Part I Chapter II §1: The Reality of Christ's Vicarious Atonement

Chapter II: The Redemption Through Christ’s Vicarious Atonement

§1: The Reality of Christ’s Vicarious Atonement

CHAPTER II the redemption of the human race through Christ’s vicarious atonement SECTION i the reality of Christ’s vicarious atonement

Article 1: Vicarious Atonement Defined

VICARIOUS ATONEMENT DEFINED This Chapter deals with the concrete fact of Christ’s vicarious atonement (satisf actio vicaria) rather than with the abstract notion of Redemption, which even heretics do not entirely deny ; hence we must be careful to define our terms. I. Explanation of the Term “Atonement.”— a) By atonement we understand the reparation of any wrong or injury, either material (damnum) or moral (offensa, iniuria). Material injury demands restitution; moral injury can be repaired only by satisfaction or atonement in the strict sense of the term. The Roman Catechism defines “satisfaction” as “nothing else than compensation for an injury offered to another.” Satisfaction in the sense of discharging 35 a penance enjoined in confession will be treated in connection with the Sacrament of Penance. b) Atonement, in the sense in which the term is used in Soteriology, presupposes an offence committed against, or an injury done to, God. It is for our sins that God demands satisfaction. Sin and satisfaction are consequently correlative terms, or, to put it more accurately, they are antitheses clamoring for reconciliation. The concept of sin contains a twofold element : guilt (reatus culpae) and punishability {reatus poenae). Guilt and punishability are inseparable. Their gravity depends partly on the dignity of the person offended (gravitas formalis) and partly on the character of the offence committed {gravitas materialis). God is infinite in dignity and majesty; therefore every grievous sin, morally considered, involves an infinite offence. “A sin committed against God,” says St. Thomas, “partakes in a manner of infinity, through its relation to the infinite majesty of God; for an offence is the more serious, the greater the person offended.” 1 Considered as a moral delinquency on the part of man, sin is a merely finite evil. In respect of God, however, it is infinite. Iniuria est in iniuriato. This applies, of course, only to mortal sin, -which seriously disturbs the sinner’s relation to l S, Theol., 3a, qu. 1, art. 2, ad a. God. This relation, if justice be given free scope, cannot be restored except by means of adequate satisfaction (emptio, redemptio) . c) Grievous sin, as we have said, involves an infinite offence, for which no creature, least of all the sinner himself, can render adequate satisfaction. Adequate in this case means infinite satisfaction, and infinite satisfaction can be given only by one who is infinite in dignity. Hence none but a Godman could redeem the human race. Hence also the necessity of a vicarious atonement. 2. Definition of “Vicarious Atonement.” — The notion of vicariatio does not imply that he who acts as substitute or representative for another takes upon himself the other’s guilt or sin as such. No one can be the bearer or subject of another’s sins. In this erroneous sense vicarious atonement involves a contradiction, because no mediator can give satisfaction for another’s sins unless he is himself sinless. Vicarious atonement, therefore, can only mean the voluntary assumption of a punishment due to sin, — not indeed the reatus poena, which implies real guilt, but the penance imposed by God. In other words, the Godman renders infinite satisfaction in our stead, and this satisfaction by its objective worth counterbalances our infinite offence and is ac38 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION cepted by God as though it were given by ourselves. To illustrate the case by an analogy. The human race is like an insolvent merchant. Christ voluntarily assumes our obligations and is compelled to pay the whole debt. The sum of this debt is His Precious Blood, (i Pet. I, 18 sq.) 3. Objections Refuted. — The Socinians, and modern Rationalists generally, reject the Catholic dogma of Christ’s vicarious atonement on the pretext that it involves manifest contradictions, (a) with regard to God, (b) with regard to Christ, and (c) with regard to man. We will briefly examine these alleged contradictions. a) The doctrine of the atonement is held to be con- * tradictory in respect of God for the reason that forgiveness of sins is sometimes attributed to pure mercy and sometimes to strict justice, whereas these two attributes are mutually exclusive. If the simultaneous manifestation of God’s infinite mercy and justice really involved an intrinsic contradiction, St. Paul would have been the first to incur this charge, for he says in his Epistle to the Romans : * You are justified freely by his grace,2 through the redemption 8 that is in Christ Jesus.* 4 In exacting satisfaction for our sins from His own Son instead of us poor sinners, God exercised in an eminent manner both His mercy and His justice. There is no contradiction involved in this proposition. This would be the case only if the sinner were held to give adequate satisfaction in 2 dwpebp rg adrov x&pvri, 3 rijf diroXvTpc&frews. * Rom. Ill, 24.

VICARIOUS ATONEMENT person and his performance subsequently stamped as a grace. Holy Scripture is perfectly consistent in teaching, on the one hand, that ” God so loved the world as to give his only-begotten Son,” 5 and, on the other, that1 * by sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh, and of sin, [God] hath condemned sin in the flesh.* 6 b) The doctrine of the atonement is declared to be contradictory for the further reason that it involves the punishment^ an innocent person in lieu of the guilty criminal. It is downright murder, however disguised, for God to exact the blood of His own guiltless Son in expiation for the sins of others, say the Rationalists. God would indeed be unjust had He imposed the guilt and punishment of others upon His innocent Son as though He were the guilty criminal. But this is by no means the teaching of the Church. Not having personally sinned, Christ could not be punished as a sinper. Hence His death was not a punishment in the proper sense of the word, but merely a satisfactio laboriosa. Furthermore, it was not imposed on Him against His will. He Himself declares : ” I lay down my life for my sheep. … I lay it down of myself,7 and I have power to lay it down : and I have power to take it up again.”8 Volenti non At iniuria (No .wrong arises to one who consents). Hence the atonement cannot be said to involve a violation of commutative justice. Nor does it run counter to distributive justice, for Christ’s dolorous passion and death, besides redounding to the advantage of the human race, also brought Him personal reward and glory. Cfr. Luke XXIV, 26: ” Ought not 5 John III, 16. immutability of God, is discussed 6 Rom. VIII, 3. — Cfr. Pohle- in the appendix to this volume, infra, Preuss, God: His Knowability, Es- pp. 165 sq. sence,’ and Attributes, pp. 466 sqq.-— T Air* ifiavrov. Another objection, based on the 8 John X, 15, 18.

THE WORK OF REDEMPTION Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into his glory?” c) In regard to man, the doctrine of the atonement is denounced as repugnant on the score that one who is guilty of a crime should, as a point of honor, give the necessary satisfaction himself, and not shift this painful duty to another. Our Rationalist adversaries add that the idea of a man’s appropriating to himself the fruits of another’s labor is preposterous. They overlook the fact that man was absolutely unable to render adequate satisfaction for sin. God manifested His infinite love and mercy precisely in deigning to accept a vicarious atonement. It cannot be proved that this involves an injustice. The objection will lose much of its force if we take into consideration the fact that Christ represented the human race in the order of grace in much the same manner in which Adam had vicariously represented it upon the occasion of the Fall. Hence the Scriptural antithesis between the ” first Adam ” and the ” second Adam.” Christ is no stranger to us ; He is ” bone of our bone,” our ” brother ” as well as our spiritual head. His merits constitute as it were a family heirloom, in which each of us has a share. The privilege of participating in the merits of Christ’s vicarious atonement does not relieve us of the duty of personally atoning for our sins. That Christ has rendered adequate satisfaction for the sins of the whole race, does not mean that each individual human being is eo ipso subjectively redeemed. This is the teaching of “orthodox” Lutheranism, not of the Catholic Church. We Catholics believe that the individual sinner must feel sorry for his sins, confess them, and render satisfaction for them, — though, of course, no satisfaction can be of

THE DOGMA PROVED any avail except it is based on the merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.0 ARTICLE * THE DOGMA OF CHRIST’S VICARIOUS ATONEMENT PROVED FROM REVELATION. I. Various Heresies and the Teaching of the Church. — The heretical opinions that have arisen in course of time with regard to the dogma of Christ’s vicarious atonement owe their 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 sift as a function of the Godhead, gave birth to Gnosticism and modern Theosophy. a) All these heresies are based on a radically wrong conception of the nature of sin. a) Pelagianism rests on the fundamental fallacy 9 Cfr. Cone. Trident., Sess. XIV, specious objections (see that writer’s cap. 8 (Denzinger-Bannwart, En- book, Die Krisis des Christentums chiridion, n. 904). An excellent in der modernen Theologie, pp. 10 treatise on the philosophical aspects sqq., Berlin 1882) are effectively of the atonement is G. A. Pell’s refuted by B. Dorholt, Die Lehre Das Dogma von der Sunde und Er- von der Genugtuung Christi, pp. losung im Lichte der Vernunft, Rat- x6o sqq.. Paderborn 1891. isbon 1886. Edw. von Hartmann’s THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 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 sinlessness 1 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 1 Impeccantia, dva/iaprrjffla. 2 Cf r. 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 AntiPelagian 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., x and xiv, and in his Epistles to Paulinus, Optatus, Sextus, Celestine, Vitalis, and Valentine. Cfr. also the Varia Scripta et Monumenta ad Pelagianorum Historiam Pertin tia at the close of Vol. X of the Benedictine edition of St. Augustine’s works. GNOSTICISM 43 Nostrae ex Sermonibus Fausti Socini? Socinianism denied the Trinity, the Divinity of Jesus Christ, the necessity oi 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 Giinther5 held an intermediate position between the Catholic dogma and these heretical vagaries. /?) 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. 8 These writings are collected in 4th ed., pp. 784 sqq., Freiburg 1910. the Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum, 6 On the teaching of Hermes Vols. 1 and 2, Irenopoli 1656. (+ 1831) and Gunther (4. 1863), 4 Blunt, Dictionary of Sects, etc., cfr. J. Kleutgen, S. J., Theologi§ p. 568. For a detailed analysis of der Vorxeit, Vol. Ill, pp. 457 sqq., the Socinian teaching see A. Har- Munster 1870. nack, Dogmengeschichte, Vol. Ill, 4

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 Him• On modern Theosophy cfr. Madame Blavatky’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, Cone, Vatican, Document, Collectio, p. 37, Paderborn 1873. THE DOGMA 45 self up as a sacrifice for Himself, and hot 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 unt& 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 Here is the whole passage in Latin: Si quis ergo dicit, quod pro s§ obtulisset [Christus] semetipsum oblationem et non potius pro nobis solis, anathema sit, 9 Cone. Ephes., can. 10 (Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 122). — Cfr. the Decretum pro Iacobitis (ibid., n. 711). 10 ” Si quis hoc Adae peccatum … per aliud retnedium asserit tolli quam per meritum unius mediatoris D. N. Iesu Christ i, qui nos Deo reconciliavit in sanguine suo, factus nobis iustitia, sanctificatio et redemp> tio, … anathema sit/’ Cone. Trident., Sess. V, can. 3 (DenzingerBannwart, n. 790). 11 * Qui . . , sua sanctissima passione in ligno crucis nobis iustificationem meruit et pro nobis Deo Patri satisfecit. Cone. Trident., ,Sess. VI, cap. 7 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 799). We use Water-, worth’s translation. 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, 1 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 offered 13 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.” 16 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 12 The argument is well developed l On certain textual difficulties by A. J. Maas, S. J., Christ in connected with the Hebrew word Type and Prophecy, Vol. II, pp. na’aneh, see Maas., /. c, p. 241, 331 sqq., New York 1895. note. 18 The Masoretic text has, he was * Is. LIII, 4-12. called upon. (Cfr. Maas, /. c, p. 240, note.) SCRIPTURAL PROOF 47 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. like the Hebrew words and ^3? employed by Isaias,19 besides tollere, i. e., to take away, also means ferre or portare, i. e., to assume or bear for another. St. Peter no doubt had the prophecy of Isaias 16 That is: The punishment which inferred from the nature of the sufwas to procure our peace with God fering. Cfr. Maas, Christ in Type and with men, was inflicted on him. and Prophecy, Vol. II, p. 240, note. 17 In this clause the prophet rather 18 Cfr. F. Feldmann, Der Knecht describes the detail of the Servant’s Gottes in Isaias, Ch. 40-55, Freisufferings than insists on its vicari- burg, 1907. ous character; but this, too, may be ie Is. LIII, 4 and 11. 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 yv*>v afmprlav €7Tolrj(T€v avrov either means: fie 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 1 Pet. I, 18 sq. : ”… you were not redeemed 24 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 20 dvfjveyKep. 21 1 Pet. II, 24 sq. 22 &fiaprla = sacrificium pro peccato, Cfr. Gal. Ill, 13. 23 -/jyopdadrjre, 2tRedempH estis, AvTp^re. — Cfr. also Rom. Ill, 24, Eph. I, 7, x Tim. II, 6. SCRIPTURAL PROOF 49 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 (i) the reality of the atonement and (2) its vicarious character. P) 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. 1 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 representaSO THE WORK OF REDEMPTION tive of all ; in a similar manner Jesus Christ represented the whole race when He restored it to justice. St. Paul’s parallel would be meaningless if our Saviour had not acted as the representative of the entire human race when he died on the Cross. If His role as Redeemer had been confined to preaching and giving a good example, as the Socinians allege, what need was there of His suffering a cruel death? And if He died, not in our stead, but merely ” for our benefit,” why do not the Socinians acclaim the holy martyrs as so many redeemers ? Christ became our ” mediator ” and ” redeemer ” in the 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 99 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 28 Actf IV, I. 26 1 Cor. I, 13.

PROOF FROM TRADITION 51 questions ex professo, but merely adverted to them upon occasion. That the Socinians made no attempt to base their teaching upon Patristic texts, was due to the fact that Hugo Grotius had triumphantly demonstrated the vicarious atonement from the writings of the Fathers.27 We will quote but two of the many available texts. In accordance with the will of Gk)d, 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 27 H. Grotius, Defensio Fidei Ca- tavius, De Incarn., XII, 9 and tholicae de Veritate Satisfactions, Thomassin, Dogm, Theol., IX, 7. published in 1614. Cfr. also Ddrholt, Die Lehre von 28 Ep. ad Cor., I, 49, 6. der Genugiuung Christi, pp. 62 sqq., 28 r

THE WORK OF REDEMPTION under Satan’s power, by whom they are now kept in bondage. As, moreover, men had fallen into his power, not unwillingly, but of their own choice, may we not say that the Devil has over them a real right, a right of property and a right of conquest? Hence, when God decided to free Satan’s captives, was He not bound in justice*^ to recognize and take into consideration the Devil’s rights? Many of the Fathers answered this question affirmatively.” 81 St. Irenaeus was the first to insist on the Devil’s alleged rights.82 Origen did not hesitate to say that Christ ” ransomed us with His own blood from the power of Satan.” 88 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.” 84 Saint Gregory of Nyssa followed in Origen’s footsteps. But by pushing the theory to its logical conclusions, he unconsciously demonstrated its absurdity.85 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 81 J. Riviere, Le Dogme de la Redemption, Paris, 1905, (English translation by L. Cappadelta, in a vols., London 1909). The above passage is quoted from Vol. II, pp. in sq. of the English translation. Over one-half of the second volume is devoted to a discussion of ” The Devil’s Rights.” 82 Cfr. Riviere-Cappadelta, The Doctrine of the Atonement, Vol. II, pp. 113 sqq. 88 In Mattfu, 18, 8; In loan., 6, 35. 8iroXX^ p\dff4>rjnos &voia. De Recta in Deum Fide, I, 27 (Migne, P. G„ XI, 1756 sq.). 35 Cfr. Riviere-Cappadelta, Th§ Doctrine of the Atonement, Vol. II, pp. 124 sqq. THE R6LE OF THE DEVIL Son.” 86 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.87 But when Jesus Christ, who was the Mediator between God and the human race, gave adequate satisfaction to the offended Deity, the reign of the Devil ceased. Very properly, therefore, does St. Augustine 88 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.”89 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 86 D* Agno Paschali, 22. teaching of St. Augustine cfr. 87Cfr. John XII, 31; XIV, 30; * Riviere-Cappadelta, op. tit., II, 146 Cor. IV, 4; Heb. II, 14. sqq. 88 De Trinit., IV, 13.— On the 39 De Trinity XIII, 13, 14. 15.

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 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 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 40 ” Venit princeps huius mundi et in Salvatore non invenit quidquam. Et quum nihilominus innocenti manus iniecit, iustissime quo* tenebat amisit, quando is qui morti nihil debebot, occepta mortis iniurid iure ilium, qui obnoxius erat, et mortis debito et diaboli solvit dominio. Qua enim iustitia id secundo ab homine exigereturf 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 satisf actio 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 Riviere-Cappadelta, op. cit., II, 220. SATISFACTION AND MERIT 55 so loved the world as to give his only begotten Son.” 42 God must not be conceived as an angry tyrant, who 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 Harnack48 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 42 Cfr. also Epb. I, 3 sqq., II, 4 44 Religionsphilosophie, Vol. II, sqq.; Tit. Ill, 4 sq., and 1 Pet. I, 3. 2nd cd., Berlin 1884* pp. 4$7 sqq. 48 Grundriss der Dogmengeschichte, 4th ed., pp. 304 sqq.

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 : ( I ) As to their reality, (2) as to the time when they were acquired, (3) as to their object or purpose, and (4) as to the scope of their application. a) It is an article of faith that the Redeemer gained merits for us. Christ, says the Tridentine Council, “merited 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 lesu Christi and anathematizes those who say, Homines sine Christi iustitia, per quam nobis meruit iustificari, aut per earn ipsam formaliter iustos esse49 Isaias regarded the Redemption as a meritorious work. Is. LIII, 10: “And the Lord was pleased to bruise him in infirmity: if he shall lay down his life for sin, he shall see a long-lived seed [i. e., spiritual progeny] and the will of the Lord shall be prosperous in his hand.” Here satisfaction and merit are so nearly alike as to be 45 ” Meritum est opus bonum in Sess. V, can. 3 ; Scss. VI, can. 10. favor em alterius merceZe vel praemio Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiri-^ dignum.” dion, n. 799, 790, 8ao. 46 Cone. Trid., Sess. VI, cap. 7;

THE MERITS OF CHRIST 57 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 Himb) When did Christ perform His meritorious actions? In attempting to answer this question we must distinguish between the terminus a quo and the terminus ad quern, Our Lord performed no meritorious actions (in the technical sense of the term) outside of the period of His earthly pilgrimage (status viae). Hence the terminus ad quern was the moment of His death.47 That this is the teaching of Holy Scripture may be gathered from such texts as John IX, 4 sq. ; Heb. IX, 12, X, 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 concep47 The question whether this limi- to an intestine necessity, is purely , tation of Christ’s meritorious action speculative, and will be discussed in is based upon a positive and free Eschatology. decree of God, or whether it is due 48 Rom. VIII, 34; Heb. VII, 35. self.

J tion.49 Hence the terminus a quo of His meritorious actions was the first moment of His existence as Godman.60 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 lesum* in the sense of ” per meritum Christi lesu!’ It is likewise an article of faith that man, in the state of grace which follows justification, receives all the graces and merits which come to him solely from the treasury of the merits of Jesus Christ.68 Our Lord Himself inculcates this by the parable of the vine and its branches.64 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 ilium et donavit illi nomen, quod est super omne nomen — 40 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, PP. 359 sqq. 50 Cfr. Heb. X, 5. 51 Cfr. z. Tim. I, 9. 52 Cfr. F. Stentrup, Soteriologia, thes. 36. 58 Cfr. Cone. 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. THE MERITS OF CHRIST 59 For which cause God also exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above all names.” Heb. II, 9: ” Videmus Iesum propter passionem mortis gloria et honore coronation — 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 (/. 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 55 Cfr. Bellarmine, De Christ o, V, 58 On the whole subject dealt with 57 /. c. — Cfr. Simar, Lehrbuch der maticae, Vol. IV, 3rd ed., pp. 252 Dogmatik, Vol. I, 4th ed., pp. 532 sqq., Friburgi 1909. sqq., Freiburg 1899. 2.1 58 8-10. 56 5”. Theol., 3a, qu. 19, art. 3. in this subdivision of our treatise consult Pesch, Praelectiones Dog5