Part I Chapter II §3: The Concrete Realization of Christ's Vicarious Atonement

§3: The Concrete Realization of Christ’s Vicarious Atonement

SECTION 3 THE CONCRETE REALIZATION OF CHRIST’S VICARIOUS ATONEMENT In the two preceding Sections we have shown that the atonement was real and intrinsically as well as extrinsically perfect. The question now arises: What were the specific actions by which the Godman made satisfaction for our sins ? Or, to express it in simpler terms, How did Christ redeem us ? We pray : ” By Thy holy Cross Thou hast redeemed the world.” This does not imply that our Divine Saviour’s previous actions had no reference to the purpose of the Redemption. His whole life, from His conception to His death on the Cross, was a chain of expiatory actions, each in itself sufficient to redeem the world in actu primo. But it was an essential feature of the scheme of salvation that in actu secundo, i. e., actually, no satisfaction was acceptable but that which had its consummation in the tragedy on Golgotha. In the present Section, therefore, we shall first treat of Christ’s Death on the Cross (Article i) and then of two subsequent events of peculiar soteriological import, viz.: His Descent into Hell (Article 2) and His Glorious Resurrection (Article 3). 84 CHRIST’S DEATH 85 Christ’s death on the cross We are here considering the death of our Divine Redeemer not as a sacrifice, but merely as the means of our salvation. It was by His passion and death that Jesus actually redeemed mankind. The circumstance that His death was a bloody sacrifice constitutes Him a priest; this aspect of the matter will receive due attention in Part II, Chapter i, infra. i. Christ’s Death the Efficient Cause of our Redemption. — In view of the central position which the Cross of Christ occupies in the history of the Redemption, the Tridentine Council asserted a truth self-evident to every Christian when it defined : “Of this justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, … while the efficient cause is a merciful God ; … but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who … merited justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the Cross and made satisfaction for us to God the Father.” 1 l “Hums iustificationis causae lesus Christus, qui . . • su& Sanctissunt finalis quidem gloria Dei et sim& passion* in ligno crucis nobis Christi, … efiiciens vero miseri- iustificationem meruit et pro nobis cors Deus, … tneritorio autem di- Deo Patri [scil. per approprialectissitnus Unigenitus suus D. N. tionem] satisfecit” Cone. Trid,, 86 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION So important a dogma must loom large in the New Testament and be at least foreshadowed in the Old. a) Apart from certain Old Testament types (such as the sacrifice of Isaac, the scapegoat, the brazen serpent, etc.),2 the Messianic prophecies afford numerous intimations of the bloody passion 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 satisfaction rendered by the “servant of the Lord,” 3 invariably describes it as a dolorous passion followed by death.4 The 21st Psalm characterizes salvation as the outcome of intense tribulation and suffering. “But I am a, worm, and no man; the reproach of men, and the outcast of the people. All they that saw me have laughed me to scorn : they have spoken with the lips, and wagged the head… . My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue hath cleaved to my jaws : and thou hast brought me down into the dust of death… . They have dug my hands and feet. They have numbered all my bones. And they have looked and stared upon me. They parted my garments amongst them; and upon my vesture they cast lots.” 5 Sess. VI, cap. 7 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 799). 2 On these and other types of the suffering Messias see A. J. Maas, S. J., Christ in Type and Prophecy, Vol. II, pp. 3^2-343. Sis. XLII, 1-9; XLIX, 1 sqq.; L, 4 sqq., LIII, 4 sqq. Cfr. Maas, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 231 sqq. 4 See supra, pp. 46 sq. 5 Ps. XXI, 7 sqq. Cfr. Maas, op. ext., Vol. II, pp. 264-287. b) The New Testament fairly swarms with passaged in support of the dogma. Christ Himself says : “Filius hominis non venit ministrari, sed ministrare, et dare animam suam redemptionem* pro multis — The Son of man is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many.” 7 And again: “Sic enim Deus dilexit mundum, ut Filium suum unigenitum daret,8 ut omnis qui credit in eum, 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 everlasting.* 9 St. Paul attests the same truth in somewhat different terms. Qui etiam proprio Filio suo non pepercit” he says, “sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit10 ‘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 effusione non Ut remissio 13 — Without shedding of blood there is no remission.” 14 Therefore, too, subjective salvation, i. e.9 the application of • <= ransom. 11 Rom. VIII, 32. 7 Matth. XX, 28. » John III, 16. 10 wap46wK€P. ylperai 6.

the fruits of the Redemption to the individual soul, is described as “the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ/’ 15 and the Redemption was not “consummated” until Christ gave up the ghost.16 2. The Congruity of Christ’s Death on the Cross. — It was fitting that Christ should die for us on the Cross. The reasons are admirably developed by St. Thomas.17 We must confine ourselves to a summary of the most important of them. a) It would have been unbecoming for the Redeemer to die of old age or disease,18 or to fall beneath the blows of an assassin. His high office as Saviour of the human race demanded that He should die a public death. In no other way could He have so effectively sealed the truth of His teaching. Nothing could have been more conducive to the spread of His Gospel than His bloody martyrdom, which contained within itself the proof of His teaching and power. The fact that He met death unflinchingly gained for Him a greater number of enthusiastic adherents than many years of teaching could have done. What is the poison cup that Socrates put to his lips in comparison with the agony suffered by Jesus Christ? His reward was proportionate to the magnitude of His suffering. This consideration (namely, that He merited His glorification by intense suffering) implies a profound teleology, which may be truly termed divine. 15 i Pet I, 2 : ” aspersionem sanguinis Iesu Christi.” Cfr. Heb. IX, 13 sq. 16 Consummatum est. John XIX, 30. — The Patristic argument is developed by Tepe, Inst. Thiol., Vol. Ill, pp. 651 sqq. 17 S. Theol., 3a, qu. 46, art. 1-4, 11; qu. 47, art. 4; qu. 50, art. 1. 18 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christ ology, pp. 81 sqq. b) In regard to those for whom He gave up His life, Christ could not have selected a more congruous manner of dying than that which He actually chose. The path of Christian perfection runs between two poles — hatred of sin and the practice of virtue. From both points of view the cruel drama enacted on Golgotha was eminently effective. The power of sin could not be broken except by a strong opposing force. This may be regarded either objectively or subjectively. a) The sin of our first parents had doomed the human race to spiritual death, a terrible penalty which entailed the death of the body.19 Hence it was eminently proper that our Divine Redeemer should by His bodily death destroy the spell of spiritual death and thereby restore man to that corporeal immortality which had been one of the prerogatives of the human race in Paradise, but was forfeited by sin. There is a striking parallel also between the first sinner’s desire to be like unto God and the selfhumiliation of the Godman, between the ” tree of knowledge ” and the ” wood of the Cross.” The antithesis between Christ’s passion and death on the one hand, and sin on the other, may be traced in detail. Thus the unholy trinity of vices which we have inherited from our first parents — concupiscence of the eyes, concupiscence of the flesh, and pride of life — received a tremendous blow by the bitter passion and death of our Saviour, — concupiscence of the eyes in the distribution of his garments, concupiscence of the flesh in His disrobing and scourging, and pride of life in the imposition of the thorny crown and the crucifixion. 0) Nothing could produce a more impressive idea of the hideousness of sin than the contemplation of the 19 Cfr. Rom. V, 7 sqq. THE WORK OF REDEMPTION mangled and blood-stained body of our crucified Redeemer.20 It is apt to soften the hardest of hearts. He who dares to offend God in plain view of the Cross is an atrocious villain, because, in the words of St. Paul, he does not shrink from ” crucifying again . . the Son of God and making him a mockery.” 21 The height of contemplation and the heroic practice of virtue to which the medieval mystics attained by meditating on the cruel sufferings of our Divine Redeemer, have been and still are within the reach of all men. Like St. John many have found by experience that love kindles love. ” In this is charity : not as though we had loved God, but because he hath first loved us, and sent his Son to be a propitiation for our sins.” 22 Our crucified Redeemer is, moreover, a living and attractive model of all virtue. How would it be possible for us poor weak mortals to be virtuous had we not His glorious example to encourage us? Is there anything a selfish, effeminate man dreads more than pain and death? Yet the Passion of Christ has deprived both of their sting. St. Teresa had no other desire than either to die or to suffer (aut mori aut pati). Death, too, so terrible to human nature, has lost its horrors. With the crucifix clasped in his hands and the name of the Redeemer on his lips, the pious Christian calmly commends his soul to the Heavenly Father. In the Cross there is salvation, the Cross is a haven of refuge.23 20 On the extensive and intensive magnitude, of our Lord’s suffering see Cfr. Pesch, PraeU Dogmat., Vol. IV, pp. 267 sqq.; A. Kluge, Das Seelenleiden des Welterlosers, Mainz 1905. 2lHeb. VI, 6. 22 x John IV, xo. 23 Cfr. the Roman Catechism, Part I, ch. 5, qu. 4, 14; Billuart, De My st. Christi, diss. 9, art. 1, and Oswald, Die Erlosung in Chrisio Jesu, Vol. II, 5s, Paderborn 1887.

Article 1: Christ’s Death on the Cross

Article 2: Christ’s Descent into Hell

Christ’s descent into hell The Oriental and the ancient Roman versions of the so-called Apostles’ Creed do not mention Christ’s Descent into hell. But the doctrine is contained in the Spanish, Gallic, and Aquilean recensions and in the symbol “Quicunque” wrongly attributed to St. Athanasius. Hence the descensus ad inferos is commonly regarded, as an article of faith. The Fourth Later an Council (A. D. 121 5) teaches somewhat more explicitly: He descended into hell, … but He descended in soul and arose in flesh, and ascended equally in both.1 Durandus contended that the soul of Christ descended into hell dynamically but not substantially. This opinion was censured a$ heretical by Suarez.2 1 And justly so ; for it can be effectively refuted from Sacred Scripture. The same is true of Calvin’s absurd notion 3 that Christ before and after His agonizing death suffered the tortures of the damned. The nature of the place into which our Lord descended has never been dogmatically defined, 1 * Descendit ad infernos, … sed descendit in anima et resurrexit in came: ascenditque pariter in utroque. Caput “Firmiter.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 429.) 2 De Myst. Vitae Christi, disp. 43, sect. 2, n. 7. 8 Inst. , II, 16, 10. but it is theologically certain that it was the socalled limbus patrum (sinus Abrahae) . i. Proof of the Dogma from Sacred Scripture and Tradition. — The dogma of Christ’s Descent into hell is clearly contained both in Sacred Scripture and Tradition. a) Ps. XV, 10 : “Non derelinques animam meant in inferno,4 nec dabis Sanctum tuum videre corruptionem — Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, nor wilt thou give thy holy one to see corruption.” This text contains a convincing argument for our dogma, because St. Peter directly applies it to Christ : “Providens [David] locutus est de resurrectione Christi, quia neque derelictus est in inferno neque caro eius vidit corruptionem — Foreseeing this, he [David] spoke of the resurrection of Christ. For neither was he left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption.” 5 The Greek term which the Vulgate renders by infernum is JV. It cannot mean grave, as Beza contended, because the soul of Christ was not buried; nor can it mean death (which is Qtlvin’s interpretation), because the soul of Christ did not die. It must refer to a locality where the soul of our Lord sojourned until it was reunited with His “uncorrupted flesh” at the Resurrection.6 4 r^f ^vx^y &8ov> 6-12; Maas, Christ in Type and 5 Acts II, 31. Cfr. Acts XIII, 35. Prophecy, Vol. I, pp. 140 sqq.; Vol. « Cfr. Bellarrainc, De Christo, IV, II, pp. 358 sqq., csp. p. 372. 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?1 He that descended is the same also that ascended above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.” 8 Christ’s ascension here can only mean His return to Heaven. Consequently, the word descend, in contradistinction to ascend, 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 Christ’s burial, and still less metaphorically to the Incarnation. For the rest, St. Peter, (in a somewhat obscure passage, it is true),9 explicitly observes that the soul of Christ preached10 to those spirits that were in prison,— hence it must have been substantially present in a particular place, i. e., the limbo. b) The Tradition in support of our dogma is as ancient as it is positive. St. Irenseus says : * For three days He dwelt in the .place where the dead were.11 Tertullian mentions Christ’s Descent into hell in several passages of his works. We shall quote but one. ” Nor did He ascend into the heights of heaven before descending into the lower parts of the earth, that He might there make the patriarchs and prophets partakers of Himself.”12 St. Augustine speaks with the authority of both Scripture lets rh. tcaT&Ttpa fj^prj riji 717. Adv. Haereses, V, 31 1; cfr. also 8 Eph. IV, 9 8q. Adv. Haereses, IV, 27, 2. 9 1 Pet. Ill, 18 sqq. 12 * Nec ante ascendit in sublimits iic/jpvj-ef praedicavit. era cbelorum, quam descendit in in11 *Nunc autetn tribus diebus feriora terrarum, ut illic patriarchas conversatus est, ubi grant tnortui” et prophetas compotes sui faceret” De Anima, c. 55; cfr. also c. 4, 7.

THE WORK OF REDEMPTION and Tradition when he says : * Who but an unbeliever would deny that Christ was in the nether world? * 13 2. Meaning of the Term “Hell.” — Infernum (jfiys, Hebrew, ) may designate either (a) hell in the strict sense of the term, i. e., the abode of the reprobates (gehenna) ; or (b) a place of purification after death, commonly called purgatory (purgatorium) ; or (c) the biding place of children who have died unbaptized (litnbus infantium) ; or (d) the abode of the just men who lived before the coming of Christ ” (litnbus patrum). To which of these four places did Christ descend? a) The soul of our Lord did not descend to the abode of the damned. Calvin’s blasphemous assertion that the soul of Christ, from the beginning of His sacred Passion in the Garden of Gethsemane to the Resurrection, dwelled in the abode of the damned, and there suffered the poena damni, is based on an untenable exaggeration of the notion of vicarious atonement.14 It is not true, as Calvin held, that Christ’s Descent into hell constituted the climax of the atonement. The atonement culminated on the Cross. (* Consummatum est*) Nor can we conceive of any reasonable motive why our Lord should have descended into the gehenna of the damned. The human beings confined in that awful dungeon were abso18 Quis ergo nisi infidelis nega- P. L., XXXIII, 710). verit fuisse apud inferos Christum? 14 Cfr. Bellarmine, De Christo, Ep. 104 ad Evbdium, c. 2, 3 (Migne, V, 8.

lutely irredeemable, even as the demons themselves.15 Moreover, a personal sojourn in hell would have been repugnant to the dignity of the Godman. St. Augustine does not hesitate to stigmatize as heretical the proposition that ” When Christ descended into hell, the unbelieving believed and all were set free.” 16 The ” triumph over hell ” which the Church celebrates in her Easter hymns did not require the substantial presence there of our Lord’s soul; it was accomplished by His virtual or dynamic presence, i. e., the exercise of His divine power. Certain ancient ecclesiastical writers 17 held that on the occasion of His Descent Christ rescued from eternal torture 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, because 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 relegated to the limbus patrum. b) There is another opinion, held by several reputable theologians, viz., that the soul of Christ appeared personally in purgatory to console the poor souls and to admit them to the beatific vision. We may let this pass as a ” pious opinion/’ provided its defenders refrain from denying that Christ also descended into the limbus patrum. But even with this limitation we can hardly admit that the theory is based on sufficient 16 V. supra, Sect. 2, Art 2, The- feros eredidisse incredulos et omnes sis 4. exinde liberates.* De Haer., 79. 16 * Descendant € Chris to ad in- 17 E. g., Clement of Alexandria and Origen.

evidence. Two weighty arguments speak against it. It is a fundamental law of divine justice that whoever neglects to render satisfaction in this life must inevitably suffer 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 indulgence 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 purification at exactly the same moment. In view of these considerations St. Thomas holds that the (merely virtual) presence of our Lord in purgatory resulted in nothing more than giving to the poor souls temporarily imprisoned there ” the hope of an early beatitude.” 18 The only exception the Angelic Doctor is disposed to make is in favor of those ” who were already sufficiently purged, or who during their lifetime had by faith and devotion to the death of Christ merited the favor of being released from the temporal sufferings of purgatory on the occasion of His descent.” 19 c) Was it perhaps the limbus puerorurn, i. e., the abode of children who die in the state of original sin, into which our Saviour descended? It is difficult to see for what reason He should have gone there. He could not benefit the souls of these children, because they have once for all arrived at their destination. 18 5. Theol., 3a, qu si, rt. 3: Hits vero, qui detinebantur in purgatorio, spent gloriae consequential dedit. 10 ”… qui tarn suMcienter purgati erant, vel etiatn qui, dum ad hue viverent, meruerunt per fidem et devotionem ad mortem Christi, ut to descendente liberarentur a tent’ porali purgatorii poena.’ (Ibid,) Cfr. Billuart, De Myst. Christi, diss. iiy art. 3. / CHRIST’S DESCENT INTO HELL 97 Nor can He have desired to triumph over them, because the fact that they are deprived of the beatific vision is not due to any malice on their part, but simply and solely to original sin contracted by their descent from Adam. As these infants are absolutely irredeemable in virtue of Christ’s voluntas salvifica consequens0 we cannot even assume the existence of a special privilege in their favor. That which is impossible cannot be made the subject-matter of a privilege, not even at so solemn a juncture as the death of our Saviour.21 Their fate does not involve cruelty nor injustice on the part of God, because, though deprived of the beatific vision, they enjoy a certain measure of natural happiness.22 d) Consequently, the only place to which the soul of Christ can have descended during the triduum intervening between His death and the Resurrection, is the limbus patrum, sometimes also called “bosom of Abraham/’ The limbus patrum was the place in which the patriarchs 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 §tain of sin in purgatory, dwelled in the expectation of the beatific vision. That such a place existed we conclude from Heb. IX, 8 : ” The way intof the holies [i. e., Heaven] 23 was not yet 20 V. supra, Sect 2, Art. 2, Thesis 4. 21 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., 3a, qu. 52, art. 7: “Pueri autem, qui cum originali peccato decesserant, nullo modo fuerant coniuncti passioni Christi per fidem et dilcctionem. Neque enim fidem proPriam habere potueranf, quia non habuerunt usum liberi arbitrii, neque per fidem parentum aut per aliquod fidei sacramentum [scil. baptismum] fuerant a peccato original mundati. Et ideo descensus Christi ad inferos huiusmodi pueros non liberavit ab inferno/’ 22 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural, pp. 300 sqq. 28 Cfr. Heb. X, 19. made manifest, whilst the former tabernacle [i. e., the Old Testament] was yet standing,” We may also infer the (former) existence of such a place from the fact that Holy Scripture adverts to a state of imprisonment as an intermediary stage on the way to Heaven. 3. Speculations Regarding the Location of the Limbo. — The word limbo, which is derived from limbus, properly signifies edge or border. It owes its use as a technical term in theology to the ancient belief that the abode of the patriarchs was situated on the confines of hell, somewhere near the surface of the earth. Dante and Milton place the limbo at the outermost circle of hell.24 Since the geocentric has been supplanted by the Copernican world-view, we know that the ancient notions of “above” and “below” are purely relative. Hence the traditional view with regard to the site of hell and the limbo does not appertain to the substance of dogma. The meagre data furnished by Revelation do not enable us to draw up a topographical map of the nether world. We know no more about the whereabouts of hell than we know about the location of what was once the limbo of the Fathers. The theological arguments of certain Scholastic writers, based on the geocentric conception of the universe, can claim no probability, much less certitude.25 24 Milton, Paradise Lost, III, 440 25 On the limbo see P. J. Toner sqq. in the Catholic Encyclopedia,, Vol. CHRIST’S DESCENT INTO HELL 99 4. The Soteriological Significance of Christ’s Descent into Hell. — Christologically our Lord’s Descent into hell must be conceived as an intermediary stage between glorification and abasement. It partook of abasement in respect of the external circumstance of place, but it did not entail upon His human nature any substantial or intrinsic alteration.26 From the soteriological point of view the question as to the meaning of Christ’s Descent into hell resolves itself into another, namely, What was its object or purpose ? What can have been our Saviour’s purpose in visiting the patriarchs ? We may safely assume that His descent stood in some sort of relation to the redemption of the human race which He had just accomplished. It must have aimed at their beatification, for the limbo contained no reprobates. St. Paul applies the text Ps. LXVII, 19: Ascendens in altum captivam duxit captivitatem to the inmates of the limbo, — as if he wished to say: Ascending into Heaven Christ leads away with Him those who had been imprisoned in the limbo.27 We are informed of the object of our Lord’s Descent into the limbo by St. Peter, who says in his IX, pp. 256 sqq.; Mamachi, De 26 Cfr. H. Simar, Dogmatik, Vol* Animabus Iustorutn in Sinu Abrahae I, 3rd ed., p. 538, Freiburg 1899. ante Christi Mortem, Rome 1706. 27 Cfr. Eph. IV, 8. ioo THE WORK OF REDEMPTION first Epistle:28 “[Christ was] put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, in which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison : 29 which had been some time incredulous,80 when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a-building.” This text is admittedly difficult of interpretation; 81 but despite a certain obscurity, its general drift is discernable. The Apostle evidently means to say that Christ personally approached 82 the spirits or souls of those who were imprisoned in the limbo and preached88 to them. What and why did he preach to them ? To assume that He tried to convert the damned would contradict the revealed truth that there is no salvation for those condemned to hell. Can it have been His purpose to assure them of their damnation? This hypothesis is equally untenable, because a little further down in his text St. Peter expressly describes Christ’s preaching (#dJpvy/Aa) as a “gospel,” which means a message of joy. ” Nexpot? cvrjyyOuaOri” these are his words — ” the gospel was preached to the dead.” 84 The ” gospel ” which our Lord preached to the inmates of limbo must have been the glad tidings that their imprisonment was at an end. But whom does St. Peter mean when he speaks of * those spirits … which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe*? This is a difficult question to answer. But no matter how we may choose to interpret the subsidiary clause, the main sentence is plain enough. Among the just imprisoned in the limbo there were also (ko1) some who had abused God’s 28 i Pet III, 18 sqq. Si Cfr. St Augustine, Ep. ad 2» h $ Kal roU h 0u\ojcj Evod., 164. wpetinaaip vopevOels ix^pv^p, 30 direiB^traalp wore* 82 iropevOels88 Uipvbw, praedicaviU 84 1 Pet IV, 6.

Article 3: The Resurrection

patience before the Deluge by remaining incredulous till the flood overtook them.86 The ” gospel ” or joyful message which Christ brought to the inmates of limbo cannot have consisted in anything more than the preliminary announcement that they were soon to be freed ; for their formal admission into the heavenly abode of the Blessed did not take place till the day of His Ascension.36 Nevertheless, in view of our Lord’s remark to the penitent thief: This day thou shalt be with me in paradise, we must hold that the patriarchs were forthwith admitted to the beatific vision of God.37 . The Relation of Christ’s Resurrection to His Death. — Christ’s glorious Resurrection may be considered from three distinct points of view. Apologetically, i. e., regarded as a historic fact establishing His Divinity, it is the bulwark of our faith 1 and the pledge of our own future resurrection.2 Christologically, the Resurrection signalizes 85 Cfr. Hundhausen, Das erst* s Pastoralschreiben des Apostelfursten Petrus, pp. 343 sqq., Mainz 1873. 86 Cfr. Ps. LXVII, 19. 87 Cfr. the Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part I, Ch. 6, Qu. 6. The reasons why it was meet that Christ should descend into hell are developed by St. Thomas, S. TheoL, 3a, qu. 52, art. 1. 1 1 Cor. XV, 14. a x Cor. XV, 13. — For an apologetic treatment of the Resurrection we refer the student to Devivier-Sasia, Christian Apologetics, Vol. I, pp. 197 sqq., San Jose, Cal., 1903; G. W. B. Marsh, The Resurrection of Christ, Is it a Factt London 1905; and other similar treatises. IQ2 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION Christ’s entrance into the state of glory which He had earned for Himself by His passion and Considered from the distinctive viewpoint of Soteriology, the Resurrection of Christ was not, strictly speaking, the chief, nor even a contributing cause of our redemption ; 4 but it was an essential complement thereof, and constituted its triumphant consummation. a) The Catholic Church regards the Resurrection as an integral, though not an essential, element of the atonement. That is why she mourns on Good Friday and celebrates Easter as the great feast of the Redemption. ” Lastly,” says the Roman Catechism,6 ”… the Resurrection of our Lord was necessary, in order to complete the mystery of our salvation and redemption ; for by his death Christ liberated us from our sins, and by His Resurrection he restored to us the principal blessings which we had forfeited by sin. Hence it is said by the Apostle : ’ He was delivered up for our sins, and rose again for our justification.’ 6 That nothing, therefore, might be wanting to the salvation of the human race, it was meet that, as He should die, He should also rise again.” This teaching is in perfect accord with Sacred Scripture, which links the crucifixion of our Lord with His Resurrection and represents both events as one indivisible whole. Cf r. Luke XXIV, 46 sq. : ” Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise 8 Cfr. Luke XXIV, 26. V. su- the Cross. (Cfr. supra, pp. 8$ sqq.) Pro, pp. 58 sq. 5 Part I, Ch. 6, Qu. ia. 4 The sole cause of our redemp- « Rom. IV, 25. tion was the Saviour’s death on death.1

again from the dead, the third day, that penance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all nations,” 7 b) St. Paul deepened this conception by pointing out that the Crucifixion and the Resurrection contain the two essential elements of justification — remission of sin and infusion of a new life. As Christ died and rose again from the dead, so shall we die to sin and arise to spiritual life. Cf r. Rom. VI, 6 sqq. : ” Knowing this, that our old mah is crucified with him, that the body of sin may be destroyed, to the encf that we may serve sin no longer. For he that is dead is justified from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall live also together with Christ: knowing that Christ rising again from the dead, dieth now no more.” The Apostle loved to apply this sublime symbolism to the Sacrament of Baptism, in which the acts of immersion and emersion emblem both the burial and Resurrection of Christ, and the liberation from sin and sanctification of the sinner. Cfr. Rom. VI, 4 : ” For we are buried together with- him by baptism into death ; that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of 2. The Resurrection of Christ as a Dogma. — The glorious Resurrection of our Lord is a cardinal dogma, nay the very foundation and keystone of Christian belief. For this reason the 7 Cfr. St. Bonaventure, Comment. 8 Cfr. 2 Cor. V, 15. On the subin Quatuor Libros Sent., Ill, dist. ject-matter of this subdivision the 19, art. 1, qu. 1: “Ratio merendi student may profitably consult St. iustificationem attribuitur soli pas- Thomas, S. Theol., 3a, qu. 56, art. sioni, non resurrectioni; ratio vera 2 and H. Simar, Die Theologie des terminandi et quietandi attribuitur hi. Paulus, and ed., pp. 194 sqq., resurrectioni, ad quam or din at ur Freiburg 1883. iustificatio, non passioni.” life.” 8

phrase “on the third day He1 arose again” was embodied in all the creeds and reiterated in numerous doctrinal definitions. The Catholic Church has always emphasized two distinct points in regard to the Resurrection, viz.: (i) Its reality or truth, and (2) the transfigured and glorified state of the risen Redeemer. To safeguard these two aspects of the dogma she strenuously insisted on the real reunion of Christ’s soul with His body,9 and formally rejected the Origenist teaching of the ethereal nature and sphericity of the risen body as well as the heresy of its alleged corruptibility. Thus the Council of Constantinople (A. D. 543) says: “If any one assert that the body of our Lord after the Resurrection was ethereal and spherical in shape, … let him be anathema.’ 9 10 And the symbol of Pope Leo IX declares that Christ arose from the dead on the third day “by a true resurrection of the flesh, to confirm which He ate with His disciples — not because He stood in need of food, but solely by His will and power.” 11 All these statements can be convincingly demonstrated from Divine Revelation. a) Christ had positively predicted that He would arise on the third day (cfr. Matth. XII, 40; 9C/r. Cone. Lateran. IV, Caput “Firmiter” {supra, p. 91). 10 “Si quis dixerit Domini corpus post resurrectionem fuisse aethereum et figurd sphaerictt, anathema sit” Denzinger’s Enchiridion, 9th ed., n. 196. 11 Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 344. XX, 19; XXVII, 63; Mark X, 34; Luke XVIII, 33; John II, 18 sqq.). He proved the reality and the truth of His resurrection by repeatedly appearing to His disciples, conversing with them, allowing them to touch His sacred body, eating and drinking with them, and so forth. (Matth. XXVIII, 17 sq.; Luke XXIV, 41 sqq.; John XX, 24 sqq.; 1 Cor. XV, 6). The Apostles would not have so courageously and uncompromisingly stood up for their faith in the Resurrection had they not seen and conversed with the risen Lord. Cfr. Acts IV, 33: “And with great power 12 did the Apostles give testimony of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord.” 18 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 evidenced by the circumstances surrounding His Resurrection,15 and by the fact that His risen body was endowed with certain attributes which man cannot enjoy except in a transfigured state.16 12 dvp&fiei fiey&Xy, virtute magn&, is Matth. XXVIII, i sqq.; Luke 18 Cfr. Acts II, 22 sqq.; Ill, 15; XXIV, 36 sqq.; John XX, 19 sqq. X, 40 sqq. ; XIII, 30 sqq. 16 This point will be developed in 14 x Cor. XV, 14; cfr. Rom. X, 9. Eschatology. io6 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION He retained the marks of His five wounds 17 for reasons of congruity, which St. Thomas explains as follows : ” It was becoming that the soul of Christ in the Resurrection should reassume the body with its wounds. First, for the glorification of Christ Himself ; secondly, to confirm His disciples in their faith in the Resurrection ; third, that in supplicating the Father for us, He might always remind Him of what He had suffered for men ; fourth to recall the divine mercy to those whom He had redeemed, by exhibiting to them the marks of His death ; and, lastly, that on Judgment day He might show forth the justice of the judgment by which [the wicked] are damned.” 18 That Christ really and truly rose from the dead in a glorified body, is so evident from Sacred Scripture that we need not stop to prove it from Tradition.19 b) In connection with the Resurrection of our Lord the Catholic Church has always held two other important truths, viz. : ( I ) That His Resurrection is the prototype of a general “resurrection of the flesh,” and (2) that Christ arose by His own power. Both these truths are clearly taught in the famous Creed drawn up by the Eleventh Council of Toledo (A. D. 675) : * And on the third day, raised up by His 17 Cfr. John XX, 27; Apoc. V, 6. 18 S. Theol., 3a, qu. 54, art. 4: Conveniens fuit animam Christi in resurrectione corpus cum cicatricibus resumere: primo quidem propter gloriam ipsius Christi …; secundo ad confirmandum corda discipulorum circa fid em suae resurrectionis; tertio ut Patri pro nobis supplicans, quale genus mortis pro homine pertulerit, semper ostendat; quarto ut sua morte redemptis, quam misericorditer sint adiuti, propositis eiusdem mortis indiciis insinuet; postremo ut in iudicio [ultimo], quam iuste damnentur, ibidem denuntiet.” 19 On the whole subject cfr. Billuart, De Myst. Christi, diss. 12, art. 4 and 6; G. B. Tepe, Inst. Theol., Vol. I, pp. 97 sqq., Paris 1894. own power, He rose again from the grave ; by virtue of this example of our Head we profess that there will be a resurrection of the flesh for all the dead.” 20 The phrase ” by His own power ” (yirtute propria) points to an active rising (resurgere), which is more than a miraculous awakening (restiscitari) . The dogma is clearly contained in Sacred Scripture. Cfr. John II, 19: Jesus answered and said to them: Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 21 John X, 17 sq. : ” Therefore doth the Father love me: because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No man taketh it away from me: but I lay it down of myself, and I have power to lay it down: and I have power to take it up again.” 22 Christ Himself ascribes this power to His consubstantiality with the Father. John V, 21 : ” For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and giveth life : so the Son also giveth life to whom he will.”28 Hence, if Holy Scripture elsewhere speaks of our Lord’s being raised up by the Father, 24 this is obviously an appropriation, based on the fact that the efficient cause of our Saviour’s Resurrection was not His humanity, which had been resolved into its constituent elements by death, but His Divinity, which remained hypostatically united with His soul and body. The Roman Catechism explains this as follows: “There existed a divine energy as well in the body, by which it might be reunited to the soul, as in the soul, by which it might return again to the body, and by which He, 20 “Tertio quoque die virtute propria su& suscitatus a sepulcro resurrexit; hoc ergo exemplo capitis nostri confitemur veram fieri resurrectionem carnis omnium mortuorum” Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 286. 21 iyepuj excitabo. 23 d vlbs ofly Oikei fwoirotet. 24 Acts II, 24 sqq.; Ill, 13 sqq.; Rom. VIII, xz ; Gal. I, x. io8 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION by His own power, might return to life and rise again from the dead.” 25 Readings : — * Billuart, De Incarnatione, diss. 19-20.— Idem, De Mysterio Christi, diss. 9-12. — St Thomas, Summa Theologica, 3a, qu. 19-22; qu. 24, 26; qu. 46-56. — Bellarmine, De Christo, 1. IV, c. 6-16; 1. V, c. 1-10. — De Lugo, De Mysterio Incarnationis, disp. 27 sqq.. — * Franzelin, De Verbo Incarnato, sect. 4, Rome 1881. — Oswald, Soteriologie, 2nd ed., Paderborn 1887.— Stentrup, S. J., Soteriologia, 2 vols., Innsbruck 1889. — G- B. Tepe, Institutiones Theologicae, Vol. Ill, pp. 617 sqq., Paris 1896.— Chr. Pesch, S. J., Praelectionts Dogmaticae, Vol. IV, 3d ed., pp. 201 sqq., Freiburg 1909.— L. Janssens, De Deo-Homine, II, Freiburg 191 2. — Hunter, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, pp. 506 sqq., London s. a. — Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology, Vol. II, pp. 181-195, 2nd ed., London 1901. — A. Ritter, Christus der Erloser, Linz 1903. — *B. Dorholt, Lehre von der Genugtuung Christi, Paderborn 1896. — Muth, Heilstat Christi als stellvertretenden Genugtuung, Ratisbon 1904. — K. Staab, Die Lehre von der stellvertretenden Genugtuung, Paderborn 1908. — Pell, Lehre des hi. Athanasius von der Sunde und Erlosung, Passau 1888. — Strater, Erlosung s lehre des hi. Athanasius, Freiburg 1894. — Weigl, Heilslehre des hi. Cyrill von Alexandrien, Mainz 1905- — * J- Riviere, Le Dogme de la Redemption, Paris 1905 (English translation, The Doctrine of the Atonement, 2 vols., London 1909). — E. Krebs, Der Logos als Heiland im 1. Jahrhundert, Freiburg 1910. — E. Hugon, O. P., Le Mystdre de la Redemption (a speculative pendant to Riviere’s Le Dogme de la Redemption, which is mainly historical), Paris 1911. — H. N. Oxenham, The Catholic Doctrine of the Atonement: An Historical Inquiry into its Development in the Church, London 1865. (This work, which has been lately translated into French, must be read with caution. Cf r. La Civilta Cattolica, Quad. 1431, Feb. 5, 1910). — J. Kleutgen, S. J., Theologie der Vorzeit, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 336 sqq., Miinster 1870 (against Gunther). — Friedlieb, Leben Jesu Christi des Er losers mit neuen historischen und chronologischen Untersuchungen, 25 Cat. Rom., P. I, c. 6, qu. 8: ” Divina vis turn in corpore inerat, qua animae iterum coniungit, turn in anima, qua ad corpus reverti posset, qua et licuit su& virtute reviviscere atque a mortuis resurgere.” — Cfr. Chr. Pesch, Praelect. Dogmat., Vol. IV, pp. 280 sqq. Paderborn 1887. — Grimm, Leben Jesu nach den vier Evangelien, 7 vols., 2nd ed., Ratisbon 1890 sqq. — Didon, O. P., Jesus Christ, English edition, London 1895. — J. E. Belser, Geschkhte des Leidens und Sterbens, der Auferstehung und Himmelfahrt des Herrn, 2nd ed., Freiburg 1913. — W. Humphrey, S. J., The One Mediator, London s. a. — A. J. Maas, S. J., Christ in Type and Prophecy, Vol. II, pp. 13 sqq., New York 1895. — G. W. B. Marsh, Messianic Philosophy, pp. 24 sqq., London 1908. — Freddi-Sullivan, S. J., Jesus Christ the Word Incarnate, pp. 191 sqq., St Louis 1904.— J. Tixeront, Histoire des Dogmes, Vol. II, 3rd ed., pp. 148 sqq., 285 sqq., 376 sqq., Paris 1909. — B. J. Otten, S. J., A Manual of the History of Dogmas, Vol. II, St. Louis 1918, pp. 196 sqq., 201 sqq. See. also the references in Pohle-Preuss, Christology, 2nd ed., pp. 7 sq., St Louis 1916. * The asterisk before an author’s name Indicates that his treatment of the question is especially clear and thorough. As St. Thomas is invariably the best guide, the omission of the asterisk before his name never means that we consider his work in any way inferior to that of other writers. There are vast stretches of theology which he scarcely touched.