the universality of the atonement objectively coincides with the universality of God’s 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 actually attain to eternal salvation. Of the “faithful,” 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 heretically asserted that “It savours of Semi-Pelagianism to say that Christ died, or shed His blood, for all men without exception.”¹ This proposition was censured as “false, foolhardy, and scandalous” by Innocent X, who added that, “understood in the sense that Christ died for the salvation 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 “faithful,” i.e. (in the New Testament) all who have received the Sacrament of Baptism, be they infants or adults. For all baptized Christians are bound to accept the Creed, which says that Christ “descended from Heaven for us men and for our salvation.”²

b) Sacred Scripture is so clear on this point that we may well marvel at the existence of Predestinarianism. St. Paul must have had the “faithful” in mind when he wrote to the Thessalonians: “For God hath not appointed us unto wrath, but unto the purchasing of salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us.”³ Again, Christ Himself, assuredly the most faithful exponent of the Divine Will, in the touching prayer which He pronounced as the High Priest of humanity, included all the faithful,—in fact, indirectly, the whole human race. Cfr. John XVII, 20 sq.: “Non pro eis [scil. Apostolis] autem rogo tantum, sed et pro eis qui credituri sunt⁴ per verbum eorum in me, … ut credat mundus,⁵ quia tu me misisti—And not for them [i.e., the Apostles] only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me; … that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”

c) The teaching of the Fathers on this point is copiously expounded by Petavius,⁶ and we need not expatiate on it here.⁷

Thesis II: Christ died for all men without exception.

This thesis may be qualified as “saltem fidei proxima.”

Proof. The Provincial Council of Quiercy (A.D. 853) defined against Gottschalk: “As there never was, is or will be any man whose nature was not assumed by our Lord Jesus Christ, so there never was, is or will be any man for whom He has not suffered; though not all are redeemed by the mystery of His passion.”⁸ Pope Alexander VIII, A.D. 1690, formally condemned the proposition that “Christ gave Himself for us as an oblation to God, not for the elect only, but for all the faithful, and for the faithful alone.”⁹ The Tridentine Council defines the dogmatic teaching of the Church on this point as follows: “Him [Christ] God hath proposed as a propitiator, through faith in His blood, for our sins; and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world.”¹⁰

a) This Tridentine teaching is thoroughly Scriptural, in fact it is couched in the very language of Holy Writ. Cfr. I John II, 2: “Et ipse est propitiatio¹¹ pro peccatis nostris, non pro nostris autem tantum, sed etiam pro totius mundi¹²—He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.” I Tim. II, 6 must be interpreted in consonance with the text just quoted: “Qui dedit redemptionem semetipsum pro omnibus [scil. hominibus]—Who gave himself a redemption for all [i.e., for all men].” The context shows that St. Paul means to emphasize the universality of God’s will to save all men. We may also point in confirmation of our thesis to such passages as 2 Cor. V, 14, in which the Apostle numbers among the elect such as are still in the state of original sin as well as those who are justified. “Si unus pro omnibus¹³ mortuus est, ergo omnes¹⁴ mortui sunt—If one died for all, then all are dead.”¹⁵

b) The Jansenists did not deny that the Fathers who wrote before Pelagius clearly taught the vicarious atonement to be as universal as God’s will to save mankind, i.e., that it embraces all human beings without exception. But they claimed that a change came with St. Augustine, who succumbed to the evil influence of Predestinarianism. It is to be noted that the famous African Doctor was warmly defended against this calumnious charge by one of his contemporaneous disciples, St. Prosper of Aquitaine.¹⁶

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 future time to be released from hell. This error (ἀποκατάστασις πάντων) was closely related to another, harbored by the same learned but erratic divine, viz.: that the Logos assumed the form of an angel to redeem the lost angels, just as He became man to redeem sinful humanity. These vagaries were condemned as heretical by a council held at Constantinople in 543, and again by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, A.D. 553.¹⁷

The dogma embodied in our present thesis is intimately bound up with that concerning the fall of the angels and their eternal banishment from Paradise.¹⁸ Being condemned to everlasting 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 prepared for the Devil and his angels,” says Tertullian, “yet a restoration was never promised them. No charge about the salvation of angels did Christ ever receive from the Father; and that which the Father neither promised nor commanded, Christ could not have undertaken.”¹⁹

Thesis IV: The doctrine of the universality of the atonement is not disproved by the fact that many human beings are eternally lost.

This proposition may be qualified as theologically certain.

Proof. The Council of Trent teaches: “But, though He died for all, yet not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His Passion is communicated.”²⁰

According to Holy Scripture, the universality of Christ’s vicarious atonement is not absolute but conditional. Those only are saved who comply with the conditions necessary for participating in the fruits of the Redemption, viz.: baptism, faith, contrition, cooperation with grace, perseverance. Cfr. Mark XVI, 16: “Qui crediderit et baptizatus fuerit, salvus erit; qui vero non crediderit, condemnabitur—He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned.”

“The blood of thy Lord,” observes St. Augustine, “is given for thee, if thou wilt; if thou wilt not, it is not given for thee.”²¹

Theologians distinguish between God’s antecedent and His consequent will to save men. Antecedently He willed to save all men without exception, even those who are lost; voluntate consequenti, however, the damned are in fact, though not in principle, excluded from the fruits of the Redemption. It is correct to say, however, in spite of this limitation, that Christ also died for the damned, both past and future, because they are lost through their own fault.

The atonement may be regarded as universal from still another point of view. Satisfaction is either merely sufficient or efficacious. It is sufficient if it provides adequate means of salvation. It is efficacious if these means are appropriated and utilized by those to whom they are offered. Catholic divines unanimously teach that Christ died for all men secundum sufficientiam, non tamen secundum efficaciam. It is indeed quite obvious that if a man neglects to appropriate the fruits of the Redemption, he derives no more benefit therefrom than one who is dying of thirst receives from a spring within his reach but from which he refuses to drink.

“Although [Christ] by His death made sufficient satisfaction for the sins of the human race,” says St. Thomas, “yet each individual man must seek for the remedies whereby to work out his own salvation. The death of Christ may in a manner be called the universal cause of salvation, like as the sin of the first man was, after a fashion, the universal cause of damnation. But it is necessary that the universal cause be applied to each one in particular, that each may participate in its effect. The effect of the sin of our first parents descends to each one of us by the propagation of the flesh, while the effect of our Saviour’s death comes to each by spiritual 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 objective value or sufficiency, not in respect of its subjective application or efficaciousness.²³