Vn 
 
 Cibrarjp of "the ''theological ^eminarjo 
 
 PRINCETON • NEW JERSEY 
 
 PRESENTED BY 
 
 Mr. Leon Arpee 
 
 BT 775 .P7 1923 
 
 Pohle, Joseph, 1852-1922. 
 
 Soteriology 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2019 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 https://archive.org/details/soteriologydogma00pohl_0 
 
DOGMATIC THEOLOGY, 
 
 V 
 
THE POHLE-PREUSS SERIES OF DOG¬ 
 MATIC TEXT-BOOKS 
 
 1. God: His Knowability, Essence and At¬ 
 
 tributes. vi & 479 pp., $2.50 net. 
 
 2. The Divine Trinity. 3d ed., iv & 297 pp., 
 
 $1.50 net. 
 
 3. God the Author of Nature and the Su¬ 
 
 pernatural. v & 365 pp., $1.75 net. 
 
 4. Christology. iii & 312 pp., $1.50 net. 
 
 5. Soteriology. iv & 171 pp., 3d ed., $1.25 
 
 net. 
 
 6. Mariology. iv & 185 pp., $1.00 net. 
 
 7. Grace: Actual and Habitual, iv & 443 
 
 pp., $2.50 net. 
 
 8. The Sacraments. Vol. I. The Sacra¬ 
 
 ments in General. Baptism. Confirma¬ 
 tion, vi & 328 pp., $1.50 net. 
 
 9. The Sacraments. Vol. II. The Holy 
 
 Eucharist, iv & 397 pp., $1.75 net. 
 
 10. The Sacraments. Vol. III. The Sacra¬ 
 
 ment of Penance, vi & 270 pp., $1.80 
 net. 
 
 11. The Sacraments. Vol. IV. Extreme 
 
 Unction, Holy Orders, Matrimony, 
 iv & 249 pp., $2.00 net. 
 
 12. Eschatology, iv & 164 pp., $1.25 net. 
 
 The Whole Set, $20.00 net. 
 
SOTERIOL 
 
 A DOGMATIC TREATISE ON THE 
 REDEMPTION 
 
 BY 
 
 
 THE RT. REV. MSGR. JOSEPH POHLE, Ph.D., D.D. 
 
 FORMERLY PROFESSOR OF DOGMATIC THEOLOGY AT ST. 
 JOSEPH’S SEMINARY, LEEDS (ENGLAND), LATER PRO¬ 
 FESSOR OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOLOGY IN THE 
 CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA 
 
 ADAPTED AND EDITED 
 
 BY 
 
 ARTHUR PREUSS 
 
 FOURTH, REVISED EDITION 
 
 B. HERDER BOOK CO. 
 
 17 South Broadway, St. Louis, Mo. 
 
 and 
 
 68, Great Russell St., London, W. C. 
 
 1923 
 
NIHIL OB ST AT 
 Sti. Ludovici, die 24. Jan. 1923 
 
 F. G. Holweck, 
 Censor Librorum 
 
 IMPRIMATUR 
 
 Sti. Ludovici, die 25. Jan. 1923 
 
 *{*Joannes J. Glennon, 
 Archie pis copus 
 Sti. Ludovici. 
 
 Copyright, 1913 
 by 
 
 Joseph Gummersbach 
 
 All rights reserved 
 Printed in U. S. A. 
 
 First Edition, 1913 
 Second Edition, 1916 
 Third Edition, 1919 
 Fourth Edition, 1923 
 
 VAIL-BALLOU COMPANY 
 
 BINGHAMTON ANO NEW YORK 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 INTRODUCTION.i 
 
 Part I. The Work of Redemption.3 
 
 Prefatory Remarks.3 
 
 Ch. I. Christ’s Mediatorship as a Condition of Our Re- 5 
 
 demption.5 
 
 § 1. The Possibility of the Redemption.5 
 
 § 2. Congruity and Necessity of the Redemption . 13 
 
 § 3. Predestination of the Redeemer.24 
 
 Ch. II. The Redemption of the Human Race Through 
 
 Christ’s Vicarious Atonement.35 
 
 § 1. The Reality of Christ’s Vicarious Atonement . . 35 
 
 Art. 1. Vicarious Atonement Defined .... 35 
 Art. 2. The Dogma of Christ’s Vicarious Atone¬ 
 ment Proved From Revelation.41 
 
 § 2. The Properties of Christ’s Vicarious Atonement 60 
 Art. 1. Intrinsic Perfection of the Atonement . 60 
 
 Art. 2. Extrinsic Perfection or Universality of the 
 
 Atonement.7 5 
 
 § 3. The Concrete Realization of Christ’s Vicarious 
 
 Atonement.84 
 
 Art. 1. Christ’s Death on the Cross.85 
 
 Art. 2. Christ’s Descent Into Hell.91 
 
 Art. 3. The Resurrection.101 
 
 Part II. The Three Offices of the Redeemer . . . .110 
 
 Ch. I. Christ’s Priesthood.in 
 
 § 1. Christ’s Death a True Sacrifice.in 
 
 § 2. Christ a True Priest.127 
 
 Ch. II. Christ’s Prophetical Office.140 
 
 Ch. III. Christ’s Kingship.. . 149 
 
 Appendix .165 
 
 Index.167 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 Christology deals with the Person of our Di¬ 
 vine Redeemer; Soteriology ffh wrqptas Aoyos) 
 considers the object for which He came into this 
 world. This object was the Redemption of the 
 human race. 
 
 Christ became our Redeemer or Mediator 
 solely by His vicarious atonement, therefore, re¬ 
 demption (mediation) and vicarious atonement 
 are interchangeable terms. 
 
 The fallen race of Adam was not simply re¬ 
 stored as a whole to its original state of bliss. In 
 order to share in the graces of the Redemption 
 each individual human being must co-operate 
 with the Redeemer. To be able to do this man 
 needs (i) a teacher, who authoritatively instructs 
 him in the truths necessary for salvation; (2) a 
 priest who effectively applies to him the merits of 
 the atonement; and (3) a king or shepherd, who, 
 by the promulgation of suitable laws and pre¬ 
 cepts, guides him on the way to Heaven. 
 
 Hence our Divine Lord exercises a threefold 
 function or office, namely (1) that of Teacher, 
 (2) that of High Priest, and (3) that of King 
 
 1 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 i2 
 
 or Shepherd. Cfr. John XIV, 6: “I am the 
 way (King), and the truth (Teacher), and the 
 life (Priest).” 
 
 Soteriology, therefore, naturally falls into two 
 main divisions: I. The Work of Redemption; 
 II. The Three Offices of the Redeemer. 
 
PART I 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 PREFATORY REMARKS 
 
 The Redemption could not have been effected 
 by a mediator who was either mere God or mere 
 man. It required one who was both God and 
 man. Christ, alone, being both God and man, 
 was in a position to act as natural and moral 
 mediator and to reconcile the human race to its 
 Creator. 
 
 We have shown in a previous treatise that 
 Christology 1 is founded on the doctrine of the 
 Hypostatic Union. Similarly, Soteriology turns 
 on the pivotal concept of the mediatorship of 
 Christ and may be said to be implicitly contained 
 in 2 Cor. V, 19: “God indeed was in Christ, 
 reconciling the world to himself.” 
 
 We have, therefore, to consider: (Ch. I), the 
 mediatorship of Christ, the possibility of the Re¬ 
 demption, its congruity and necessity, and, by way 
 of a corollary, the highly interesting question 
 whether or not the Incarnation was absolutely 
 
 1 Pohle-Prouss, Christology, A Dogmatic Treatise on the Incarnation, St, 
 
 Louis 1913. 
 
 3 
 
4 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 preordained; (Ch. II), the fact of the Redemp¬ 
 tion, its reality, its properties, and the concrete 
 mode of its realization. In connection with the 
 last-mentioned point we shall also treat (Ch. Ill) 
 of Christ’s Descent into hell and His Resurrec¬ 
 tion from the soteriological point of view 0 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 Christ’s mediatorship as a condition of our 
 
 REDEMPTION 
 
 SECTION i 
 
 THE POSSIBILITY OF THE REDEMPTION 
 
 I. Definition of the Term "Mediator.”— 
 A mediator ( mediator, a is one who holds 
 a neutral position between parties at variance, 
 and is therefore apt to interpose between them 
 as the equal friend of each. 
 
 a) Thus, in the political domain, a neutral 
 government sometimes intervenes between quar¬ 
 relling powers by proffering its friendly offices as 
 arbitrator. 
 
 The notion of a mediator, therefore, comprises 
 two distinct elements, viz.: (i) The exist¬ 
 
 ence of two extremes in contrary opposition, 
 and (2) a quality or characteristic proper to him 
 who interposes, which enables him to reconcile 
 the parties at variance. 
 
 This is the true Catholic notion of mediatorship. There 
 is also an heretical one, which appears in the religious 
 
 5 
 
6 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 systems of the Gnostics and the Arians. To exalt the 
 Creator of the universe as far as possible above mere 
 matter, which they regarded as intrinsically evil, the 
 Gnostics invented a series of “ intermediate beings, 1 ” 
 which they called aeons, and which were supposed to 
 bridge the gap between the Godhead and the material 
 world. The last of these in a descending line was the 
 so-called Demiurge, who as creator of the material uni¬ 
 verse was believed to be the proper mediator between the 
 absolute Being and the physical cosmos . 2 The Arians 
 regarded the Logos as the most exalted of creatures and 
 as creator of all the rest, and ascribed to him the office 
 of mediator between God the Father and the universe 
 created by the Logos. We have already disproved this 
 error by showing, in our treatises on the Divine Trinity 3 
 and the Incarnation , 4 that, so far from being a creature, 
 the Logos is true God, consubstantial (o/ioowios) with 
 the Father. 
 
 b) A duly qualified mediator may exercise his 
 functions either in the moral or in the ontological 
 order. 5 In some manner or other moral always 
 presupposes ontological mediation, and hence the 
 one cannot be conceived apart from the other. 
 
 To perform the part of a moral mediator one must 
 be able, either by one’s natural powers, or through the 
 instrumentality of grace, to reconcile opposing extremes 
 in the order of being. Hence the distinction between 
 
 2 For a refutation of this dualistic Trinity, 2nd ed., pp. 49 sqq., St. 
 error see Pohle-Preuss, God the Au- Louis 1915. 
 
 thor of Nature and the Supernatural, 4 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, 
 2nd ed., pp. 17 sq., St. Louis 1915- 2nd ed., pp. 10 sqq., St. Louis 1916. 
 
 8 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Divine 5 In ordine morali sive ethico; in 
 
 ordine ontologico sive essendi. 
 
MEDIATORSHIP 
 
 7 
 
 mediator naturalis and mediator per gratiam. Moses , 6 
 the Levites, the Prophets, and the Apostles were medi¬ 
 ators by grace. So is every Catholic priest in virtue of 
 his ordination. As regards natural mediatorship, Christ 
 is our only Mediator in the moral order, because He is 
 the sole natural Mediator between God and man. “ The 
 fact of Christ’s existence is in itself a mediation, a bond 
 between the Creator and His creatures. By uniting our 
 humanity to His Divinity, He united us to God and 
 God to us. He is of God and in God, but He is also 
 of us and in us.” 7 Being consubstantial with man as 
 well as with God , 8 Christ is the born mediator be¬ 
 tween God and man ( mediator naturalis). 
 
 This unique natural mediatorship constitutes the foun¬ 
 dation of an equally unique moral mediatorship. The 
 offended Deity exacted adequate atonement for the 
 sins of mankind, and therefore redemption or moral 
 mediation was impossible except on the basis of a natural 
 mediatorship . 9 
 
 c) It follows, by way of a corollary, (i) that 
 mankind has but one mediator, because there is 
 no natural mediator between God and man other 
 than the Godman Jesus Christ; (2) that all 
 other so-called “mediators” are such merely by 
 grace. They owe their mediatorial power solely 
 and entirely to Christ, and can consequently be 
 called mediators only in a subordinate and sec¬ 
 ondary sense. 
 
 6 Cfr. Deut. V, 5: " Medius fui Catholic Theology, Vol. II, p. 140, 
 
 inter Dominum et vos — I stood 2nd ed., London 1901. 
 
 between the Lord and you.” 8 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology. 
 
 7 Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of 9 V. infra, Sect. 2. 
 
8 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 No further argument is required to disprove the Prot¬ 
 estant objection that Catholics obscure and degrade the 
 unique mediatorship of Christ by admitting a host of 
 priests and saints as co-mediators between God and 
 man. “ It is an essential function of the office of a 
 mediator,” says Aquinas, “ to join together and unite 
 those between whom he is to interpose; for it is in the 
 middle that extremes meet. Now, to unite men with 
 God perfectively belongs to Christ, through whom men 
 are reconciled to God. . . . And therefore Christ alone 
 is a perfect mediator between God and men, inasmuch as, 
 by His death, He reconciled the human race to God. . . . 
 There is, however, nothing to forbid others from being 
 called mediators between God and men under a certain 
 respect (secundum quid), in so far, namely, as they co¬ 
 operate in uniting men with God, either by disposing 
 them for such a union {dispositive ), or by assisting them 
 in the process of unification {ministerialiter ).” 10 
 
 2. The Dogma. —Theologically speaking, Me¬ 
 diation is synonymous with Redemption. That 
 Christ was our natural Mediator is an article of 
 faith, defined by the Council of Trent. “Si quis 
 hoc Adae peccatum [ originate ] . . . per aliud 
 remedium asserit tolli quam per meritum unias 
 mediatoris Domini nostri Iesu Christi, qui nos 
 
 10" Ad mediatoris officium propria 
 pertinet coniungere et unire eos, in¬ 
 ter quos est mediator; nam extrema 
 uniuntur in medio. Unire autem 
 homines Deo perfective quidem con- 
 venit Christo, per quern homines 
 sunt reconciliati Deo. . . . Et ideo 
 solus Christus est perfectus Dei et 
 hominum mediator, inquantum per 
 suam mortem humanum genus Deo 
 
 reconciliavit. . . . Nihil tamen pro- 
 hibet aliquos alios secundum quid 
 did mediatores inter Deum et ho¬ 
 mines, prout scil. cooperantur ad 
 unionem hominum cum Deo disposi¬ 
 tive vel ministerialiter.” S. Theol., 
 3a, qu. 26, art. i.— Cfr. Franzelin, 
 De Verbo Incarnato, thes. 46, Rome 
 1881. 
 
CHRIST OUR MEDIATOR 
 
 9 
 
 Deo reconciliavit in sanguine suo . . . anathema 
 sit ” Anglice: “ If any one asserts that this 
 
 sin of Adam [original sin], ... 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, ... let 
 him be anathema.” 11 
 
 a) Moral mediation, or the Redemption 
 proper, according to Holy Scripture, consists 
 in the shedding of the blood of Him who was 
 the sole, because the natural, Mediator be¬ 
 tween God and man. Consequently, Christ's 
 moral mediatorship is based upon His natural 
 mediatorship. Cfr. Col. I, 19 sq.: (( Quia in 
 ipso [scil. Christo ] complacuit omnem plenitudi - 
 nem inhabitare [ = mediatio ontologica natu - 
 ralis ] et per eum reconciliare omnia in ip sum 
 pacificans per sanguinem crucis eius [—mediatio 
 moralis ]—Because in him it hath well pleased 
 the Father, that all fulness should dwell; and 
 through him to reconcile all things unto himself, 
 making peace through the blood of his cross.” 12 
 Both the ontological and the moral mediatorship 
 of Christ are pregnantly summed up by St. Paul 
 in 1 Tim. II, 5 sq.: <( Unus enim Deus, unus 
 
 11 Cone. Trid., Sess. V, can. 3 12 For a full explanation of this 
 
 (in Denzinger’s Enchiridion Sym- text cfr. J. N. Schneider, Die Ver- 
 bolorum, Definitionum et Declara~ sohnung des Weltalls durch das Blut 
 tionum in Rebus Fidei et Morum, Jesu Christi nach Kol. I, 20, Ratis* 
 ed. Bannwart, n. 790, Friburgi bon 1857. 
 
 1908). 
 
10 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 et mediator Dei et hominum, 13 homo Christus 
 Iesns, qni dedit redemptionem semetipsum pro 
 omnibus 14 — For there is one God, and one me¬ 
 diator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 
 who gave himself a redemption for all.” 
 
 The Redemption of the human race began with the 
 conception of Jesus Christ and was consummated in 
 the shedding of His precious Blood on the Cross . 15 
 Hence the functions of His moral mediatorship comprise 
 all His human-divine (theandric) acts from the manger 
 to Calvary. His mediatorial act par excellence was the 
 institution of the New Covenant. “ Et ideo Novi Testa - 
 menti mediator 16 est, ut morte intercedente in redemp¬ 
 tionem earum praevaricationum, quae erant sub priori 
 Testamento, repromissionem accipiant — And therefore 
 he is the mediator of the New Testament: that by means 
 of his death, for the redemption of those transgressions 
 which were under the former testament, they that are 
 called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance.” 17 
 In fact everything that Christ did and does for us 
 must be regarded as the result of His mediatorship, e. g., 
 the institution of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the 
 establishment of His Church, the mission of the Holy 
 Ghost, the sanctification of souls , 18 etc. 
 
 b) We meet with a profound conception of 
 Christ’s mediatorship in the writings of St. Au¬ 
 gustine. This Father may be said to have antici¬ 
 pated the objections of such later heretics as 
 
 13 els Kal /JLealrrjs Oeov Kal 15 Cfr. Heb. X, 5 sqq. 
 
 avOp&iuav. 10 diaOritcTis noivrjs /xeaiTTfs. 
 
 14 6 Sot's iavrdy dyrtXvrpov virkp 17 Heb. IX, 15. 
 
 tt&vtwv. 18 Cfr. John XIV, 6. 
 
CHRIST OUR MEDIATOR 
 
 ii 
 
 Calvin, who held that Christ is our mediator only 
 according to His Divinity, and the older Lu¬ 
 theran theologians, who attributed His mediato¬ 
 rial action exclusively to His human nature. 19 
 
 The truth lies between these extremes. It is the God- 
 man as such who is our Mediator, but only in His hu¬ 
 man nature. “ He is the mediator between God and 
 man,” says St. Augustine, “ because He is God with the 
 Father, and a man with men. A mere man could not 
 be a mediator between God and man; nor could a mere 
 God. Behold the mediator: Divinity without humanity 
 cannot act as mediator; nor can humanity without Di¬ 
 vinity; but the human Divinity and the Divine humanity 
 of Christ is the sole mediator between Divinity and hu¬ 
 manity.” 20 And again: “ Christ is the mediator [be¬ 
 
 tween God and man] not because He is the Word; for 
 the Word, being immortal and happy in the highest de¬ 
 gree, is far removed from the miseries of mortal men; 
 but He is the mediator as man .” 21 
 
 c) The Schoolmen went into the matter even 
 more deeply by resolving the concept of media¬ 
 tion into its constituent elements. 
 
 19 Cfr. Bellarmine, De Christo, V, 
 i-io. 
 
 20" Mediator Dei et hominum, 
 quia Deus cum Patre, quia homo 
 cum hominibus. Non mediator homo 
 praeter deitatem, non mediator Deus 
 praeter humanitatem. Ecce media¬ 
 tor: divinitas sine humanitate non 
 est mediatrix, humanitas sine divini- 
 tate non est mediatrix , sed inter di- 
 vinitatem solam et humanitatem 
 solam mediatrix est humana divinitas 
 
 et divina humanitas Christi.” Serm., 
 47, c. i2, n. 2i. 
 
 21 “ Non ob hoc mediator est 
 Christus, quia Verbum; maxima 
 quippe immortale et maxime beatum 
 Verbum longe est a mortalibu j mi- 
 seriis; sed mediator est secundum 
 quod homo.” De Civ. Dei, IX, 15. 
 For additional Patristic texts see 
 Petavius, De Incarn., XII, 1-4; 
 Vasquez, Comment, in S. Theol., 
 Ill, disp. 83, c. 1. 
 
 2 
 
12 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 They had to meet this logical difficulty: The idea 
 of natural mediation essentially implies three distinct ele¬ 
 ments, viz.: the two extremes God and man, and a 
 mediator who must be both God and man, i. e., God- 
 man ( 6 edv 6 pa) 7 ro<s). Christ, being God according to His 
 Divine Nature, is identical with the first of these two 
 extremes. Consequently, He cannot be a true and nat¬ 
 ural mediator, for it is impossible to conceive Him as 
 a go-between between Himself and man. Cfr. Gal. 
 Ill, 20: “A mediator is not of one.” 
 
 The Scholastics retorted that Christ is the mediator 
 between God and man not qua Logos, but qua Word 
 Incarnate, i. e. as man. Cfr. 1 Tim. II, 5: “ One 
 
 mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” The 
 God man Christ Jesus is not only numerically distinct from 
 all other men. He is likewise hypostatically distinct from 
 the Father and the Holy Ghost, being a different Person 
 than either. Hence His mediatorship involves three dis¬ 
 tinct factors: God, man, and Christ. It is true that, 
 regarded in His Divine Nature, as God, Christ is the 
 mediator between Himself and mankind. But his media¬ 
 tion is not effected by the Godhead as such, it is effected 
 solely by His manhood, which is hypostatically united 
 with the Second Person of the Trinity. This gives rise 
 to seeming paradoxes, e. g.: As man He adores, as God 
 He is adored; as man He gives satisfaction, as God he 
 receives it; as man He offers sacrifices, as God He 
 accepts them. But this two-sidedness does not destroy 
 the reality of Christ’s natural and moral mediation. It 
 simply constitutes its substratum. To postulate a numer¬ 
 ical distinction between the Divine Nature of Christ and 
 the Godhead of the Father and the Holy Ghost, would be 
 to base the possibility of the atonement on Tritheism. 22 
 
 22 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., 3a, qu. 26, art. 2. 
 
SECTION 2 
 
 CONGRUITY AND NECESSITY OF THE REDEMPTION 
 
 I. Congruity of the Redemption. —Inasmuch as an 
 end can be best attained by congruous means, i. e., means 
 specially adapted to that particular end, the “ congruous ” 
 may be said to be “ morally necessary.” But it is never 
 necessary in the strict metaphysical sense of the term. 
 Failure to employ a merely congruous means does not 
 necessarily frustrate the end to be attained; nor does it 
 argue a moral fault. A wise man knows how to attain 
 his ends by various means, none of which may be posi¬ 
 tively “incongruous.” It is in this light that we must 
 regard certain profound arguments by which Fathers and 
 theologians have tried to show the congruity of the In¬ 
 carnation for the purpose of Redemption. Here are 
 the more notable ones. 
 
 a) God in His exterior operation aims solely 
 at the manifestation of His attributes for the pur¬ 
 pose of His own glorification. What more ef¬ 
 fective means could He have chosen for this end 
 than the Incarnation? 
 
 In the Incarnation the seemingly impossible was ef¬ 
 fected. The Creator was inseparably united with the 
 creature, the Infinite with the finite, omnipotence with 
 
 13 
 
14 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 mercy; Heaven and earth were locked together, as it 
 were, by the bond of the Hypostatic Union. Man is 
 a microcosm reflecting the whole created universe. No 
 doubt this is what Tertullian had in mind when he wrote: 
 “ The Son of God was born; I am not ashamed, because 
 men must needs be ashamed [of it]. And the Son of 
 God died; it is by all means to be believed, because it is 
 absurd. And after having been buried, He rose again; 
 the fact is certain, because it is impossible.” 1 
 
 (a) God’s justice and mercy are glorified in the In¬ 
 carnation, because, despite their diametric contrariety, 
 they both meet in it, in such manner that either attri¬ 
 bute works itself out to the full extent of its infinity 
 without disturbing the other. 2 When, moved by infinite 
 mercy, the Son of God satisfied infinite justice by expiat¬ 
 ing the sins of mankind on the Cross, “ justice and peace 
 kissed ” in very truth. 3 
 
 (/ 3 ) God’s love, too, triumphantly manifested itself in 
 the Incarnation of the Logos. “ God so loved the 
 world, as to give his only begotten Son.” 4 The mystery 
 of the Incarnation gives the lie to Aristotle, who held 
 that, owing to the impassable gulf separating man from 
 God, anything like “friendship ” is impossible between 
 them. “ Both he that sanctifieth, and they who are 
 sanctified, are all of one; for which cause he is not 
 ashamed to call them brethren.” 6 
 
 (y) Divine wisdom also reached its climax in this 
 sublime mystery. “ If any one will diligently consider 
 the mystery of the Incarnation,” says St. Thomas, “ he 
 
 1 “ Natus est Dei Filius: non 2 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His 
 pudet, quia pudendum est; est mor- Knowability, Essence, and Attri - 
 tuus Dei Filius: prorsus credibile, butes, pp. 466 sqq., St. Louis 1911. 
 quia ineptum est; et sepultus resur - 3 Ps. LXXXIV, 11. 
 
 rexit; certum est, quia impossibile.” 4 John III, 16. 
 
 De Came Christi, c. 5. 5 Heb. II, 11. 
 
CONGRUITY OF THE REDEMPTION 15 
 
 will find [therein] a profundity of wisdom exceeding 
 all human understanding. . . . Hence it is that he who 
 piously meditates on this mystery, will constantly dis¬ 
 cover [therein] new and more wonderful aspects.” 6 
 
 b) Why did the Second Person of the Most 
 Holy Trinity become incarnate, rather than the 
 First or the Third? There is a profound reason 
 for this. 
 
 We have pointed out in Christology 7 that nothing in 
 the personal traits of the Father or of the Holy Ghost 
 would forbid either of these Divine Persons to assume 
 human flesh. But there is that in the personal character 
 of the Son which makes it more appropriate for Him 
 to become incarnate than either the Father or the Holy 
 Ghost. It was through the Logos that the universe was 
 created; 8 and what is more fitting than that it should 
 also be repaired by His agency? 9 Moreover, as the 
 Logos alone is “ the [perfect] image of God,” 10 it was 
 highly appropriate that He should restore to its pristine 
 purity God’s likeness in men, which had been destroyed 
 by sin. 11 “ The Divine Logos Himself came into this 
 world,” says St. Athanasius, “ in order that, being the 
 image of the Father, He might restore man, who was 
 created to His image and likeness.” 12 It also befit- 
 
 6 “ Si quis autem diligenter incar- 
 
 nationis mysterium consideret, in- 
 veniet tantam sapientiae profundita- 
 tem, quod omneni humanam cogni- 
 tionem excedat. . . . Unde fit, ut 
 pie consideranti semper magis ac 
 magis admirabiles rationes huiusmodi 
 mysterii manif e stent ur.” Contr. 
 
 Gent., IV, 54. 
 
 7 Pohle-Preuss, Christology, pp. 
 
 J 35 sq. 
 
 8 Cfr. John I, 3. 
 
 9 Pope St. Leo the Great says: 
 “. . . ut, quoniam ipse est, per quern 
 omnia facta sunt et sine quo factum 
 est nihil, . . . cuius erat conditor, 
 etiam esset reformator.” ( Serm. t 
 64, Migne, P. L., LIX, 358.) 
 
 ,10 Cfr. 2 Cor. IV, 4. 
 
 11 Cfr. Gen. I, 26. 
 
 12 Or. de Incarn. Verbi, 13. 
 
!l6 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 ted the hypostatic character of the Son of God that, 
 as the true son of the Virgin Mary, He should become the 
 “ Son of man,” in order to reconstitute all men “ sons 
 of God ” as by a new birth. 13 The second of these 
 momenta is well brought out by St. Augustine when he 
 says: “ That men might be born of God, God was first 
 
 born of them. For . . . He through whom we were 
 to be created, was born of God, and He by whom we 
 were to be re-created, was born of a woman.” 14 St. 
 John of Damascus emphasizes the first-mentioned point 
 when he observes: “ The Son of God also became the 
 
 son of man; He took flesh from the Blessed Virgin, but 
 did not cease to be the Son of God.” 15 
 
 c) It strikes us as an admirable manifestation 
 of divine wisdom that the Son of God assumed 
 human nature rather than that of the angels. 
 Heb. II, 16: “Niisqnam enim angelos appre- 
 hendit, sed semen Abrahae apprehendit 16 — For 
 nowhere doth he take hold of the angels: but of 
 the seed of Abraham he taketh hold.” 
 
 By assuming flesh, the Son of God wished to recon¬ 
 struct human nature upon its own foundations and to 
 propose to man for his imitation a pattern exemplar in 
 the “ Following of Christ,”—neither of which objects 
 could have been attained had the Divine Logos assumed 
 the nature of an angel. 
 
 13 Cfr. John I, 12; Gal. IV, 4 sq. 
 
 14 " Ut homines nascerentur ex 
 Deo, primo ex ipsis natus est Deus. 
 Christus enim . . . natus ex Deo, 
 per quem efficeremur, et natus ex 
 femina, per quem reficeremur 
 Tract, in loa., 2, n. 15. 
 
 15 “ Filius Dei etiam filius ho minis 
 fit, qui ex s. virgine incarnatus est, 
 nec tamen a filiali proprietate disces- 
 sit.” De Trinitate, 1.— Cfr. St. 
 Thomas, 5 . Theol., 3a, qu. 3, art. 8, 
 
 16 iTuXafi^aveTai, 
 
CONGRUITY OF THE REDEMPTION 17 
 
 One of the most telling reasons why it was more ap¬ 
 propriate for the Son of God to assume the nature of 
 man than that of the angels 17 is that none but a God- 
 man could endow the created universe with the highest 
 degree of perfection of which it was capable. By the 
 hypostatic incorporation into the Godhead of a nature 
 composed of a material body and a spiritual soul, the 
 physical universe was linked with the realm of pure 
 spirits. “ In no other way,” says Lessius, “ could the 
 whole universe have been so appropriately perfected . . . 
 for by the assumption of man the whole universe was 
 after a fashion assumed into and united with the God¬ 
 head.” 18 Thus Christ is in very deed both the natural 
 and the supernatural keystone of the cosmos, the be¬ 
 ginning and the end of all things, the pivot of the 
 universe. Cfr. 1 Cor. Ill, 22: “ Omnia enim vestra 
 
 sunt . . . vos autem Christi, Christus autem Dei — For 
 all things are yours, . . . and you are Christ’s, and 
 Christ is God’s.” 
 
 d) It is a further proof of divine wisdom that 
 the Son of God chose to come into this world as 
 the child of a virgin rather than as a full-grown 
 man. 
 
 A sweet infant is more apt to win our affection than 
 a mature man. The virgin birth represented the real¬ 
 ization of the last of the four possible modes in which 
 a human being can come into existence. Three of these 
 had already been realized in Adam, Eve, and their de¬ 
 scendants. Adam was created immediately by God ( sine 
 
 17 On the possibility of the 18 De Perfect . Moribusque Divinis, 
 Logos’ assuming the nature of an XII, 4, 
 angel, see Suarez, De Incarn., disp. 
 
 14, sect. 3, 
 
i8 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 mare et femina) ; Eve sprang from the male without fe* 
 male cooperation (ex mare sine femina) ; their descend¬ 
 ants are propagated by sexual generation (ex mare et 
 femina) ; Jesus Christ alone originated from a woman 
 without male co-operation (ex femina sine mare). This 
 fact guarantees the reality and integrity of our Lord’s 
 human nature, as has been shown in Christology. 19 
 
 By His incorporation into the race of the “ first 
 Adam,” our Blessed Redeemer became the “ second 
 Adam ” 20 in a far higher sense than if He had appeared 
 on earth in a celestial body. There is a similar an¬ 
 tithesis between Eve and the Blessed Virgin Mary. In 
 Christ the male was elevated, ennobled, and consecrated; 
 in Mary, the female. “ He did not despise the male,” says 
 St. Augustine, “ for he assumed the nature of a man, 
 nor the female, for he was born of a woman.” 21 
 
 2. Necessity of the Redemption. —Neces¬ 
 sity is twofold: absolute or hypothetical. The 
 latter may be subdivided into a number of special 
 varieties. Hence in treating of the necessity of 
 the Redemption we shall have to distinguish 
 between several hypotheses. 
 
 a) Wyclif asserted that the Redemption was 
 an absolute necessity. This proposition is un¬ 
 tenable. 22 
 
 19 Pohle-Preuss, Christology, pp. 
 41 sqq. 
 
 20 Cfr. Rom. V, 14 sqq.; 1 Cor. 
 XV, 45- 
 
 21 ” Nec mares fastidivit, quia 
 marem suscepit; nec feminam, quia 
 ae femina factus est.” Ep., 3. On 
 the propriety of Christ’s becom¬ 
 ing incarnate at the particular 
 time when He was conceived by the 
 
 Blessed Virgin Mary, cfr. Saint 
 Thomas, 5 . Theol., 3a, qu. 1, art. 5- 
 6.— On the whole subject of this 
 subdivision cfr. De Lugo, De Myst. 
 Incarn., disp. 1, sect. 2; Suarez, De 
 Incarn., disp. 3, sect. 3; Chr. Pesch, 
 Praelect. Dogmat., Vol. IV, 3rd ed., 
 pp. 209 sqq. 
 
 22 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, Eh* 
 chiridion, n, 607. 
 
NECESSITY OF THE REDEMPTION 19 
 
 Whatever is absolutely necessary involves the same 
 kind of certainty as that two and two are four. To as¬ 
 cribe such mathematical necessity to the Incarnation 
 would be to deny the liberty of the Redemption as well 
 as that of the Creation, for the creation of the world was 
 an indispensable condition of the Incarnation. Further¬ 
 more, Revelation clearly teaches that the Redemption of 
 the human race was in the strictest and most perfect sense 
 of the word a work of divine grace, mercy, and love. 
 Wyclif is wrong in holding that the Incarnation satisfies 
 a legitimate demand of human nature, for in that 
 hypothesis reason would be able to demonstrate with 
 mathematical certainty the possibility and existence of 
 the Hypostatic Union, which we know is not the case. 
 So far is the human mind from being able to understand 
 this mystery, th'at it cannot even demonstrate it after it 
 has been revealed. 23 Hence the Incarnation, if it was at 
 all necessary, could be necessary only in an hypothetic 
 sense, that is, on some condition or other. What may 
 this condition be? 
 
 b) Raymond Lull, Malebranche, Leibniz, and 
 other champions of absolute Optimism contend 
 that when God determined to create the universe, 
 He of necessity also decreed the Incarnation, be¬ 
 cause it is inconceivable that He should have 
 wished to deprive His work of its highest per¬ 
 fection. In other words, the concept of “the 
 best possible world” includes the Incarnation. 
 
 This theory, which destroys the liberty of the Creator, 
 is refuted in our dogmatic treatise on God the Author 
 
 23 Cf r f Pohle^Preuss, Christology, pp. 45 sq. 
 
20 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 of Nature, 24 Here we merely wish to point out two 
 facts: that the Creator Himself, without regard to the 
 future Incarnation, described His work as “ very 
 good,” 25 and that the Incarnation would not be pre¬ 
 eminently a free grace if it corresponded to a strict 
 claim of nature. 
 
 The champions of moderate or relative Optimism 26 
 maintain that the present order, capped by the Incarna¬ 
 tion, represents the “ best possible world,” not because 
 the Incarnation was a metaphysical necessity, but because 
 it was morally necessary in view of God’s superabundant 
 goodness. These writers forget that, while the Incarna¬ 
 tion represents the apogee of divine glorification and the 
 highest perfection of the universe, it involves at the same 
 time an equally great humiliation and self-abasement (ex- 
 inanitio, KeWns) of God’s Majesty, which is inconceivable 
 in any other hypothesis except as a free decree of His 
 love. 27 
 
 c) The further question arises: Did God owe 
 it to fallen man to redeem him by means of the 
 Incarnation ? The answer is that the restoration 
 of the state of grace which man had enjoyed in 
 Paradise was just as truly a free gift of God’s 
 mercy and benevolence as that state itself, nay, 
 even more so. 
 
 That God was under no obligation to redeem His 
 creatures is evidenced by the fate of the fallen angels. 
 Cfr. also Wisd. XII, 12: “ Quis tibi imputabit, si peri- 
 
 24 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God the Au • Dei, disp. 9), Sylvester Maurus (De 
 
 thor of Nature and the Supernatural, Deo, disp. 51), and Viva (De In- 
 pp. 45 sq. cam., qu. 2, art. 2). 
 
 25 Gen. I, 31. 27 Cfr. De Lugo, De Myst . Incarn., 
 
 26 E. g., Didacus Kuiz (De Volunt. disp. 2, sect. 1-2. 
 
NECESSITY OF THE REDEMPTION 21 
 
 erint nationes, quas tu fecistif — Who shall accuse thee, 
 if the nations perish, which thou hast made?” St. 
 Augustine may have held harsh and exaggerated views 
 on the subject of predestination, but he was certainly 
 right when he said: “ The entire mass incurred pen¬ 
 
 alty; and if the deserved punishment of condemnation 
 were rendered to all, it would without doubt be right¬ 
 eously rendered.” 28 
 
 To say that the Incarnation, though the result of a free 
 decree, was the only means God had of redeeming the 
 human race, 29 would be unduly to restrict the divine attri¬ 
 butes of mercy, wisdom, and omnipotence in their essence 
 and scope. 30 God might, without injustice, have left the 
 human race to perish in its iniquity, and there is nothing 
 repugnant either to faith or right reason in the assump¬ 
 tion that He might, with or without the intervention of 
 some appointed saint or angel as representative of the 
 
 28 " Universa tnassa poenas dabat, 
 et si omnibus damnationis supplicium 
 redderetur, non iniuste procul dubio 
 redderetur.” (De Nat. et Grat., c. 
 5 .) 
 
 29 This opinion was held by St. 
 Anselm (Cur Deus Homo? I, 4; II, 
 12), Richard of St. Victor (De In- 
 earn. Verbi, c. 8), and Tournely (De 
 Deo, qu. 19, art. 1; De Incarn., qu. 
 4 sqq.). It is absolutely without 
 Scriptural warrant. De Lugo says of 
 it: “ Mihi videtur satis ad errorem 
 accedere, eo quod, licet non omnino 
 clare , fere tamen clare ex Scriptura 
 colligatur oppositum, accedente prae- 
 sertim expositione communi Pa- 
 trum (Op. cit., disp. 2, sect. 1, 
 n. 6). Lately an attempt has been 
 made to interpret St. Anselm’s 
 opinion more mildly (Dorholt, Die 
 Lehre von der Genugtuung Christi, 
 pp. 201 sqq., Paderborn 1891). 
 For a criticism of Dorholt’s po¬ 
 
 sition see Stentrup in the Zeit- 
 schrift fiir katholische Theologie, 
 pp. 653 sqq., Innsbruck 1892. B. 
 Funke, Grundlagen und Voraussete- 
 ungen der Satisfaktionstheorie des 
 hi. Anselm, Munster 1903, furnishes 
 a notable contribution in support of 
 Dorholt’s thesis. Cfr. also L. Hein¬ 
 richs, Genugtuungstheorie des hi. 
 Anselmus, Paderborn 1909; and 
 Pohle-Preuss, God: His Knowability, 
 Essence, and Attributes, pp. 462 
 sqq. 
 
 30 “ Sunt stulti qui dicunt: Non 
 poterat aliter sapientia Dei homines 
 liberare, nisi susciperet hominem et 
 nasceretur de femina. . . . Quibus 
 dicimus: Poterat omnino, sed si 
 aliter faceret, similiter vestrae stulti- 
 tiae displiceret.” (St. Augustine, 
 De Agone Christi, XI, 12). For 
 other Patristic texts consult Peta- 
 ▼ius, De Incarn., II, 13. 
 
i22 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 whole race, have restored penitent sinners to His grace 
 without demanding any equivalent whatever, or on the 
 basis of an inadequate satisfaction. Hence, according to 
 Suarez, 31 the universal teaching of theologians that God 
 in His omnipotence might have repaired human nature 
 in a variety of other ways, 32 is so certain that “ it cannot 
 be denied without temerity and danger to the faith.” 
 
 d) The Incarnation can be conceived as a 
 necessary postulate of the Redemption only on the 
 assumption that God exacted adequate (i. e. y in¬ 
 finite) satisfaction for the sins of men. In that 
 hypothesis manifestly none but a natural media¬ 
 tor, that is to say, a Godman, was able to give the 
 satisfaction demanded. 
 
 Sin involves a sort of infinite guilt and cannot be 
 adequately atoned for except by an infinite satisfac¬ 
 tion. 33 The Fathers held that not even the human 
 nature of Christ, as such, considered apart from the 
 Hypostatic Union, could make adequate satisfaction for 
 our sins; much less, of course, was any other creature, 
 human or angelic, equal to the task. For, in the words 
 of St. Augustine, “ we could not be redeemed, even by 
 the one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ 
 Jesus, if He were not also God.” 34 
 Though this was the most difficult mode of redemption, 
 
 31 De Incarn., disp. 4, sect. 2, n. 3. 
 
 32 Cfr. St. Thomas, 5 1 . Theol., 3a, 
 
 qu. 1, art. 2: “ Dens per suam 
 
 omnipotentem virtutem poterat hu- 
 manam naturam mnltis aliis modis 
 reparare.” 
 
 33 Cfr. St. Thomas, 5 ". Theol., 3a, 
 qu. 2, ad 2, 
 
 34 St. Augustine, Enchir., c. 108: 
 “ Neque per ipsum liberaremur unum 
 mediatorem Dei et hominum, homi- 
 neni Iesum Christum, nisi esset et 
 Deus .”— For additional texts from 
 the writings of the Fathers consult 
 Vasquez, disp. 4, c. 3; Thomassin, 
 De Incarn., I, 4, 
 
NECESSITY OF THE REDEMPTION 23 
 
 it was the one actually chosen by God. The Incarnation 
 of the Logos satisfied the full rigor of His justice, but it 
 also gave free play to His boundless love. The fact that 
 the atonement was decreed from eternity explains such 
 Scriptural phrases as John III, 14: “ Exaltari oportet 35 
 
 Filium hominis — The Son of man must be lifted up ” 
 (as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert), and Luke 
 XXIV, 26: “ Nonne haec oportuit pati ZQ Christum — 
 Was it not necessary for Christ to have suffered these 
 things ? ” 37 
 
 35 v\f/o$rjvcu del . 
 
 36 %dei iraQelv . 
 
 37 Cfr. Heb. IX, 22.— On the sub¬ 
 ject of the foregoing paragraphs con¬ 
 sult J. Kleutgen, Theologie der V or- 
 zeit, Vol. Ill, pp. 336 sqq., 381 sqq., 
 430 sqq., Munster 1870; Chr. Pesch, 
 
 Praelectiones Dogmaticae, Vol. IV, 
 3rd ed., pp. 201 sqq., Friburgi 1909; 
 De Lugo, De Myst. Incarn., disp. 2, 
 3, 5; Billuart, De Incarn., diss. 3, 
 art. 2; B. Dorholt, Die Lehre von 
 der Genugtuung Christi, pp. 171 sqq., 
 Paderborn 1891. 
 
SECTION 3 
 
 PREDESTINATION OF THE REDEEMER 
 
 i. State of the Question. —Would the Son 
 of God have appeared in the flesh if Adam had not 
 sinned? In other words, was the Incarnation 
 absolutely predetermined? This is a most inter¬ 
 esting question, and the famous theological con¬ 
 troversy to which it gave rise, throws so clear a 
 light on the dogma of the Redemption and the 
 sublime dignity of the Redeemer, that we must 
 give an account of it here. 
 
 The underlying problem may be briefly stated 
 as follows: The Incarnation was dictated by 
 two principal motives, namely, (i) compassion 
 for the misery of mankind, and (2) the glorifi¬ 
 cation of God and His Christ. 1 Which of these 
 motives outweighed the other? This question 
 must receive an answer before we can determine 
 whether the fall of Adam was an indispensable 
 condition of the Incarnation, or whether the Di¬ 
 vine Logos assumed human flesh irrespective of 
 the existence or non-existence of a sinful race of 
 
 1 Cfr. John XVII, 4 sqq.; 2 Thess. I, 12. 
 
 24 
 
PREDESTINATION OF THE REDEEMER 25 
 
 men. The former view is held by the Thomists, 
 the latter by the Scotists. 
 
 The Scotists conceive the divine decrees appertaining 
 to the Redemption in the following order. First of all 
 comes the absolute predistination of Christ and His 
 divine kingdom, consisting of angels and men. In the 
 second place, the permission of the sin of Adam; and in 
 the third place, the mission of Christ in His capacity of 
 passible Redeemer. 
 
 The Thomists, on the other hand, hold that God created 
 the universe without regard to Christ; that He subse¬ 
 quently decreed to permit sin, and lastly determined on 
 the Incarnation of the Logos for the purpose of redeem¬ 
 ing the human race. 
 
 As may be seen from this enumeration, the Scotists 
 put the Incarnation first, while the Thomists put it last. 
 From the Scotist point of view God’s predominant mo¬ 
 tive in decreeing the Incarnation was the dignity and 
 glorification of Christ. The universe was created for 
 Christ’s sake. The Thomists, on the other hand, ascribe 
 the Incarnation of the Logos primarily to God’s mercy. 
 In the Scotist hypothesis the Incarnation is altogether 
 independent of the Fall; the Thomists regard the latter 
 as an indispensable condition of the former. 
 
 Against the Scotist view there lies this objection: If 
 Christ was not predestined to atone for the sins of men, 
 why did He appear on earth as a passible Redeemer rather 
 than, as we should have every reason to expect, in the 
 capacity of an impassible, glorified Godman ? The 
 Scotists meet this difficulty by saying that the first and 
 absolute decree touching the Incarnation was modified in 
 view of the Fall; that after the Fall, Christ, who originally 
 
26 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 was to have appeared among men as homo gloriosus, de¬ 
 cided to assume human flesh and become homo passibilis. 
 
 In general terms the two theories may be characterized 
 as follows: The Scotistic theory is inspired by a tran¬ 
 scendent idealism, whereas the Thomist view conforms 
 to the facts as we know them. To enable the reader to 
 form his own estimate we will briefly state the leading 
 arguments adduced by both schools. 
 
 2. The Thomistic Theory. —That the Fall 
 of Adam was the chief motive which prompted 
 God to decree the Incarnation, is held by all 
 Thomists, 2 3 and also by a large number of theo¬ 
 logians belonging to other schools, e. g., Gregory 
 of Valentia, Vasquez, Petavius, Cardinals To- 
 letus and De Lugo, and even by the “ideal” 
 Lessius. 8 Among modern theologians this the¬ 
 ory has been espoused by Kleutgen, 4 Stentrup, 5 
 Tepe, 6 and many others. 
 
 Toletus and Petavius absolutely reject the Scotist 
 hypothesis. Chr. Pesch 7 and L. Janssens 8 prefer the 
 Thomist view, but admit the other as probable. In this 
 they follow St. Thomas himself 9 and St. Bonaventure. 10 
 The Angelic Doctor both in his Commentary on the Liber 
 Sententiarum and in the Summa Theologica expresses 
 
 2 Cfr. Billuart, De Incarn., diss. 
 3, art. 3. 
 
 3 De Praedest. Christi (Opusc., t. 
 II, pp. 483 sqq., Paris 1878). 
 
 4 Theologie der Vorzeit, Vol. Ill, 
 
 PP- 393 sqq. 
 
 5 Soteriologia, thes. 2. 
 
 6 Instit. Theol., Vol. Ill, pp. 663 
 
 sqq., Paris 1896. 
 
 7 Praelect. Dogm., Vol. IV, 3d ed., 
 pp. 216 sqq. 
 
 8 De Deo-Homine, II: Soteriologia, 
 pp. 44 sqq. 
 
 9 Comment, in Quatuor Libros 
 Sent., Ill, dist. 1, qu. 1, art. 3. 
 
 10 Comment, in Quatuor Libros 
 Sent., Ill, dist. 1, art. 2, qu. 2. 
 
THE THOMISTIC THEORY 
 
 27 
 
 himself with cautious reserve. St. Bonaventure says: 
 “ He who was made flesh for us alone knows which of 
 the two theories is the better. Which is to be preferred 
 it is difficult to say, because both are Catholic and 
 sustained by Catholic authors.” 11 
 
 The Thomistic conception is based upon arguments 
 which, though not cogent, are perfectly sound. 
 
 a) St. Thomas himself argues as follows: 
 “Some claim that the Son of God would have 
 assumed human flesh even if man had not sinned. 
 Others assert the contrary, and their teaching 
 seems to have a greater claim to our assent. 
 The reason is this. Whatever proceeds solely 
 from the Divine Will, transcending every exi¬ 
 gency of nature, must remain unknown to us, 
 except it be revealed by Sacred Scripture. . . . 
 Now, Sacred Scripture invariably assigns the sin 
 of Adam as the motive of the Incarnation. It is 
 more befitting, therefore, to regard the Incarna¬ 
 tion as ordained by God for the cure of sin, so 
 that if there had been no sin there would have 
 been no Incarnation/' 12 
 
 As a matter of fact, whenever Sacred Scripture speaks 
 of the motive of the Incarnation, it invariably points to 
 
 11 1. c. 
 
 12 5 '. Theol., 3a, qu. i, art. 3: 
 " Quidam dicunt, quod etiamsi homo 
 non peccasset, Dei Filius incarnatus 
 fuisset . Alii vero contrarium as - 
 serunt, quorum assertioni magis as- 
 sentiendum videtur. Ea enim quae 
 a sola Dei voluntate proveniunt 
 supra omne debitum naturae, nobis 
 
 innotescere non possunt, nisi qua- 
 tenus in S. Scriptura traduntur. . . . 
 Unde quum in S. Scriptura ubique 
 incarnationis ratio ex peccato primi 
 hominis assignetur, convenientius 
 dicitur, incarnationem opus ordina- 
 turn esse a Deo in remedium contra 
 peccatum, ita quod peccato non exi¬ 
 st ente incarnatio non fuisset 
 
28 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 the sin of Adam. It is because He was sent to redeem 
 the fallen race of men that Christ received the name of 
 “Jesus,” i. e., Saviour or Redeemer ( salvator, o-wrr/p). 
 Cfr. Matth. I, 21: “ Et vocabis nomen eius Iesum; ipse 
 enim 13 salvum faciet populum suum a peccatis eorum 
 — And thou shalt call his name Jesus; for he shall save 
 his people from their sins.” 14 Jesus Himself never even 
 hints at any other motive. Cfr. Luke XIX, 10: 
 (t Venit enim Filins hominis quaerere et salvum facere, 
 quod perierat — For the Son of man is come to seek 
 and to save that which was lost.” It seems perfectly 
 legitimate to conclude, therefore, that the redemption of 
 man was the main motive which prompted God to send 
 His Son. Had there been a higher and more com¬ 
 prehensive motive, it would be strange to find no hint 
 of it in the Scriptures. 
 
 The weight of this argument must not, however, be 
 overrated. For, in the first place, the texts upon which 
 it is based are purely affirmative, but not exclusive, so 
 that the argument based upon them is at bottom merely 
 one ex silentio. And, secondly, the Scriptural passages 
 in question all refer to the actual order of salvation, 
 not to its hidden background. Although the Incarna¬ 
 tion and the Redemption are causally correlated, Sacred 
 Scripture does not define the nature of their mutual 
 relationship, and tells us nothing at all concerning the 
 question whether the Incarnation is subordinate to the 
 Redemption, or vice versa. 
 
 b) Owing to their larger knowledge of the 
 writings of the Fathers, modern theologians are 
 
 13 ydp, Rom. Ill, 25; Gal. IV, 4; 1 Tim. 
 
 14 Similarly Matth. IX, 13; Mark I, 15; 1 John III, 5. 
 
 II, 17; Luke I, 31; John III, 17; 
 
THE THOMISTIC THEORY 
 
 29 
 
 able to construct a far more convincing Patristic 
 argument than was possible in the time of St. 
 Thomas. Holy Scripture merely intimates by its 
 silence that there would have been no Incarnation 
 if Adam had not sinned. The Fathers enunciate 
 this proposition in explicit terms. 
 
 “ I am persuaded,” writes Cardinal Toletus, “ that, had 
 the old Scholastic doctors been acquainted with the many 
 Patristic testimonials which I now adduce, they would 
 have admitted that the contrary view is absolutely de¬ 
 void of probability.” 15 We will cite a few of these tes¬ 
 timonials. St. Athanasius says: “ The assumption of 
 
 human nature [on the part of the Logos] presupposes a 
 necessity, apart from which He would not have put on 
 flesh.” 16 St. Ambrose asks: “ What was the cause of 
 the Incarnation if not this, that the flesh which had sinned 
 by itself, should by itself be redeemed?” 17 And St. 
 Augustine declares that “ the Lord Jesus Christ came in 
 the flesh . . . for no other reason than ... to save, 
 liberate, redeem, and enlighten [those who are engrafted 
 members of His body].” 18 We may also refer to the 
 Creed: “ Who for us men and for our salvation de¬ 
 scended from Heaven,” and to the Easter hymn: “ O 
 
 happy fault, which deserved to have so great and glorious 
 a Redeemer! ” 
 
 To sum up the argument: Tradition, so far as we 
 
 15 In S. Theol., h. 1 . per se redimeretur? ” De Incarn., 
 
 16 Or. contr. Arian., 2, 54. Sim- c. 6, n. 56. 
 
 ilarly Gregory of Naziauzus (Or., 18 De Pecc. Mer. et Rem., I, 26, 
 
 30, n. 3) and Cyril of Alexandria 39.— Additional Patristic texts in 
 ( Thesaur ., V, 8). Lessius, De Praedest. Christi, sect. 
 
 17 ” Quae erat causa incarnationis, 1, n. 5; Stentrup, Soteriologia, thes. 
 nisi ut caro, quae per se peccaverat, 1 sq. Cfr. Petavius, De Incarn 
 
 II. 17. 
 
30 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 are able to ascertain it, is against the absolute predesti¬ 
 nation of Christ, but holds that, if man had not sinned, 
 
 the Son of God would never have become incarnate. 
 
 $ 
 
 To escape this argument, the Scotists urge their above- 
 mentioned distinction between " Christus gloriosus ” and 
 “ Christus passibilis.” God’s original decree concerning 
 the Incarnation, they say, was from all eternity mod¬ 
 ified by the Fall of man, which necessitated a pas¬ 
 sible redeemer; and it is to this particular aspect of 
 the Incarnation alone that the Patristic texts apply; at 
 least it is possible so to interpret them. But even if 
 they could be interpreted in the wider sense in which they 
 are understood by the Thomists, we should still be dealing 
 with a mere theory, which no rule of faith constrains us 
 to adopt. In support of this view the Scotist theologians 
 point to the modification which the Patristic theory of 
 “ satisfaction ” has experienced in course of time with¬ 
 out detriment to its substance. 
 
 3. The Scotistic Theory. —If the question 
 at issue had to be decided purely on the author¬ 
 ity of theologians, we should be unable to arrive 
 at a unanimous decision, so evenly is authority 
 balanced against authority. The Scotistic theory 
 originated with Abbot Rupert of Deutz. 19 It 
 was adopted by Albert the Great 20 and developed 
 by Duns Scotus, 21 in whose school it eventually 
 obtained the upper hand. 22 It has also found 
 many ardent defenders outside the Scotistic 
 
 19 De Gloria et Hon. Filii Hominis 21 Comment, in Quatuor Libros 
 
 Libri XIII; De Trinit., Ill, 20. Sent., Ill, dist. 7, qu. 3. 
 
 20 Comment, in Quatuor Libros 22 Cfr. Mastrius, Disp. Theol., 
 
 Sent., Ill, dist. 20, art. 4. disp. 4, qu. 1. 
 
THE SCOTISTIC THEORY 
 
 3i 
 
 camp, among them Ambrose Catharinus, 23 Ysam- 
 bert, St. Bernard of Siena, St. Francis de Sales, 24 
 and especially Suarez. 25 For a while its defend¬ 
 ers were few, but of late the theory is again com¬ 
 ing into favor. Among its modern champions we 
 may mention: Faber, Gay, Bougaud, Schell, 
 Fr. Risi, and Du Cappucce. 26 
 
 The arguments for the Scotist position are un¬ 
 deniably strong. 
 
 a) Their Scriptural basis is the oft-repeated 
 statement of St. Paul that the Incarnation of 
 Christ was pre-ordained by an eternal and abso¬ 
 lute divine decree without regard to the Fall. 
 
 The Apostle declares that all things are by Christ and 
 for Christ, i. e., tend towards Him as their final end and 
 object. Cfr. Heb. II, 10: “Propter qnem omnia et 
 per quern omnia — For whom are all things and by 
 whom are all things.” 27 Col. I, 16 sqq.: “ Omnia per 
 
 ipsum et in ipso 28 creata sunt . . . et ipse est ante 
 omnes 29 et omnia in ipso constant; et ipse est caput 
 corporis Ecclesiae, qui est principium, 30 primogenitus ex 
 mortuis, ut sit in omnibus ipse primatum tenens 31 — In 
 him were all things created . . . and he is before all, 
 and by him all things consist. And he is the head of 
 the body, the church, who is the beginning, the first¬ 
 born from the dead; that in all things he may hold the 
 
 23 De Praedestin . Eximia Christi, 27 fid fiy -j-a ttclutcL kclI $t ’ oi T& 
 
 Lugduni 1542. iravra. 
 
 24 De VAmour de Dieu, II, 4. 28 e / s a vtov. 
 
 25 De Incarn., disp. 5. 29 7^ -jrdvrtav, 
 
 26 Etudes Frartciscaines, 1890, 30 dpxv. 
 
 1900; cfr. Chr. Pesch, S. J., Das 31 irpojTeiuv, 
 
 Suhneleiden unseres gottl. Erldsers, 
 
 pp. 113 sqq. 
 
32 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 primacy.” If Christ holds first place in the divine 
 economy of the universe, and the world of angels and men 
 was reserved to the last, so runs the Scotist argument, the 
 Incarnation cannot have been subordinate to the Creation 
 and Redemption, but, on the contrary, must rank far 
 above it. Without Christ there could have been no cre¬ 
 ation. Hence Christ is “ before all,” “ the first-born of 
 every creature.” 32 He is the centre and pivot of the uni¬ 
 verse, not in consequence of the Fall, but absolutely and 
 from all eternity. He has not been added to the created 
 universe by accident, but rules it as TrpwretW, and is the 
 Alpha and Omega of all things from the beginning. 33 
 
 b) Though this theory cannot be strictly dem¬ 
 onstrated from the writings of the Fathers, yet 
 the Patristic interpretation of several passages in 
 the Sapiential Books of the Old Testament seems 
 to lend it weight. The fact that the Fathers 
 were unable to gauge the full bearing of their 
 interpretation does not forbid us to push to their 
 legitimate conclusions the principles which they 
 asserted. 
 
 We have pointed out in our treatise on the Trinity 34 
 that certain of the Fathers applied Proverbs VIII, 22: 
 “ The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, 
 before he made anything from the beginning,” 35 to the 
 temporal birth of the Logos, that is, the Incarnation. 
 This can only mean that Christ was predestined to be 
 
 32 Col. I, 15; cfr. Rom. VIII, 29. 34 Pohle-Preuss, The Divine Trin- 
 
 33 The objections urged against ity, p. 157. 
 
 this interpretation may be read in 35 “ Dominus possedit CcKruxe) me 
 De Lugo, De Myst. Incarn., disp. in initio viarum suarum, antequam 
 7, sect. 2. quidquam faceret a principio,” 
 
THE SCOTISTIC THEORY 
 
 33 
 
 the First and that all things were created for His sake. 36 
 
 On the strength of Gen. II, 24 and Eph. V, 31 sqq. 
 several Fathers held that the nature of matrimony, as an 
 image of “ Christ’s union with His Church,” was re¬ 
 vealed to Adam in Paradise. If this be true, our Lord’s 
 appearance on earth cannot be conceived as conditioned 
 by the Fall. “ Even if man had not sinned, but 
 had remained in the state of innocence,” says St. Augus¬ 
 tine, 37 “ matrimony would still be the symbol of Christ’s 
 union with His Church.” 38 
 
 When it comes to theological arguments, the 
 Scotists can allege in their favor all the reasons 
 which we have given above for the congruity of 
 the Incarnation as such, especially the fact that, 
 in the words of Lessius, 39 “by the assumption of 
 man the whole universe was, after a fashion, 
 assumed into and united with the Godhead.” 
 Strangely enough, Lessius subsequently under¬ 
 mined his own position by saying: “If any 
 created nature was to be assumed primarily for 
 the sake of perfecting the universe, it would 
 have been the most perfect, i. e., that of the 
 highest angel.” 40 This conclusion does not fol¬ 
 low. Unlike man, an angel is not a “microcosm.” 
 Besides, there is something sublime and over- 
 
 36 Cfr. Suarez, De Incarn., disp. 38 For the Thomist reply to this 
 
 5, sect. 2. argument see Lessius, De Praedest. 
 
 37 " Coniugium etiatn in statu in- Christi, n. 23 sqq. 
 
 nocentiae, si homo non peccasset, 39 De Perfect. Mor. Div., XII, 4. 
 futurum sacramentum coniunctionis 40 De Praedest. Christi, n. 9. 
 
 Christi cum Ecclesia.” (De Nupt. 
 et Concup., I, 21.) 
 
34 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 whelming in the thought that, as Scotism con¬ 
 sistently teaches, not only all men but all angels, 
 not only fallen and sinful man, but likewise man 
 as constituted in Paradise, owe their original 
 sanctity entirely to the merits of an absolutely 
 predestined Redeemer; that all grace radiates 
 from Christ, the “sun of justice,” who sanctifies 
 angels and men and disperses the shadows of 
 death. 
 
 Perhaps the weightiest argument adduced for 
 the Scotist position is the one developed by Su¬ 
 arez: The end cannot be inferior to the means 
 devised for its attainment. This would be the 
 case if the Incarnation merely served the pur¬ 
 pose of the Redemption. Christ is not only the 
 crown of the created universe, He is also the cli¬ 
 max of divine glorification. Without Him the 
 universe would be meaningless. He who is high¬ 
 est and most perfect in the order of being, must 
 also be first in the plan of creation, and the ful¬ 
 ness of divine glory cannot have been dependent 
 on the accident of the Fall. 
 
 The Scotistic theory recommends itself by its 
 sublimity. It groups angels and men around the 
 Godman as the center of the universe, the high¬ 
 est and final revelation, the beginning and end of 
 all things. 41 
 
 41 Hugon, Revue Thomiste, May- 1921 (an able statement of the 
 June, 1913; P- Chrysostom, O. F. Scotist position).—L. J. Walker, 
 M., Le Motif de I’lncarnation et S. J., Why God Became Man, New 
 les Principaux Thomistes Confetti- York 1921. 
 porains, Tours (Marcel Cattier), 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 THE REDEMPTION OF THE HUMAN RACE THROUGH 
 
 Christ’s vicarious atonement 
 SECTION i 
 
 the reality of Christ’s vicarious atonement 
 
 ARTICLE i 
 
 VICARIOUS ATONEMENT DEFINED 
 
 This Chapter deals with the concrete fact of Christ’s 
 vicarious atonement (satisf actio vie aria) 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 “Atone¬ 
 ment.” —a) By atonement we understand the 
 reparation of any wrong or injury, either ma¬ 
 terial ( damnum ) or moral ( offensa , iniuria). 
 Material injury demands restitution; moral in¬ 
 jury can be repaired only by satisfaction or atone¬ 
 ment in the strict sense of the term. The Roman 
 Catechism defines “satisfaction” as “nothing else 
 than compensation for an injury ofifered to an¬ 
 other.” Satisfaction in the sense of discharging 
 
 35 
 
36 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 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 an¬ 
 titheses clamoring for reconciliation. 
 
 The concept of sin contains a twofold element: 
 guilt ( reatus culpae ) and punishability ( reatus 
 poenae). Guilt and punishability are insepara¬ 
 ble. 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 dig¬ 
 nity 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 re¬ 
 lation to the infinite majesty of God; for an of¬ 
 fence 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 iniuri- 
 atoA This applies, of course, only to mortal sin, 
 which seriously disturbs the sinner’s relation to 
 
 1 S. Theol., 3a, qu. i, art. 2, ad 2. 
 
VICARIOUS ATONEMENT 
 
 37 
 
 God. This relation, if justice be given free 
 scope, cannot be restored except by means of ade¬ 
 quate 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 satis¬ 
 faction. 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 hu¬ 
 man race. Hence also the necessity of a vica¬ 
 rious atonement. 
 
 2. Definition of “Vicarious Atonement.” 
 —The notion of vicariatio does not imply that he 
 who acts as substitute or representative for an¬ 
 other 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 vicar¬ 
 ious atonement involves a contradiction, because 
 no mediator can give satisfaction for another’s 
 sins unless he is himself sinless. Vicarious atone¬ 
 ment, therefore, can only mean the voluntary as¬ 
 sumption of a punishment due to sin,— not in¬ 
 deed the reatus poence, 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 ac- 
 
38 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 cepted by God as though it were given by our¬ 
 selves. 
 
 To illustrate the case by an analogy. The 
 human race is like an insolvent merchant. Christ 
 voluntarily assumes our obligations and is com¬ 
 pelled 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 Cath¬ 
 olic 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 forgive¬ 
 ness 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 contradic¬ 
 tion, 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 redemp¬ 
 tion 3 that is in Christ Jesus.” 4 In exacting satisfaction 
 for our sins from His own Son instead of us poor sin¬ 
 ners, God exercised in an eminent manner both His 
 mercy and His justice. There is no contradiction in¬ 
 volved in this proposition. This would be the case only 
 if the sinner were held to give adequate satisfaction in 
 
 2 8 o>peav rjj avrov X®P lTt . 3 5 ta rijs airoXvTpuaeuS' 4 Rom. Ill, 24. 
 
VICARIOUS ATONEMENT 
 
 39 
 
 person and his performance subsequently stamped as a 
 grace. Holy Scripture is perfectly consistent in teach¬ 
 ing, on the one hand, that “ God so loved the world as 
 to give his only-begotten Son,” 5 and, on the other, that- 
 “ 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 of 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 per¬ 
 sonally sinned, Christ could not be punished as a sin¬ 
 ner. 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 fit 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 ad¬ 
 vantage 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. — 7 d7r’ ifia vtov- 
 
 Another objection, based on the 8 John X, 15, 18. 
 
40 
 
 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 adver¬ 
 saries 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 vicari¬ 
 ously 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 spir¬ 
 itual 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 ren¬ 
 dered 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 
 
 41 
 
 any avail except it is based on the merits of our Lord 
 and Saviour Jesus Christ . 9 
 
 ARTICLE 2 
 
 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 in¬ 
 spiration 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 con¬ 
 temporaneous, agreed in denying original sin and 
 the atonement. Pantheism, which merges all 
 individuals into one Absolute Being and regards 
 sin as a function of the Godhead, gave birth to 
 Gnosticism and modern Theosophy. 
 
 a) All these heresies are based on a radically wrong 
 conception of the nature of sin. 
 a) Pelagianism rests on the fundamental fallacy 
 
 8 Cfr. Cone . Trident., Sess. XIV, 
 cap. 8 (Denzinger-Bannwart, En¬ 
 chiridion, n. 904). An excellent 
 treatise on the philosophical aspects 
 of the atonement is G. A. Pell’s 
 Das Dogma von der Siinde und Er- 
 losung im Lichte der Vernunft, Rat- 
 isbon 1886. Edw. von Hartmann’s 
 
 specious objections (see that writer’s 
 book, Die Krisis des Christentums 
 in der modernen Theologie, pp. 10 
 sqq., Berlin 1882) are effectively 
 refuted by B. Dorholt, Die Lehre 
 von der Genugtuung Christi, pp. 
 160 sqq.. Paderborn 1891. 
 
42 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 that sin is essentially the free act of an individual and 
 cannot be conceived as moral guilt incurred by propa¬ 
 gation (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 per¬ 
 sonal conduct. Christ gave us “ a good example ” to 
 counteract the “ bad example ” set by Adam. Pelagian- 
 ism credited the sinner with sufficient strength to arise 
 after falling, nay to attain to a state of perfect sinless¬ 
 ness 1 without supernatural aid, and hence denied the ne¬ 
 cessity of grace and unduly exaggerated the moral ca¬ 
 pacity of human nature. 2 
 
 The soteriological consequences implied in Pelagius’ 
 system were expressly drawn by Socinianism. This her¬ 
 esy 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 
 ( r 539-1604) 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, dpa/iapTTjaia. 
 
 2 Cfr. Blunt’s Dictionary of Sects, 
 Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties, and 
 Schools of Religious Thought, pp. 
 415 sqq., New Impression, London 
 1903; also the Preface to P. 
 Holmes’ translation of The Anti- 
 Pelagian Works of Saint Augustine, 
 Vol. I, pp. i sqq., Edinburgh 1872. 
 St. Augustine treats at length of 
 Pelagianism in the following books: 
 De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia, Contra 
 Duas Epistolas Pelagianorum, En¬ 
 chiridion, De Gratia et Libero Ar- 
 
 bitrio, De Correptione et Gratia, De 
 Praedestinatione Sanctorum, De 
 Dono Perseverantiae, Contra Iulia- 
 num Pelagianum, De Gestis Pelagii, 
 De Octo Dulcitii Quaestionibus, Com¬ 
 ment. in Psalmos, Serm., x and xiv, 
 and in his Epistles to Paulinus, Op- 
 tatus, Sextus, Celestine, Vitalis, and 
 Valentine. Cfr. also the Varia 
 Scripta et Monument a ad Pelagia¬ 
 norum 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 3 Socinianism 
 denied the Trinity, the Divinity of Jesus Christ, the 
 necessity of supernatural grace, and the dogma of the 
 vicarious atonement. Its champions alleged that Christ is 
 properly speaking neither our Saviour nor a true high 
 priest, but merely a teacher pointing the way to salva¬ 
 tion. 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 mi¬ 
 raculous conception of our Lord and the repudiation of 
 His worship. The Socinian theology also had consid¬ 
 erable influence in forming the modern Rationalist 
 school. 4 
 
 Hermes and Gunther 5 held an intermediate position 
 between the Catholic dogma and these heretical vagaries. 
 
 / 3 ) Diametrically opposed to the soteriological teach¬ 
 ing of the Pelagians and Socinians is that of the Gnostics 
 and Theosophists. 
 
 Gnosticism was at bottom a Manichsean 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 pos¬ 
 sibly unite Himself with matter, which is essentially evil. 
 
 3 These writings are collected in 
 the Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum, 
 Vols. i and 2, Irenopoli 1656. 
 
 4 Blunt, Dictionary of Sects, etc., 
 
 p. 568. For a detailed analysis of 
 the Socinian teaching see A. Har- 
 nack, Dogmengeschichte, Vol. Ill, 
 
 4th ed., pp. 784 sqq., Freiburg 1910. 
 
 5 On the teaching of Hermes 
 (-{- 1831) and Gunther (-f- 1863), 
 cfr. J. Kleutgen, S. J., Theologie 
 der Vorzeit, Vol. Ill, pp. 457 sqq., 
 Munster 1870. 
 
 4 
 
44 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 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 incar¬ 
 nate 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 tem¬ 
 porarily 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- 
 
 6 On modern Theosophy cfr. 
 Madame Blavatky’s Isis Unveiled, 
 The Secret Doctrine, and Key to 
 Theosophy; also the numerous writ¬ 
 ings of Annie Besant, especially her 
 Esoteric Christianity; A. P. War¬ 
 rington, art. “ Theosophy ” in the 
 Encyclopedia Americana, Vol. XV; 
 
 E. R. Hull, S. J., Studies in The - 
 osophy, 2nd ed., Bombay 1905; J 
 T. Driscoll in the Catholic Encyclo¬ 
 pedia, Vol. XIV, pp. 628 sqq. 
 
 7 Cfr. K. Martin, Cone. Vatican. 
 Document. Collectio, p. 37, Pader* 
 born 1873. 
 
THE DOGMA 
 
 45 
 
 self up as a sacrifice for Himself, and not solely 
 for us, 8 let him be anathema.” 9 Still more 
 clearly the Council of Trent: “If any one as¬ 
 serts that this sin of Adam ... is taken away 
 . . . by any other remedy than the merit of the 
 one Mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath 
 reconciled us to God in His own blood, made unto 
 us justice, sanctification and redemption, ... let 
 him be anathema.” 10 In another place the same 
 Council says: “[Christ] by His most holy pas¬ 
 sion on the wood of the Cross merited justifica¬ 
 tion 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 vi¬ 
 carious 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 
 
 8 Kal ovxl virep fiovcev ijp-uy. 
 Here is the whole passage in Latin: 
 “ Si quis ergo dicit, quod pro se 
 obtulisset [ Christus ] semetipsum 
 oblationem et non potius pro nobis 
 solis, anathema sit.” 
 
 9 Cone. Ephes., can. io (Denzin- 
 ger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 122). 
 — Cfr. the Decretum pro Iacobitis 
 (ibid., n. 711). 
 
 10 “ Si quis hoc Adae peccatum 
 
 . . . per aliud remedium asserit tolli 
 quam per meritum unius mediatoris 
 
 D. N. lesu Christi, qui nos Deo 
 reconciliavit in sanguine suo, factus 
 nobis iustitia, sanctificatio et redempt 
 tio, . . . anathema sit.” Cone. Tri¬ 
 dent., Sess. V, can. 3 (Denzinger- 
 Bannwart, n. 790). 
 
 11 " Qui . . . sua sanctissima pas- 
 sione in ligno crucis nobis iustifi- 
 cationem meruit et pro nobis Deo 
 Patri satisfecit.” Cone. Trident., 
 Sess. VI, cap. 7 (Denzinger-Bann- 
 wart, n. 799). We use Water- 
 worth’s translation. 
 
4 6 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 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 ini¬ 
 quities, 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 be¬ 
 cause 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. . . . Be¬ 
 cause 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 trans¬ 
 gressors.” 15 The vicarious character of the “ Ser¬ 
 vant’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 14 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., 1 . c., p. 241, 
 231 sqq., New York 1895. note. 
 
 13 The Masoretic text has, he was 15 Is. LIII, 4-12. 
 called upon. (Cfr. Maas, l. 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 es¬ 
 sential 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 in¬ 
 directly. 
 
 «) The texts which teach it directly nearly all 
 employ the phraseology of, and are dependent 
 upon, Isaias. Take, e. g., the exclamation of John 
 the Baptist recorded in John I, 29: “Behold the 
 Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the 
 sin of the world.” The passage reads as fol¬ 
 lows in the original Greek: “ s TSc 6 dp,v 6 s rov ®eov 
 
 6 aipcov rrjv afiapriav tov Kocrpov The dptapTia rov Koapcov 
 
 is original sin. The verb atpeiv, like the Hebrew 
 words and 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 suf- 
 was to procure our peace with God fering. Cfr. Maas, Christ in Type 
 and with men, was inflicted on him. and Prophecy, Vpl. II, p. 240, note. 
 
 17 In this clause the prophet rather IS Cfr. F. Feldmann, Der Knecht 
 describes the detail of the Servant’s Gottes in Isaias, Ch. 40-55, Frei- 
 sufferings than insists on its vicari- burg, 1907. 
 
 ous character; but this, too, may be 19 Is, LIII, 4 and 11, 
 
48 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 in mind when he wrote: “Who his own self bore 
 our sins 20 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 wep ^v apapriav 
 iTroLrjaev ovtov either means: He hath made him 
 who was sinless a sinner, or, more probably, He 
 hath made him who was sinless a sacrifice for 
 sin. 22 In either case St. Paul asserts the dogma 
 of Christ’s vicarious atonement. 
 
 Special importance attaches to the many New 
 Testament texts which speak of man as being 
 “bought” or “purchased” by the Precious Blood 
 of Christ. Cfr. i Cor. VI, 20: “For you are 
 bought with a great price.” 23 1 Pet. I, 18 sq.: 
 
 “. . . you were not redeemed 24 with corruptible 
 things as gold and silver, . . . but with the pre¬ 
 cious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted 
 and undefiled.” These terms are borrowed from 
 
 20 dvriveynev. 23 riyopaaOiiTe. 
 
 21 i Pet. II, 24 sq. 24 Redempti estis, iXvTpudTjre. __ 
 
 22 afiapria = sacrificium pro pec- Cfr. also Rom. Ill, 24, Eph. I, 7, 
 
 cato. Cfr. Gal. Ill, 13. 1 Tim. II, 6, 
 
SCRIPTURAL PROOF 
 
 49 
 
 legal and mercantile usage; they mean that men 
 who groaned in the bondage of sin were re¬ 
 garded 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 atone¬ 
 ment and (2) its vicarious character. 
 
 /?) 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 abun¬ 
 dance 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 representa- 
 
50 
 
 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 Scrip¬ 
 tural sense of these terms only by complementing His 
 teaching and example by an act of true and adequate 
 satisfaction for our sins. It is only in this sense that 
 St. Peter, “ filled with the Holy Ghost,” was able to 
 exclaim: “ Neither is there salvation in any other 
 name,” 25 and St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “ Is 
 Christ divided? Was Paul then [who was also a 
 teacher of nations and a martyr] crucified for you? or 
 were you baptized in the name of Paul ? ” 26 It is only 
 in this way that the name “ Jesus ” receives its full 
 significance as “ Redeemer ” or “ Saviour ” of the human 
 race. 
 
 In view of the texts quoted it is incomprehensible how 
 the Modernists can allege that “ the doctrine of the sacri¬ 
 ficial 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 
 
 25 Acts IV, 12 . 
 
 26 1 Cor. I, 13. 
 
PROOF FROM TRADITION 
 
 5i 
 
 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 atone¬ 
 ment from the writings of the Fathers. 27 We 
 will quote but two of the many available texts. 
 “In accordance with the will of God,” says St. 
 Clement of Rome, “our Lord Jesus Christ gave 
 His blood for us, and His flesh for our flesh, and 
 His soul for our souls.” 28 And St. Polycarp: 
 “Let us ever cling to our hope and the pledge 29 
 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 de¬ 
 velopment, as is evidenced by the part which some 
 of the older Fathers and ecclesiastical writers as¬ 
 signed 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 Satisfactionis, Thomassin, Dogm. Theol., IX, 7. 
 published in 1614. Cfr. also Dorholt, Die Lehre von 
 
 28 Ep. ad Cor., I, 49, 6. der Genugtuung Christi, pp. 62 sqq., 
 
 29 ru appa( 3 uvi, Paderborn 1891 and J. F. S. Muth, 
 
 30 Ep. ad Phil., 8.— Many addi- Die Heilstat Christi als stellvertre- 
 tional proofs from the writings of tende Genugtuung, pp. 169 sqq., 
 the Fathers are to be found in Pe- Ratisbon 1904. 
 
52 
 
 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.” 31 St. Irenaeus was the first to 
 insist on the Devil’s alleged rights. 32 Origen did not 
 hesitate to say that Christ “ ransomed us with His own 
 blood from the power of Satan.” 33 This, in itself blas¬ 
 phemous conception, which logically leads to the conclu¬ 
 sion 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 blas¬ 
 phemy.” 34 Saint Gregory of Nyssa followed in 
 Origen’s footsteps. But by pushing the theory to its 
 logical conclusions, he unconsciously* demonstrated its 
 absurdity. 35 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 
 
 31 J. Riviere, Le Dogme de la 
 Redemption, Paris, 1905, (English 
 translation by L. Cappadelta, in 2 
 vols., London 1909). The above 
 passage is quoted from Vol. II, pp. 
 hi sq. of the English translation. 
 Over one-half of the second volume 
 is devoted to a discussion of “ The 
 Devil’s Rights.” 
 
 32 Cfr, Riviere-Cappadelta, The 
 
 Doctrine of the Atonement , Vol, II, 
 pp. 113 sqq. 
 
 33 In Matth., 18, 8; In loan., 6, 
 35 - 
 
 34 ttoWti fi\aa<pri(ios &voca. T)e 
 Recta in Deum Fide, I, 27 (Migne, 
 P. G., XI, 1756 sq.). 
 
 35 Cfr. Riviere-Cappadelta, Tho 
 Doctrine of the Atonement, Vol. II, 
 pp. 124 sqq. 
 
53 
 
 THE ROLE OF THE DEVIL 
 
 Son.” 38 There was a modicum of truth in Origen’s the¬ 
 ory. By the sin of our first parents Satan had become, 
 not indeed the absolute master of the human race, but the 
 instrument of divine wrath. 37 But when Jesus Christ, 
 who was the Mediator between God and the human race, 
 gave adequate satisfaction to the offended Deity, the reign 
 of the Devil ceased. Very properly, therefore, does St. 
 Augustine 38 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 righteous¬ 
 ness rather than might. “ It pleased God,” he says, 
 “ that in order to the rescuing of man from the power of 
 the Devil, the Devil should be conquered, not by might, 
 but by righteousness. . . . What, then, is the righteous¬ 
 ness by which the Devil was conquered? What, except 
 the righteousness of Christ? In this redemption the 
 blood of Christ was given, as it were, as a price for 
 us, by accepting which the Devil was not enriched, but 
 bound, that we might be loosed from his bonds.” 39 
 Hence, the redemption of man from the clutches of 
 Satan did not “ enrich ” our arch-enemy but enslaved 
 him, since the demands of righteousness were fulfilled. 
 It was St. Bernard of Clairvaux who first developed this 
 thought into the formal notion of vicarious atonement. 
 “ The prince of this world came and found nothing in 
 the Saviour,” he writes; “ and when he nevertheless 
 laid hands upon the innocent one, he rightly lost those 
 who were his captives, when He who owed nothing to 
 death, accepting the injury of death, rightly released him 
 who was guilty of sin, both from the debt of death and 
 
 36 De Agno Paschali, 22. teaching of St. Augustine cfr. 
 
 37 Cfr. John XII, 31; XIV, 30; 2 Riviere-Cappadelta, op. cit., II, 146 
 
 Cor. IV, 4; Heb. II, 14. sqq. 
 
 88 De Trinit IV, 13.— On the 39 De Trinit ., XIII, 13, 14, 15. 
 
54 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 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 . . . be¬ 
 cause the one head and body is Christ. The head there¬ 
 fore gave satisfaction for the members, Christ for His 
 bowels.” 40 Abelard, and especially St. Anselm, at length 
 delivered theology from “ a decaying doctrine which was 
 now superfluous, if not actually dangerous.” 41 The 
 abuse-of-power theory made way for St. Anselm’s for¬ 
 ensic theory of satisfaction, which, after having been 
 purged of its harsher features by St. Thomas, became 
 the common teaching of the Schoolmen. 
 
 Theology has a right, nay the duty, to subject this 
 theory, both in its original Patristic form and in the 
 shape which it assumed under the hands of the medieval 
 Scholastics, to respectful criticism. We do not deny that 
 the theory may be defensible within certain carefully de¬ 
 fined limits. But as onesidedly developed by the Scholas¬ 
 tics, it does not embody the whole truth which we are able 
 to gather from Divine Revelation. Revelation contains 
 certain seed-thoughts which the Fathers and Schoolmen 
 failed to appreciate at their full value. The sacrifice of 
 the Divine Logos was dictated by infinite love and mercy 
 as well as by strict justice. Cfr. John III, 16: “God 
 
 40 ** Venit princeps huius tnundi Nam si unns (inquit ) pro omnibus 
 et in Salvatore non invenit quid - mortuus est, ergo onmes mortui sunt 
 quam. Et quum nihilominus inno- (2 Cor. V, 14) : ut videlicet satisfac¬ 
 cents manus iniecit, iustissime quos tio unius omnibus imputetur . . . 
 tenebat amisit, quando is qui morti quia caput et corpus unus est 
 nihil debebat, accepta mortis iniuria Christus. Satisfecit ergo caput pro 
 iure ilium, qui obnoxius erat, et membris, Christus pro visceribus 
 mortis debito et diaboli solvit do * suis.” De Erroribus Abaelardi, cap. 
 minio. Qua enim iustitia id secundo 6. 
 
 ah homine exigeretur? Homo si- 41 Riviere-Cappadelta, op. fit., II, 
 quidem qui debuit, homo qui solvit. 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 un¬ 
 mercifully slays his Son in order to avenge himself on 
 the human race and thereby, as it were, to gratify the 
 Devil, who gloats over the misfortune of others. God is 
 just, but He is also a loving Father, who punishes His 
 wayward children in the person of His beloved Son to 
 show them the malice of sin by a terrible example. In 
 other words, we cannot harmonize all the revealed ele¬ 
 ments of the atonement unless we give due emphasis to 
 the ethical factor. The purely forensic theory of satis¬ 
 faction must be supplemented and deepened by the “ ethi¬ 
 cal theory of reconciliation,” which accentuates 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 Harnack 43 and Pfleiderer 44 have raised against 
 the theory of satisfaction championed by the Scholas¬ 
 tics, notably St. Anselm. 
 
 4. The Distinction Between “Satisfac¬ 
 tion” 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 Eph. I, 3 sqq., II, 4 44 Religionsphilosophie , Vol. II, 
 
 sqq.; Tit. Ill, 4 sq., and 1 Pet. I, 3. 2nd ed., Berlin 1884, pp. 467 sqq. 
 
 43 Grundriss der Dogmengeschich- 
 te, 4th ed., pp. 304 sqq. 
 
56 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 for the benefit of another and entitled to a re¬ 
 ward. 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 justifi¬ 
 cation for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of 
 the Cross.” The same sacred Council employs the phrase: 
 “ Per meritum tinius mediatoris Domini nostri Ie'su 
 Christi ” and anathematizes those who say, “ Homines 
 sine Christi iustitia, per qnam nobis meruit iiistificcvri , 
 aut per earn ipsam formaliter iustos esse.” 46 Isaias 
 regarded the Redemption as a meritorious work. Is. 
 LIII, 10: “And the Lord was pleased to bruise him 
 in infirmity: if he shall lay down his life for sin, he 
 shall see a long-lived seed [i. e., spiritual progeny] and 
 the will of the Lord shall be prosperous in his hand.” 
 Here satisfaction and merit are so nearly alike as to be 
 
 45 "Meritum est opus bonum in Sess. V, can. 3; Sess. VI, can. 10. 
 
 favorem alterius mercede vel praemio Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiri- 
 dignum.” dion, n. 799, 790, 820. 
 
 46 Cone. Trtd., Sess. VI, cap. 7; 
 
THE MERITS OF CHRIST 
 
 57 
 
 materially identical; the Redeemer laid God under ob¬ 
 ligation 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, be¬ 
 cause He did not need to give any satisfaction for Him¬ 
 self. 
 
 b) When did Christ perform His meritorious 
 actions? In attempting to answer this question 
 we must distinguish between the terminus a quo 
 and the terminus ad 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 
 quem was the moment of His death. 47 That this is the 
 teaching of Holy Scripture may be gathered from such 
 texts as John IX, 4 sq.; Heb. IX, 12, X, 11 sqq. True, 
 St. Paul teaches that the glorified Redeemer continues to 
 “ make intercession for us in Heaven.” 48 But the in¬ 
 tercession 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 merito¬ 
 rious 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 concep- 
 
 47 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, 25. 
 
58 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 tion. 49 Hence the terminus a quo of His meritorious 
 actions was the first moment of His existence as God- 
 man. 50 
 
 c) The principal object of Christ’s meritorious 
 actions was the justification of sinners. 
 
 It is an article of faith that our Divine Saviour 
 merited for us the forgiveness of all sins, including 
 original sin, and, in addition, sanctifying grace. That the 
 actual graces required for and during the process of 
 justification also flow from the thesaurus of Christ’s 
 merits, is a theologically certain conclusion. 51 Capreolus 
 denied it; 52 but the Tridentine Council, in teaching, 
 “ Ipsius iustificationis exordium in adultis a Dei per 
 Christum Iesum praeveniente gratia sumendum esse,” 
 evidently employs the phrase “ per Christum Iesum ” in 
 the sense of “ per meritum Christi Iesu !’ It is likewise 
 an article of faith that man, in the state of grace which 
 follows justification, receives all the graces and merits 
 which come to him solely from the treasury of the merits 
 of Jesus Christ. 53 Our Lord Himself inculcates this by 
 the parable of the vine and its branches. 54 
 
 Christ also merited a reward for Himself, which con¬ 
 sists chiefly in His extrinsic glorification after death. 
 Cfr. Luke XXIV, 26: " Nonne haec oportuit pati Chri¬ 
 stum et ita intrare in gloriam suamf — 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 — 
 
 49 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, 53 Cfr. Cone. Trident., Sess. VI, 
 pp. 259 sqq. cap. 16; Sess. XIV, cap. 8. (Den¬ 
 so Cfr. Heb. X, 5. zinger-Bannwart, n. 809, 904.) 
 
 51 Cfr. 2 Tim. I, 9. 54 John XV, 5. On the grace of 
 
 52 Cfr. F. Stentrup, Soteriologia, predestination cfr. St. Thomas, S. 
 
 thes. 36. 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 coronatum — We see Jesus . . . for the suffering 
 of death, crowned with glory and honor.” It is conse¬ 
 quently unscriptural to hold, as Calvin did, that Christ’s 
 love for the human race prompted Him to waive all 
 claims to His own honor. 65 
 
 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 beati¬ 
 tude of soul, nor Divinity (i. e. } the Hypostatic Union). 
 As only that can be merited which one does not yet pos¬ 
 sess, Christ would have lacked all these perfections, 
 and therefore it is plain that He merited only such things 
 as the glory of the body, and whatever pertains to its 
 extrinsic excellence, e. g., the ascension, adoration, etc.” 57 
 
 d) The question: Who participates in the merits of 
 Christ? coincides with that regarding the universality 
 of the atonement, which we shall treat below, Sect. 2, Art. 
 2 . 58 
 
 55 Cfr. Bellarmine, De Christo, V, 
 8-10. 
 
 66 S'. Theol., 3a, qu. 19, art. 3. 
 
 67 l. c .— Cfr. Simar, Lehrbuch der 
 Dogmatik, Vol. I, 4th ed., pp. 532 
 sqq., Freiburg 1899. 
 
 68 On the whole subject dealt with 
 in this subdivision of our treatise 
 consult Pesch, Praelectiones Dog- 
 maticae, Vol. IV, 3rd ed., pp. 252 
 sqq., Friburgi 1909. 
 
 5 
 
SECTION 2 
 
 THE PROPERTIES OF CHRIST’S VICARIOUS ATONE¬ 
 MENT 
 
 ARTICLE i 
 
 INTRINSIC PERFECTION OF THE ATONEMENT 
 
 Christ’s vicarious atonement is intrinsically perfect and 
 comprises within its scope all sins and all sinners. 
 
 The intrinsic perfection of Christ’s vicarious atone¬ 
 ment manifests itself in three ascending stages, which 
 are technically called adequacy, rigorousness, and super¬ 
 abundance. 
 
 By adequate atonement we understand a satisfaction 
 which completely and fully repairs the offence com¬ 
 mitted, or, at least, is accepted as a full reparation by 
 the person offended. If the satisfaction rendered is of 
 such high intrinsic merit that the offended person is in 
 justice compelled to accept it, it is called rigorous. If 
 it exceeds the offence committed, it is superabundant. 
 
 Thesis I: The satisfaction which Christ made for 
 our sins was adequate, i. e., fully sufficient. 
 
 This thesis embodies the common teaching of 
 a majority of Catholic theologians. 
 
 Proof. The reality of Christ’s vicarious 
 atonement is an article of faith, with which we 
 
 60 
 
ADEQUACY OF THE ATONEMENT 61 
 
 have already dealt {supra, Sect. i). In the 
 present thesis we are merely concerned with its 
 intrinsic properties. As the Church has never 
 defined these, the Scotists were free to estimate 
 them differently than the majority of Catholic 
 divines. 
 
 The Scotists and the Nominalists hold that Christ’s 
 vicarious atonement derives its adequacy not from its 
 own intrinsic merit, but from the accidental circumstance 
 of its “extrinsic acceptation” by God. Suarez rejects 
 this theory as “ neither probable, nor pious, nor suffi¬ 
 ciently in accordance with the faith.” 1 This is a per¬ 
 fectly just criticism, since both Holy Scripture and 
 Tradition declare that the satisfaction which Christ made 
 for us was equivalent to the offence inherent in sin. 
 
 a) Holy Scripture distinctly declares that we 
 were “bought” with a “price,” 2 and that this 
 price was the Precious Blood of our Lord. Cfr. 
 i Pet. I, 18 sq.: “. . . you were not redeemed 
 
 with corruptible things, . . . but with the pre¬ 
 cious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and 
 undefiled.” How could the blood of Christ be 
 called “precious” if its value was not equiva¬ 
 lent to the offence for the reparation of which 
 it was shed? St. Paul says: “You are bought 
 with a great price.” 3 This phrase likewise indi¬ 
 cates that the satisfaction given by our Divine Re¬ 
 deemer was equivalent to the guilt of sin. 
 
 1 De Incarn., disp. 4, sect. 3, n. it. 3 Pretio tnagno, Ttfirjs. 1 Cor. 
 
 2 Pretium, \vrpov. VI, 20. 
 
62 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 Moreover, the Bible tells us that the Godman im¬ 
 molated Himself in expiation for our sins. 
 Hence the satisfaction He gave to Elis Heavenly 
 Father must be of equal value with Himself, and 
 therefore, to say the least, adequate. Cfr. I 
 Tim. II, 5 sq.: 'There is one God, and one 
 mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus: 
 who gave himself a redemption for all (<WAv- 
 r P°v).” The graphic term <WAvrpov ? which St. 
 Paul here employs instead of plain A vrpov f shows 
 that he conceives "the redemption for all” as a 
 full equivalent for sin. “Quanta iniuria, tanta 
 satisfaction In fact, it is only in this hypothe¬ 
 sis that we can understand why the Apostle 
 attaches such tremendous importance to the 
 singleness of our Lord’s sacrifice on the Cross, in 
 contradistinction to the multiplicity of the inef¬ 
 fective offerings of the Levites. Cfr. Eleb. IX, 
 12 and 28: "By his own blood he entered once 4 
 into the holies, having obtained eternal redemp¬ 
 tion. ... So also Christ was offered once 5 to 
 exhaust the sins of many.” 
 
 b) Patristic texts in support of our thesis will 
 be found infra, p. 71. A convincing theologi¬ 
 cal argument for the adequacy of the atone¬ 
 ment may be deduced from the concept of our 
 Lord’s natural mediatorship {supra, Ch. I, Sect. 
 
 0 - 
 
 4 Semel, # 7 raf. 
 
 6 Semel, aira£. 
 
ADEQUACY OF THE ATONEMENT 63 
 
 a) By virtue of the Hypostatic Union all hu¬ 
 man actions of the Godman are infinitely valuable 
 in the eyes of God, independently of their ex¬ 
 trinsic acceptation, because a theandric merit de¬ 
 rives its full value solely from the infinite dignity 
 of the Logos. 6 But an atonement, the expiatory 
 power of which is, morally considered, infinite, 
 cannot be conceived otherwise than as adequate. 
 
 P) The Scotists and the Nominalists are con¬ 
 sequently in error when they teach that the meri¬ 
 torious and expiatory value of Christ’s vicarious 
 atonement, though extrinsically infinite because 
 of its benevolent acceptation on the part of God, 7 
 is not so intrinsically, i. e., on account of its own 
 immanent worth. 8 Scotus’ own teaching on this 
 point is uncertain. 9 But the great majority of 
 Scotist theologians, including such later authors 
 as Frassen, De Rada, and Henno, undoubtedly 
 underestimated the meritoriousness of Christ’s 
 theandric operation by asserting that it became 
 infinitely valuable only through the condescension 
 of God in deigning to accept it as such. The Sco¬ 
 tists admit that Christ’s human actions, because 
 performed by the exalted person of the Godman, 
 were invested with a certain equitable claim to 
 
 6 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, 9 Scotus, Comment, in Quatuor 
 
 pp. 161 sqq. Libros Sent., Ill, dist. 19. Hauzeur 
 
 7 Infinitas extrinseca ob benignam and a few other Scotists attempted 
 
 Dei acceptationevn. to reconcile their master’s teaching 
 
 8 Infinitas intrinseca ob valorem with the sententia communis, but in 
 
 innatutn . rain, 
 
6 4 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 be received as of infinite value by a loving God; 
 but they deny that these actions can by their own 
 power attain to infinitude. This they declare 
 to be impossible because these actions are essen¬ 
 tially the product of a finite (human) nature. 
 As the intrinsic or bullion value of a coin need 
 not equal the extrinsic valuation stamped upon 
 its face, they say, so the human actions of our 
 Saviour were in themselves of a merely finite 
 value, but capable of being raised to a higher valu¬ 
 ation by God. 
 
 Mastrius and a few others restrict the Scotistic 
 theory to the thesis (which no one denies) that, 
 to render His atonement valid in actu secundo, 
 our Divine Saviour had first to assure Himself 
 of its acceptation on the part of God, not indeed 
 per modum principii diguide antis, but per modum 
 conditionis praeviae . This is beside the question. 
 What the Scotists assert is that the satisfaction 
 which Christ made for our sins was intrin¬ 
 sically insufficient or inadequate, and that what 
 it lacked in intrinsic merit was supplied by 
 God's extrinsic acceptation. Their basic error 
 consists in this that they fail to distinguish be¬ 
 tween the physical entity and the ethical value of 
 Christ's meritorious actions, confounding the 
 finite character of the former with the infinity of 
 the latter. Justly, therefore, do the Thomists 10 
 
 10 Cfr. Billuart, De Incarn., diss. 19, art. 5 . 
 
ADEQUACY OF THE ATONEMENT 65 
 
 insist that the Hypostatic Union endows a phys¬ 
 ically finite act with a morally infinite value, be¬ 
 cause it is the infinite Divine Person that performs 
 that act as principium quod , employing the finite 
 nature merely as principium quo . Were we to 
 trace the Scotist theory to its sources, we should 
 probably find that its originators had no clear con¬ 
 ception of the character of theandric operation 
 and misconceived the true nature and scope of 
 the Hypostatic Union . 11 
 
 Thesis II: The satisfaction which Christ made for 
 our sins was not only adequate, but rigorous, accord¬ 
 ing to the standard of strict justice. 
 
 Proof. In the preceding thesis we saw that 
 Christ’s vicarious atonement was quantitatively 
 adequate, i. e., equivalent to all the sins of man¬ 
 kind. We have now to show that it was ade¬ 
 quate also in quality, i. e., measured by the stand¬ 
 ard of strict justice (secundum rigorem iustitiae ). 
 
 In other words, it was not necessary for God’s mercy 
 to supply anything over and above the satisfaction ren¬ 
 dered by Christ, since this satisfaction fully covered all 
 just claims. 
 
 This thesis does not embody an article of faith. It is 
 not even a theological conclusion. But it voices the 
 
 11 On the uncertain teaching of gen, 1907, pp. 241 sqq. On the 
 Scotus cfr. P. Minges, O. F. M., general subject of this thesis cfr. 
 Compend. Theol. Dogmat. Specialis, also De Lugo, De Myst. Incarn., 
 Vol. I, pp. 213 sqq., Monachii 1901; disp. 6, sect. 1; Scheeben, Dog- 
 Theologische Quartalschrift, Tiibin- matik, Vol. Ill, §251, Freiburg 1882. 
 
66 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 more general teaching of Catholic divines, especially of 
 the Thomist school, and of Suarez, Tanner, Gregory of 
 Valentia, Franzelin, and others. In a limited way we 
 may also number among its defenders those Scotist the¬ 
 ologians who, like Mastrius, admit that the atonement 
 satisfied divine justice, though not to its full extent. 
 
 a) It pertains to the dogmatic treatise De Deo 
 Uno 12 to show that the only kind of relation 
 possible between God and His creatures is a 
 free but real relation of rights and duties based 
 upon the veracity and fidelity of the Creator. 
 Christ’s vicarious atonement embodies all the con¬ 
 ditions necessary and sufficient to establish a re¬ 
 lation of strict and rigorous justice. These con¬ 
 ditions are five in number, to wit: (a) Equiva¬ 
 lence of debit and credit; (P) difference of person 
 between debtor and creditor; (y) payment of the 
 debt out of the debtor’s own means; (8) absence 
 of all other indebtedness; («) payment of the debt 
 in person or through a bondsman. These condi¬ 
 tions are selected somewhat arbitrarily, and it is 
 not easy to prove that Christ fulfilled them all 
 For this reason some theologians prefer not to 
 speak of a rigor iastitiae. However, the senten- 
 tia communior rests on fairly solid ground. 
 
 a) That Christ fulfilled the first of the conditions 
 enumerated was shown in Thesis I. 
 
 p) Condition number two demands that debtor and 
 
 12 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His Knowability, Essence and Attributes, 
 
 PP. 457 sqq. 
 
ADEQUACY OF THE ATONEMENT 67 
 
 creditor must be separate and distinct persons. “Satis-* 
 factio debet esse ad alterum ” No one can be his own 
 debtor. How could Christ fulfil this condition? Since 
 He is Himself God, is it not physically the same person 
 that merits and rewards ? This difficulty cannot be solved 
 by the retort that Christ renders satisfaction to God the 
 Father. Humanity’s creditor was not the Father alone, 
 but the whole Trinity. 13 The right solution seems to be 
 this: In atoning for our sins, Christ acts both as man 
 and as God, and hence makes satisfaction virtually as a 
 double person: (1) the man Jesus makes satisfaction to 
 God for our sins in His human nature, as if He were a 
 different person from the Logos; (2) The Logos, as God, 
 accepts this satisfaction. If Christ, as man, was able to 
 practice the virtues of obedience and worship towards 
 Himself as God, it can be no contradiction to say that, 
 as man, He gave satisfaction to Himself, qua God, ac¬ 
 cording to the strict measure of justice. 
 
 We must, however, beware of misinterpreting the ex¬ 
 pression duplex persona moralis , as Berruyer (a pupil of 
 Hardouin) did when he asserted that the humanity of our 
 Lord was a quasi-suppositum, to which, as to a distinct 
 human person, must be ascribed certain actions of Christ 
 which had no intrinsic hypostatic connexion with the Per¬ 
 son of the Logos. 14 
 
 y) The third of the conditions enumerated above is 
 
 18 “What does it mean to be the 
 mediator between God and men?” 
 asks St. Augustine, and answers the 
 question as follows: “It means to 
 be a mediator not between the 
 Father and men, but between God 
 and men. What is God? He is 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. . . . 
 Christ was constituted mediator be¬ 
 tween this Trinity and the infirmity 
 
 and iniquity of men.” Ennar. in 
 Ps., 2g, 2, 1. 
 
 14 On this dangerous error see 
 Legrand, De Incarn., diss. 11, Paris 
 i860; von Schazler, Das Dogma von 
 der Menschwerdung Gottes, §24, 
 Freiburg 1870; Scheeben, Dogmatik, 
 Vol. Ill, pp. 29 sqq., Freiburg 1882; 
 B. Dorholt, Die Lehre von der Ge- 
 nugtuung Christi, pp. 435 sqq., Pa- 
 derborn 1891. 
 
68 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 that the debtor must pay his liability out of his own be¬ 
 longings. “ Satisf actio debet fieri ex bonis propriis.” 
 Did Christ fulfil this condition? As He was a man, His 
 power of giving satisfaction for our sins (vis merendi sive 
 satisfaciendi) must have been a grace, i. e., a free gift 
 of God, and consequently the atonement cannot have 
 been a payment made by Him out of His own means. 
 Even the supernatural merits of a justified man, being due 
 to pure grace, cannot satisfy rigorous justice. Indeed we 
 may broadly say that, as man possesses nothing of his own, 
 but has received everything he has from God, whether by 
 creation or by grace, so Christ’s human nature, which was 
 the principium quo of His meritorious and expiatory ac¬ 
 tion, was not His own but a gift of the debtor, i. e., God. 
 
 This objection may be met as follows: It was not the 
 man Jesus, but the Godman, whose meritorious actions 
 made satisfaction for our sins. In other words, not the 
 human nature of Christ as such made satisfaction, but the 
 Divine Logos through the functions of His human na¬ 
 ture, which, by virtue of the Hypostatic Union, is so inti¬ 
 mately united to the Logos that He possesses and governs 
 it with absolute sovereignty as its sole principium quod. 
 To attribute such a sovereign control over the human 
 nature of Christ to the Father and the Holy Ghost, 
 i. e., to the Trinity qua Godhead, would be tantamount 
 to asserting that it was not the Logos alone who was 
 made flesh, but the whole Blessed Trinity. 15 ' But this is 
 manifestly repugnant. The human nature of Christ was 
 the personal property of the Logos, and the satisfaction 
 He made through that nature was made ex bonis pro¬ 
 priis . 16 
 
 B) We come to the fourth condition: “ Satisf actio 
 
 U6 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, 10 Cfr. Ysambert, De Myst. In- 
 pp. 132 sqq. earn., disp. 6, art. 2-3, Paris 1639. 
 
ADEQUACY OF THE ATONEMENT 69 
 
 debet esse ex alias indebitis” Satisfaction must be 
 made by means of something which the debtor does not 
 already owe to his creditor on some other account. It 
 may be argued that this condition, too, remained unful¬ 
 filled in the case of our Divine Saviour, because whatever 
 He did and suffered, He was obliged to do and suffer 
 for reasons other than that prompting the atonement, 
 such as gratitude and obedience to God, a feeling of de¬ 
 pendence, piety, etc. Can an action to which one is 
 obliged by so many titles be in strict justice regarded as 
 meritorious ? 
 
 Suarez offers two solutions of this difficulty. (1) 
 The rigor iustitiae, he says, is to be measured purely and 
 solely by the titulus iustitiae. Even if a debtor were obli¬ 
 gated by gratitude towards his creditor, he would never¬ 
 theless satisfy rigorous justice as soon as he paid the last 
 farthing of his indebtedness. Though other duties re¬ 
 mained, justice as such would be satisfied. (2) The 
 intrinsic merit of the satisfaction which Christ made 
 for our sins is infinite, and as such capable of satisfying, 
 not merely one single title of justice, but many, nay, an 
 infinite number of such titles. Consequently justice can 
 be rigorously satisfied even though there are other titles 
 and duties. 
 
 c) The last condition is that satisfaction must be made 
 by the debtor for himself. “ Satisfactio debet fieri pro 
 se ipso, non pro alienis” Strictly speaking, Christ did 
 not fulfil this condition, because He made atonement for 
 others. It is to be noted, however, that the rigor iustitiae 
 can be satisfied by proxy, provided the substitute is 
 formally accepted by the creditor and the proportion 
 between debt and reparation is strictly observed. Let it 
 not be objected that where an offence has been committed 
 the offended person waives his claim to strict justice by 
 
7o 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 surrendering his right to personal satisfaction. He does 
 not remit the debt, nor any part thereof, but merely com¬ 
 mutes it into something of equal value. 17 
 
 Thesis III: The satisfaction which Christ made 
 for our sins was more than adequate and rigorous; it 
 was superabundant. 
 
 This thesis may be characterized as “ com¬ 
 munis since it is held by practically all theolog¬ 
 ical schools. 
 
 Proof, a) A Scriptural argument may be 
 drawn from St. Paul’s antithetical sentences in 
 tracing the analogy between Adam and Christ. 
 Cfr. Rom. V, 15: “But not as the offence, so 
 also the gift. For if by the offence of one many 
 died; much more 18 the grace of God, and the 
 gift, by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ, hath 
 abounded unto many.” 19 And even more point¬ 
 edly Rom. V, 20: “Where sin abounded, 20 grace 
 did more abound.” 21 The Apostle here distinctly 
 asserts that Christ gave superabundant satisfac¬ 
 tion for our sins. The sin was great, but the 
 atonement and the graces flowing therefrom are 
 still greater. 22 
 
 17 Cfr. on the subject of these 
 conditions and their fulfilment by 
 Christ: Franzelin, De Verbo Incarn., 
 thes. 47, Rome 1881 (new edition, 
 1910); B. Dorholt, Die Lehre von 
 der Genugtuung Christi, pp. 424 sqq., 
 Paderborn 1891; Tepe, Inst. Theol., 
 Vol. Ill, pp. 639 sqq., Paris 1896. 
 
 18 Multo magis, ttoWw /JidWov. 
 
 19 In plures abundavit, els robs 
 ttoWovs eireplaoevcev' 
 
 20 Abundavit, iirXeovcLcrev . 
 
 21 Superabundavit gratia, inrepe- 
 irepLaaevaev i] %apis. 
 
 22 Cfr. Eph. I, 3-8; John X, 10. 
 
THE ATONEMENT SUPERABUNDANT 71 
 
 b) The Fathers generally held that the ade¬ 
 quacy of the atonement can be most effectively 
 demonstrated from its superabundant meritori¬ 
 ousness. 
 
 Thus St. Cyril of Jerusalem trenchantly argues: 
 “ He who died for us was of no less value. He was 
 not a visible lamb, no mere man, nor yet an angel, 
 but the incarnate God. The wickedness of sinners was 
 not as great as the righteousness of Him who died for 
 us. Our sins were not equal to the justice of Him who 
 died for us.” 23 St. Chrysostom exemplifies this truth as 
 follows: “ Our experience has been like that of a man 
 
 who was cast into prison with his wife and children and 
 servants for a debt of ten oboli, and another man came 
 and plumped down not only ten oboli, but ten thousand 
 gold talents, and then led the prisoner into the royal 
 chamber, placed him on an exalted throne, and allowed 
 him to share in the highest honors. . . . For Christ paid 
 far more than we owed, and in a larger measure, like as 
 the infinite ocean exceeds in magnitude a tiny drop of 
 water.” 24 
 
 c) If Christ’s vicarious atonement was super¬ 
 abundantly meritorious, that is to say, far in ex¬ 
 cess of the sins for which it was made, its intrin¬ 
 sic worth must have been actually infinite. This 
 inference is demanded by all the rules of theolog¬ 
 ical logic, and hence we need not wonder that 
 Suarez lays it down as the common teaching of 
 
 23 Catech., 33, c. 13. Cfr. also B. Dorholt, Die Lehre von 
 
 24 Horn, in Ep. ad Rom., 10, 2. der Genugtuung Christi, pp. 376 
 Additional Patristic texts apud Pe- sqq., 419 sqq.; Muth, Die Heilstat 
 tav., XII, 9 and Thomassin, IX, 9. Christi, pp. 228 sqq. 
 
72 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 Catholic divines that “the actions of Christ pos¬ 
 sessed a value which was absolutely and strictly 
 infinite in making satisfaction and acquiring 
 merits before God.” 25 
 
 a) St. Thomas demonstrates this proposition by a the¬ 
 ological argument based on the infinite dignity of the God- 
 man. “ The dignity of Christ’s flesh,” he says, “ must not 
 be estimated solely by the nature of the flesh, but by the 
 assuming person; it was the flesh of God, hence its dig¬ 
 nity is infinite.” 26 As a matter of fact, the intrinsic moral 
 value of an action varies in proportion to the dignity 
 of him who performs it, and therefore the actions of a 
 person of infinite dignity, when offered in satisfaction for 
 an offence, must be infinitely meritorious. 
 
 To demonstrate the infinite value of Christ’s vicari¬ 
 ous atonement, it is not necessary to have recourse to 
 its superabundant merit; the proposition follows as a 
 corollary from the fact of its mere adequacy. If no 
 one but a Godman was able to give adequate satisfaction 
 for our sins, each and every one of Christ’s theandric 
 actions, even the most insignificant, must have been suffi¬ 
 cient, nay more than sufficient, for the purposes of the 
 atonement, because each- and every action performed by 
 a Godman is by its very nature infinitely meritorious. 
 
 As to the question, why the meritorious actions of our 
 Lord had of necessity to culminate in His dolorous pas¬ 
 sion and death, St. Thomas says: “If we regard the 
 amount paid for the redemption of the human race, any 
 suffering undergone by Christ, even without death, would 
 
 25 “Opera Christi Domini habuisse tenableness of the Scotistic theory 
 valorem absolute et simpliciter in - of extrinsic acceptation v. supra, 
 finitum ad satisfaciendum et meren - pp. 63 sqq. 
 
 dum apud Deum.” De Incarn., 26 S'. Theol., 3a, qu. 48, art. 2, ad 
 disp. 4, sect. 4, n. 3.—On the un- 3. Cfr. Suarez, op. cit., n. 17 sqq. 
 
THE ATONEMENT SUPERABUNDANT 73 
 
 have sufficed for the redemption of the human race, on 
 account of the infinite dignity of His person. . . . But 
 if we regard the payment of the price, it must be ob¬ 
 served that no other suffering less than Christ’s death was 
 deemed sufficient by God the Father and by Christ Him¬ 
 self to redeem the human race.” 27 
 
 P) That the satisfaction which Christ made for 
 our sins was infinite, may also be inferred from 
 certain utterances (though they are not ex-ca¬ 
 thedra decisions) of the Holy See. Among the 
 propositions of Bajus condemned by Pope Pius V 
 in the year 1567 is the following: “The works 
 of justice and temperance performed by Christ 
 derived no additional value from the dignity of 
 His person.” 28 Hence it is Catholic teaching 
 that the actions of Christ derived a higher value 
 from the “dignity of His Person.” How high is 
 this value to be rated? Evidently it must have 
 corresponded to the infinite dignity of the God- 
 man,—which is merely another way of saying that 
 it was infinite. 
 
 A far more important pronouncement for our 
 present purpose is this from the Bull “Unigeni- 
 
 27 "Si ergo loquamur de redemp- 
 tione humani generis quantum ad 
 quantitatem pretii, sic quaelibet pas- 
 sio Christi etiam sine morte suffecis- 
 set ad redemptionem humani ge¬ 
 neris propter infinitam dignitatem 
 personae ... Si autem loquamur 
 quantum ad deputationem pretii, sic 
 dicendum est quod non sunt depu- 
 tatae ad redemptionem humani ge¬ 
 
 neris a Deo Patre el Christo aliae 
 passiones Christi absque morte." 
 Quodlib. 2, art 2. —Cfr. Dorholt, op. 
 cit., pp. 405 sqq. 
 
 28 "Opera iustitiae et temperan- 
 tiae, quas Christus fecit, ex dignitate 
 personae operantis non traxerunt 
 maiorem valorem.” Prop. 19 (Den- 
 zinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, a. 
 1019). 
 
74 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 tus” of Pope Clement VI, A. D. 1343: “He is 
 known to have shed, not a little drop of blood,— 
 though this would have sufficed for the redemp¬ 
 tion of the entire human race, because of the [Hy¬ 
 postatic] Union with the Logos,—but streams 
 of it, like unto a river. . . . That the mercy in¬ 
 volved in such a large effusion [of blood] be not 
 rendered vain, empty, and superfluous, He laid up 
 for the Church militant a copious treasure, which 
 the good Father desires to dispense to his children, 
 in order that it may become an infinite store-house 
 for men, and that those who make use of it may 
 share in the friendship of God.” 29 Pope Clem¬ 
 ent, in issuing his Bull, did not intend to define 
 the dogmatic teaching of the Church with regard 
 to this “infinite treasure.” Nor does the document 
 contain any clear expression as to whether Christ’s 
 merits are to be conceived as actually or po¬ 
 tentially infinite. Hence the above-quoted words 
 cannot be said to constitute a binding dogmatic 
 definition. We may, however, safely assume that 
 Clement VI intended to represent the treasure of 
 Christ’s merits as actually infinite, for this is the 
 obvious meaning of his words, considered both in 
 
 29 " Non guttam sanguinis modi¬ 
 cum, quae tamen propter unionem 
 ad Verbum pro redemptione totius 
 humani generis stiffecisset, sed co- 
 piose velut quoddam profluvium nos- 
 citur effudisse . . . Quantum ergo 
 exinde, ut nec supervacua, inanis et 
 superflua tantae effusionis misera- 
 
 tio redderetur, thesaurum militanti 
 Ecclesiae acquisivit, volens suis 
 thesaurizare filiis pius Pater, ut sic 
 sit infinitus thesaurus hominibus, 
 quo qui usi sunt Dei amicitiae par - 
 ticipes sunt effecti” Denzingef 
 Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 550. 
 
CHRIST DIED FOR ALL 
 
 75 
 
 themselves and in connection with the context. 
 
 The doctrine of the superabundant merits of 
 Jesus Christ and His Saints forms the ground¬ 
 work of the Catholic teaching on indulgences, 
 which we shall explain more fully in a later 
 volume of this series. 30 
 
 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 mat¬ 
 ter 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 actu¬ 
 ally attain to eternal salvation. Of the “faith¬ 
 ful,” i. e., those who have the true faith, many are 
 unfortunately lost. 
 
 a) Predestinarianism was taught by Calvin, 
 and also by the younger Jansenius, who hereti- 
 
 30 In connection with the Sacrament of Penance. 
 
 6 
 
;6 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 cally asserted that “ It savours of Semi-Pelagian- 
 ism to say that Christ died, or shed His blood, 
 for all men without exception/' 1 This proposi¬ 
 tion was censured as “false, foolhardy, and scan¬ 
 dalous" by Innocent X, who added that, “under¬ 
 stood in the sense that Christ died for the salva¬ 
 tion of the predestined only," Jansenius' thesis is 
 furthermore “impious, blasphemous . . . and 
 heretical." Consequently it must be accepted as 
 an article of faith that Christ died also for those 
 who were not predestined. These are the “faith¬ 
 ful," i. e. (in the New Testament) all who have 
 received the Sacrament of Baptism, be they in¬ 
 fants 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 Thes- 
 salonians: “For God hath not appointed us 
 unto wrath, but unto the purchasing of salva¬ 
 tion by our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us." 3 
 Again, Christ Himself, assuredly the most faith- 
 
 l “Semipelagianum est dicere, 2 “. . . qui propter nos homines 
 Christum pro omnibus omnino ho- et propter nostram salutem de¬ 
 minibus mortuum esse aut sanguinem scendit de coelis.” 
 fudisseProp. Damn, lansenii, 5 3 1 Thess. V, 9 sq. 
 
 (Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, 
 n. 1096). 
 
CHRIST DIED FOR ALL 
 
 77 
 
 ful 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 [soil. Apostolis ] 
 autem rogo tantmn , sed et pro eis qui credituri 
 sunt 4 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 excep¬ 
 tion. 
 
 This thesis may be qualified as “saltern fidei 
 proximo” 
 
 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 
 
 4 rrepi rwv ttkjtzvovtwv* 
 
 5 tva 6 kocx/ios TnaTevcrri' 
 
 6 De Incarn., XIII, 2 sq. 
 
 Augustine’s teaching by the Jansen- 
 ists consult Dechamps, De Haeresi 
 Janseniana, 1 . II, disp. 7. 
 
 7 On the misrepresentation of St. 
 
78 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 are redeemed by the mystery of His passion.” 8 
 Pope Alexander VIII, A. D. 1690, formally con¬ 
 demned the proposition that “Christ gave Him¬ 
 self for us as an oblation to God, not for the 
 elect only, but for all the faithful, and for the 
 faithful alone.” 9 The Tridentine Council defines 
 the dogmatic teaching of the Church on this point 
 as follows: “Him [Christ] God hath proposed 
 as a propitiator, through faith in 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 lan¬ 
 guage of Holy Writ. Cfr. 1 John II, 2: “Et 
 ipse est propitiatio 11 pro peccatis nostris, non pro 
 nostris autem tantiim, sed etiam pro totius 
 mundi 12 — He is the propitiation for our sins: 
 and not for ours only, but also for those of the 
 whole world.” 1 Tim. II, 6 must be interpreted 
 in consonance with the text just quoted. “Qui 
 
 8 "Christus Iesus D. N., sicut nul- 
 Ins homo est, fuit vel erit, cuius na- 
 tura in illo assumpta non fuerit, ita 
 nullus est, fuit vel erit homo, pro 
 quo passus non fuerit, licet non 
 omnes passionis eius mysterio re- 
 dimantur.” The controversies inci¬ 
 dent to the Council of Valence (A. 
 D. 855) were due to a misunder¬ 
 standing. Cfr. B. Dorholt, Die 
 Lehre von der Genugtuung Christi, 
 pp. 323 sqq. 
 
 9 ". . . dedit semetipsum pro no¬ 
 
 bis oblationem Deo, non pro solis 
 
 electis, sed pro omnibus et solis fide- 
 libus.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, En¬ 
 chiridion, n. 1294.) 
 
 10 “Hunc proposuit Deus propi- 
 tiatorem per fidem in sanguine ip- 
 sius pro peccatis nostris, non solum 
 autem pro nostris, sed etiam pro to¬ 
 tius mundi.” Cone. Trid., Sess. VI, 
 cap. 2 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 
 794). 
 
 11 IXacr/xos- 
 
 12 aWa Kal 7 repl 6\ov rov k6<j * 
 fiov> 
 
CHRIST DIED FOR ALL 
 
 7 9 
 
 dedit redemptionem semetipsum pro omnibus 
 [scil. hominibus ] —Who gave himself a redemp¬ 
 tion for all [i. e. y 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 anus pro omnibus 13 mortuus 
 est, ergo omnes 14 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 Predesti- 
 narianism. It is to be noted that the famous 
 African Doctor was warmly defended against 
 this calumnious charge by one of his contempo¬ 
 raneous disciples, St. Prosper of Aquitaine. 16 
 
 13 vnep 7 ravT 0 JV‘ holt, Lehre von der Genugtuung 
 
 14 oi 7 rdvTes, Christi, Paderborn 1896, pp. 317 
 
 15 For an explanation of this text sqq., by Tricassin, De Praedestina- 
 
 see Al. Schafer, Erkl'drung der bei- tione, p. I, sect. 7, punct. 4 sqq., 
 den Briefe an die Korinther, pp. and by Franzelin, De Deo Uno , 
 439 sqq., Munster 1903. thes. 32, Rome 1883. The fate of 
 
 16 We cannot enter into the con- unbaptized infants v/ill be discussed 
 troversy here. The student will in Vol. VII of this series. 
 
 find it exhaustively treated by Dor- 
 
8 o 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 Thesis III: The atonement did not benefit the 
 fallen angels. 
 
 This proposition is de fide . 
 
 Proof. Origen taught that Christ also died 
 for the demons, who were destined at some fu¬ 
 ture time to be released from hell. This error 
 (dTroKarao-raats 7r(mw) 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 everlast¬ 
 ing hell-fire, the evil spirits can have no share in 
 the merits of the Redeemer. “For although there 
 is assigned to angels also perdition in the fire pre¬ 
 pared for the Devil and his angels/’ says Ter- 
 tullian, “yet a restoration was never promised 
 
 17 Cfr. Denzinger, Enchiridion, General Council in 553, though the 
 ed. 9, n. 193 and 198. Fr. Diekamp acta of the latter do not mention 
 (Die origenistischen Streitigkeiten the fact. Cfr. Chr. Pesch, S. J., 
 im 6 . Jahrhundert und das V. allge - Theologische Zeitfragen, Vol. II, 
 meine Konsil, Munster 1899) has put Freiburg 1901. 
 
 a quietus on an ancient controversy 18 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God the Ail- 
 by showing that Origenism was con- thor of Nature and the Supernal • 
 demned both by the Council of Con- ural, pp. 340 sqq. 
 stantinople in 543 and by the Fifth 
 
WHY SOME ARE LOST 
 
 81 
 
 them. No charge about the salvation of angels 
 did Christ ever receive from the Father; and 
 that which the Father neither promised nor com¬ 
 manded, 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 theolog¬ 
 ically 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 com¬ 
 ply with the conditions necessary for participat¬ 
 ing in the fruits of the Redemption, viz.: bap¬ 
 tism, faith, contrition, cooperation with grace, 
 perseverance. Cfr. Mark XVI, 16: “Qni credi¬ 
 ct erit et baptizatus fuerit, salvus erit; qui vero 
 non ere did erit y condemnabitur — He that be- 
 lieveth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he 
 that believeth not shall be condemned.” 
 
 19 De Came Cliristi, c. 14.'—Cfr. 20 “Verum etsi tile pro omnibus 
 Dorholt, Lehre von der Genugtuung mortuus est, non omnes tamen eius 
 Christi, pp. 353 sqq. —On the partici- beneftcium recipiunt, sed ii dum- 
 pation of the good angels in the taxat, quibus meritum passionis corn- 
 merits of the Redeemer see Pohle- municatur.” Sess. VI, cap. 3. 
 Preuss, Christology, pp. 243 sqq. Dqnzinger-Bannwart, n. 795. 
 
82 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 “The blood of thy Lord,” observes St. Augus¬ 
 tine, “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 consequently 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 sufdcientiam, 
 non tamen secundum efficaciam. It is indeed quite ob¬ 
 vious that if a man neglects to appropriate the fruits of 
 the Redemption, he derives no more benefit therefrom 
 than one who is dying of thirst receives from a spring 
 within his reach but from which he refuses to drink. 
 “Although [Christ] by His death made sufficient satis¬ 
 faction 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 nec¬ 
 essary that the universal cause be applied to each one 
 
 21 Serm., 344, n. 4. 
 
WHY SOME ARE LOST 
 
 83 
 
 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 spir¬ 
 itual regeneration . . . and therefore it is necessary that 
 each individual human being should seek to be regenerated 
 through Christ and to employ all other means whereby the 
 death of Christ becomes efficacious.” 22 In other words, 
 the atonement is universal only with regard to its objec¬ 
 tive value or sufficiency, not in respect of its subjective 
 application or efficaciousness. 23 
 
 22 " Quamvis autem sufficienter 
 pro peccatis humani generis sud 
 morte satisfecerit, sunt tamen uni• 
 cuique remedia propriae salutis 
 quaerenda. Mors enim Christi est 
 quasi quaedam universalis causa 
 salutis, sicut peccatum primi ho- 
 minis fuit quasi universalis causa 
 damnationis. Oportet autem uni- 
 versalem causam applicari ad unum- 
 quodque specialiter, ut effectum uni¬ 
 versalis causae participet. Effeclus 
 
 igitur peccati primi parentis pervenit 
 ad unumquemque per carnis ori- 
 ginem, effectus autem mortis Christi 
 pertingit ad unumquemque per spi- 
 ritualem regenerationem . . . et ideo 
 oportet quod unusquisque quaerat 
 regenerari per Christum et alia sus- 
 cipere, in quibus virtus mortis 
 Christi operatur /’ Contra Gent., 
 IV, 55, sub. fin. 
 
 23 Cfr. Dorholt, op. cit., *pp. 307 
 sqq., 330 sqq. 
 
SECTION 3 
 
 THE CONCRETE REALIZATION OF CHRIST’S VICA¬ 
 RIOUS ATONEMENT 
 
 In the two preceding Sections we have shown that 
 the atonement was real and intrinsically as well as ex- 
 trinsically perfect. The question now arises: What 
 were the specific actions by which the Godman made satis¬ 
 faction for our sins ? Or, to express it in simpler terms, 
 How did Christ redeem us? 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 actn primo. But it 
 was an essential feature of the scheme of salvation that 
 in actu secundo, i. e., actually, no satisfaction was accept¬ 
 able but that which had its consummation in the trag¬ 
 edy 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 Glori¬ 
 ous Resurrection (Article 3). 
 
 
 84 
 
CHRIST’S DEATH 
 
 85 
 
 ARTICLE 1 
 
 Christ’s death on the cross 
 
 We are here considering the death of our Di¬ 
 vine 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 1, infra. 
 
 1. Christ’s Death the Efficient Cause of 
 our Redemption.— In view of the central posi¬ 
 tion which the Cross of Christ occupies in the 
 history of the Redemption, the Tridentine Coun¬ 
 cil asserted a truth self-evident to every Christian 
 when it defined: “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 
 
 1 “Huius iustificationis causae Iesus Christus, qui . . . sua sanctis- 
 sunt finalis quidem gloria Dei et sima passione in ligno crucis nobis 
 Christi, . . . efficiens vero miseri- iustificationem meruit et pro nobis 
 cors Deus, . . . meritoria autem di - Deo Patri [scil. per appropria¬ 
 te ctissimus Unigenitus suus D, N. tionctn] satis fecit.” Cone . Trid, f 
 
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 pas¬ 
 sion and death of the future Messias. Most of 
 these occur in the prophecies of Isaias and the 
 Book of Psalms. Isaias, in speaking of the satis¬ 
 faction rendered by the “servant of the Lord,” 3 
 invariably describes it as a dolorous passion fol¬ 
 lowed by death. 4 The 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 pot¬ 
 sherd, 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 ves¬ 
 ture they cast lots.” 5 
 
 3 Is. XLII, 1-9; XLIX, I sqq.; L, 
 4 sqq., LIII, 4 sqq. Cfr. Maas, 
 
 Sess. VI, cap. 7 (Denzinger-Bann- 
 wart, n. 799). 
 
 2 On these and other types of the op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 231 sqq. 
 
 suffering Messias see A. J. Maas, S. 
 J., Christ in Type and Prophecy, 
 Vol. II, pp. 322 - 343 * 
 
 4 See supra, pp. 46 sq. 
 
 5 Ps. XXI, 7 sqq. Cfr. Maas, op, 
 
CHRIST’S DEATH 
 
 87 
 
 b) The New Testament fairly swarms with 
 passages in support of the dogma. Christ Him¬ 
 self says: “Filins hominis non venit ministrari, 
 sed ministrare, et dare animam suam redemp- 
 tionem 6 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 aeter- 
 nam — God so loved the world, as to give his 
 only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in 
 him, may not perish, but may have life everlast¬ 
 ing.” 9 St. Paul attests the same truth in some¬ 
 what different terms. “Qui etiam proprio Filio 
 suo non pepercit,” he says, “sed pro nobis omni¬ 
 bus tradidit 10 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 fit remissio 13 —Without shedding 
 of blood there is no remission.” 14 Therefore, 
 too, subjective salvation, i. e ., the application of 
 
 6 Xi Wpov = ransom. 
 
 7 Matth. XX, 28. 
 
 8 %5wkcV' 
 
 9 John III, 16. 
 
 10 7rapedw/C€v 4 
 
 •ylverai acpeais- 
 14 Heb. IX, 22. 
 
 11 Rom. VIII, 32. 
 
 12 Cfr. Matth. XXVI, 28. 
 
 13 Kal xwpts alfJLareKxvvias o& 
 
88 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 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 ad¬ 
 herents 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, z: “ aspersionem san- is developed by Tepe, Inst. Theol., 
 guinis Iesu Christi.” Cfr. Heb. Vol. Ill, pp. 651 sqq. 
 
 IX, 13 sq. 17 S. Theol., 3a, qu. 46, art. 1-4, 
 
 16 “Consummatum est.” John 11; qu. 47, art. 4; qu. 50, art. x. 
 XIX, 30.—The Patristic argument 18 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, 
 
 pp. 81 sqq. 
 
CHRIST’S DEATH 
 
 89 
 
 b) In regard to those for whom He gave up His life, 
 Christ could not have selected a more congruous manner 
 of dying than that which He actually chose. The path of 
 Christian perfection runs between two poles — hatred 
 of sin and the practice 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 de¬ 
 stroy 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 for¬ 
 feited by sin. There is a striking parallel also between 
 the first sinner’s desire to be like unto God and the self- 
 humiliation of the Godman, between the “ tree of knowl¬ 
 edge ” and the “ wood of the Cross.” The antithesis be¬ 
 tween 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,— concupis¬ 
 cence of the eyes in the distribution of his garments, 
 concupiscence of the flesh in His disrobing and scourg¬ 
 ing, and pride of life in the imposition of the thorny 
 crown and the crucifixion. 
 
 /?) Nothing could produce a more impressive idea of 
 the hideousness of sin than the contemplation of the 
 
 19 Cfr. Rom. V, 7 sqq. 
 
90 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 mangled and blood-stained body of our crucified Re¬ 
 deemer . 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 be¬ 
 cause he hath first loved us, and sent his Son to be a pro¬ 
 pitiation for our sins.” 22 
 
 Our crucified Redeemer is, moreover, a living and at¬ 
 tractive model 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 (ant 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 Re¬ 
 deemer on his lips, the pious Christian calmly commends 
 his soul to the Heavenly Father. In the Cross there is 
 salvation, the Cross is a haven of refuge . 23 
 
 20 On the extensive and intensive 
 magnitude of our Lord’s suffering 
 see Cfr. Pesch, Prael. Dogmat., Vol. 
 IV, pp. 267 sqq.; A. Kluge, Das 
 Seelenleiden des Welterlosers, Mainz 
 1905. 
 
 21 Heb. VI, 6 . 
 
 22 1 John IV, 10. 
 
 23 Cfr. the Roman Catechism, 
 Part I, ch. 5, qu. 4, 14; Billuart, 
 De Myst. Christi, diss. 9, art. 1, and 
 Oswald, Die Erldsung in Christo 
 Jesu, Vol. II, §5, Paderborn 1887. 
 
CHRISTS DESCENT INTO HELD 
 
 91 
 
 ARTICLE 2 
 
 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 re¬ 
 censions and in the symbol “ Quicunque wrongly 
 attributed to St. Athanasius. Hence the descen¬ 
 sus ad inferos is commonly regarded as an article 
 of faith. The Fourth Lateran Council (A. D. 
 1215) 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 de¬ 
 scended into hell dynamically but not substan¬ 
 tially. This opinion was censured as heretical by 
 Suarez. 2 And justly so; for it can be effectively 
 refuted from Sacred Scripture. The same is true 
 of 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, . . . zinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 
 sed descendit in anima et resurrexit 429.) 
 
 in came: ascenditque pariter in 2 De Myst. Vitae Christi, disp. 43, 
 utroque ” Caput ”Firmiter.’ > (Den- sect. 2, n. 7. 
 
 3 Inst., II, 16, 10. 
 
 7 
 
92 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 but it is theologically certain that it was the so- 
 called limbus patrum (sinus Abrahae). 
 
 i. Proof of the Dogma from Sacred Scrip¬ 
 ture and Tradition. —The dogma of Christ's 
 Descent into hell is clearly contained both in 
 Sacred Scripture and Tradition. 
 
 a) Ps. XV, io: “Non derelinques animam 
 meant in inferno / nec dabis Sanctum tuum videre 
 corruptionem — Thou wilt not leave my soul in 
 hell, nor wilt thou give thy holy one to see cor¬ 
 ruption." This text contains a convincing argu¬ 
 ment for our dogma, because St. Peter directly 
 applies it to 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 resur¬ 
 rection of Christ. For neither was he left in hell, 
 neither did his flesh see corruption." 5 The 
 Greek term which the Vulgate renders by in- 
 fernum is It cannot mean grave, as Beza 
 
 contended, because the soul of Christ was not 
 buried; nor can it mean death (which is Calvin’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 ttjv efc adov- 6-12; Maas, Christ in Type and 
 
 5 Acts II, 31. Cfr. Acts XIII, 35. Prophecy, Vol. I, pp. 140 sqq.; Vol. 
 
 6 Cfr. Bellarmine, De Christo, IV, II, pp. 358 sqq., esp. p. 372. 
 
CHRIST’S DESCENT INTO HELL 
 
 93 
 
 This interpretation is confirmed by the teaching of 
 St. Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians: “ Now that 
 he ascended, what is it, but because he also descended 
 first into the lower parts of the earth ? 7 He that de¬ 
 scended is the same also that ascended above all the 
 heavens, that he might fill all things .” 8 Christ’s as¬ 
 cension here can only mean His return to Heaven. Con¬ 
 sequently, the word descend, in contradistinction to as¬ 
 cend, must here be understood in a local sense. This is 
 rendered all the more probable by the fact that the phrase 
 inferiores partes terrae cannot be applied to 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 
 “ preached 10 to those spirits that were in prison,”— 
 hence it must have been substantially present in a partic¬ 
 ular place, i. e. } the limbo. 
 
 b) The Tradition in support of our dogma is 
 as ancient as it is positive. 
 
 St. Irenaeus 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 
 
 7 e/s ra Karurepa pept] rrj s yrjs. Adv. Haereses, V, 31, 1; cfr. also 
 
 8 Eph. IV, 9 sq. Adv. Haereses, IV, 27, 2. 
 
 9 1 Pet. Ill, 18 sqq. 12 “ Nec ante ascendit in sublimi- 
 
 10 eKripv^e 9 praedicavit. ora coelorum, quam descendit in in- 
 
 11 “Nunc autern tribus diebus feriora terrarum, ut illic patriarchas 
 
 conversatus est, ubi erant tnortui” et prophetas compotes sui faceret.” 
 
 De Anima, c. 55; cfr. also c. 4, 7. 
 
94 
 
 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.”— Infer - 
 num ($&?«, Karwrara ? 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 (pur gat or him) ; or (c) the 
 biding place of children who have died unbaptized 
 (limbus infantium ); or (d) the abode of the 
 just men who lived before the coming of Christ 
 (limbus 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. (“ Consummation est /’) Nor can we conceive 
 of any reasonable motive why our Lord should have 
 descended into the gehenna of the damned. The hu¬ 
 man beings confined in that awful dungeon were abso- 
 
 13 “Quis ergo nisi infidelis nega- P. L., XXXIII, 710). 
 verit fuisse apud inferos Christumf” 14 Cfr. Bellarmine, De Christo, 
 
 Ep. 104 ad Evodium, c. 2, 3 (Migne, V, 8. 
 
CHRIST’S DESCENT INTO HELL 
 
 95 
 
 lutely irredeemable, even as the demons themselves . 16 
 Moreover, a personal sojourn in hell would have been re¬ 
 pugnant to the dignity of the Godman. St. Augustine 
 does not hesitate to stigmatize as heretical the proposi¬ 
 tion that “ When Christ descended into hell, the unbe¬ 
 lieving believed and all were set free.” 16 The “ triumph 
 over hell ” which the Church celebrates in her Easter 
 hymns did not require the substantial presence there of 
 our Lord’s 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 tor¬ 
 ture the souls of certain pious heathens, e. g., Socrates 
 and Plato. This theory does not contradict the dogma 
 that the pains of hell are eternal, as Suarez contends; but 
 it must nevertheless be rejected as unfounded; first, be¬ 
 cause without positive proof to the contrary we are not 
 permitted to assume an exception, and secondly, because 
 there is no ground whatever for the assumption that these 
 pious heathens were condemned to hell rather than rele¬ 
 gated to the limbus 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 
 
 15 V. supra, Sect. 2, Art. 2, The- feros credidisse incredulos et omnes 
 sis 4. exinde liberatos.” De Haer., 79. 
 
 16 "Descendente Christo ad in- 17 E. g., Clement of Alexandria 
 
 and Origen. 
 
96 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 evidence. Two weighty arguments speak against it. It 
 is a fundamental law of divine justice that whoever neg¬ 
 lects to render satisfaction in this life must inevitably suf¬ 
 fer in the next (satisp assio), and Sacred Scripture affords 
 no warrant for assuming that an exception was made 
 in this instance, say after the manner of a plenary indul¬ 
 gence in commemoration of the Redemption. On the 
 other hand it is highly improbable that all the inmates 
 of purgatory should have finished the process of purifi¬ 
 cation at exactly the same moment. In view of these 
 considerations St. Thomas holds that the (merely vir¬ 
 tual) presence of our Lord in purgatory resulted in noth¬ 
 ing more than giving to the poor souls temporarily im¬ 
 prisoned there “ the hope 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 puerorum, i. e., 
 the abode of children who die in the state of orig¬ 
 inal sin, into which our Saviour descended? It 
 is difficult to see for what reason He should have 
 gone there. 
 
 He could not benefit the souls of these children, be¬ 
 cause they have once for all arrived at their destination. 
 
 18 5 . Theol., 3a, qu 51, art. 3: 
 "lllis vero, qui detinebantur in pur- 
 gatorio, spem gloriae consequendae 
 dedit.” 
 
 19 “. . . qui iam sufhcienter pur- 
 gati erant, vel etiam qui, dum adhuc 
 
 viverent, meruerunt per fidetn et 
 devotionem ad mortem Christi, ut 
 eo descendente liberarentur a tem- 
 porali purgatorii poena. 1 ’ (Ibid.) 
 Cfr. Billuart, De Myst. Christi, diss. 
 11, art. 3. 
 
I 
 
 CHRIST’S DESCENT INTO HELL 
 
 97 
 
 Nor can He have desired to triumph over them, be¬ 
 cause the fact that they are deprived of the beatific 
 vision is not due to any malice on their part, but simply 
 and solely to original sin contracted by their descent 
 from Adam. As these infants are absolutely irredeem¬ 
 able in virtue of Christ’s voluntas salmfica consequens , 20 
 we cannot even assume the existence of a special priv¬ 
 ilege in their favor. That which is impossible cannot 
 be made the subject-matter of a privilege, not even at so 
 solemn a juncture as the death 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 pa¬ 
 triarchs and just men of the Old Testament, together 
 with those heathens who had died in the state of grace, 
 after having been cleansed from all stain of sin in purga¬ 
 tory, dwelled in the expectation of the beatific vision. 
 That such a place existed we conclude from Heb. IX, 8: 
 “ The way into* the holies [ i . e., Heaven] 23 was not yet 
 
 20 V. supra , Sect. 2, Art. 2, The¬ 
 sis 4. 
 
 21 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., 3a, 
 qu. 52, art. 7: "Pueri autem, qui 
 cum originali peccato decesserant, 
 nullo modo fuerant coniuncti pas- 
 sioni Christi per fidem et dilec- 
 tionem. Neque enim fidem pro- 
 priam habere potuerant, quia non 
 habuerunt usum liberi arbitrii, 
 
 neque per fidem parentum aut per 
 aliquod fidei sacramentum [ scil . bap- 
 tismum ] fuerant a peccato originali 
 mundati. Et ideo descensus Christi 
 ad inferos huiusmodi pueros non li- 
 beravit ab inferno” 
 
 22 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God the 
 Author of Nature and the Super¬ 
 natural, pp. 300 sqq. 
 
 23 Cfr. Heb. X, 19. 
 
98 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 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 de¬ 
 rived from limbus , properly signifies edge or bor¬ 
 der. It owes its use as a technical term in theol¬ 
 ogy to the ancient belief that the abode of the 
 patriarchs 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 sup¬ 
 planted 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 con¬ 
 ception of the universe, can claim no probability, 
 much less certitude. 25 
 
 24 Milton, Paradise Lost, III, 440 
 
 *qq. 
 
 25 On the limbo see P. J. Toner 
 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. 20 From the 
 soteriological point of view the question as to 
 the meaning of Christ’s Descent into hell re¬ 
 solves 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 repro¬ 
 bates. St. Paul applies the text Ps. LXVII, 19: 
 “Ascendens in altum captivam dnxit captivita- 
 tem ” to the inmates of the limbo, — as if he 
 wished to say: Ascending into Heaven Christ 
 leads away with Him those who had been impris¬ 
 oned in the limbo. 27 
 
 We are informed of the object of our Lord’s De¬ 
 scent into the limbo by St. Peter, who says in his 
 
 IX, pp. 256 sqq.; Mamachi, De 26 Cfr. H. Simar, Dogmatik, Vol. 
 Animabus Iustorum 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, 30 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 in¬ 
 terpretation ; 31 but despite a certain obscurity, its gen¬ 
 eral drift is discernable. The Apostle evidently means 
 to say that Christ personally approached 32 the spirits or 
 souls of those who were imprisoned in the limbo and 
 preached 33 to them. 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 fur¬ 
 ther down in his text St. Peter expressly describes 
 Christ’s preaching (Krjpv y/xa) as a “gospel,” which means 
 a message of joy. “ N eKpoU eu^yyeAiV#^,” these are his 
 words —“ the gospel was preached to the dead.” 34 The 
 “ gospel ” which our Lord preached to the inmates of 
 limbo must have been the glad tidings that their im¬ 
 prisonment was at an end. But whom does St. Peter 
 mean when he speaks of “ those spirits . . . which had 
 been some time incredulous, when they waited for the 
 patience of God in the days of Noe”? This is a diffi¬ 
 cult question to answer. But no matter how we may 
 choose to interpret the subsidiary clause, the main sen¬ 
 tence is plain enough. Among the just imprisoned in the 
 limbo there were also (kcu) some who had abused God’s 
 
 28 i Pet. Ill, 18 sqq. 31 Cfr. St. Augustine, Ep. ad 
 
 29 ev w Kal rots ev <pv\aKjj Evod., i64> 
 
 wev/ia^Lv 7 ropevdeis eKrjpv£ev. 32 Tropevdels- 
 
 30 direidtjaaffiv ttotc- 33 eKrjpv^ev, praedicavit. 
 
 34 i Pet. IV, 6. 
 
THE RESURRECTION 
 
 IOI 
 
 patience before the Deluge by remaining incredulous till 
 the flood overtook them. 35 The “ gospel ” or joyful mes¬ 
 sage which Christ brought to the inmates of limbo cannot 
 have consisted in anything more than the preliminary 
 announcement that they were soon to be freed; for their 
 formal admission into the heavenly abode of the Blessed 
 did not take place till the day of His Ascension. 36 Never¬ 
 theless, 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 ad¬ 
 mitted to the beatific vision of God. 37 
 
 ARTICLE 3 
 
 THE RESURRECTION 
 
 i. 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 resurrec¬ 
 tion. 2 
 
 Christologically, the Resurrection signalizes 
 
 35 Cfr. Hundhausen, Das erste 
 Pastoralschreiben des Apostelfiir- 
 sten Petrus, pp. 343 sqq., Mainz 
 1873. 
 
 36 Cfr. Ps. LXVII, 19. 
 
 37 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. 
 i2 1 Cor. XV, 13.—For an apol¬ 
 ogetic treatment of the Resurrec¬ 
 tion we refer the student to De- 
 vivier-Sasia, Christian Apologetics, 
 Vol. I, pp. 197 sqq., San Jose, Cal., 
 1903; G. W. B. Marsh, The Resur¬ 
 rection of Christ, Is it a Fact? 
 London 1905; and other similar 
 treatises. 
 
102 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 Christ's entrance into the state of glory which 
 He had earned for Himself by His passion and 
 death. 3 
 
 Considered from the distinctive viewpoint of 
 Soteriology, the Resurrection of Christ was not, 
 strictly speaking, the chief, nor even a contrib¬ 
 uting cause of our redemption; 4 but it was an 
 essential complement thereof, and constituted its 
 triumphant consummation. 
 
 a) The Catholic Church regards the Resurrection as 
 an integral, though not an essential, element of the atone¬ 
 ment. That is why she mourns on Good Friday and cele¬ 
 brates Easter as the great feast of the Redemption. 
 “ Lastly,” says the Roman Catechism, 5 “. . . the Resur¬ 
 rection 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 in¬ 
 divisible whole. Cfr. Luke XXIV, 46 sq.: “ Thus it is 
 
 written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise 
 
 3 Cfr. Luke XXIV, 26. V. su- the Cross. (Cfr. supra, pp. 85 sqq.) 
 
 pra, pp. 58 sq. s Part I, Ch. 6, Qu. 12. 
 
 4 The sole cause of our redemp- 6 Rom. IV, 25. 
 tion was the Saviour’s death on 
 
THE RESURRECTION 
 
 103 
 
 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. 
 Cfr. Rom. VI, 6 sqq.: “ Knowing this, that our old man 
 
 is crucified with him, that the body of sin may be de¬ 
 stroyed, to the end that we may serve sin no longer. 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 
 life.” 8 
 
 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, 
 in Quatuor Libros Sent., Ill, dist. 
 19, art. 1, qu. i: "Ratio merendi 
 iustificationeni attribuitur soli pas- 
 sioni, non resurrectioni; ratio vero 
 terminandi et quietandi attribuitur 
 resurrectioni, ad quarn ordinatur 
 iustificatio, non passioni.” 
 
 8 Cfr. 2 Cor. V, 15. On the sub¬ 
 ject-matter of this subdivision the 
 student may profitably consult St. 
 Thomas, S. Theol., 3a, qu. 56, art. 
 2 and H. Simar, Die Theologie des 
 hi. Paultts, 2nd ed., pp. 194 sqq., 
 Freiburg 1883. 
 
104 
 
 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 
 
 phrase “on the third day He arose again” was 
 embodied in all the creeds and reiterated in nu¬ 
 merous doctrinal definitions. 
 
 The Catholic Church has always emphasized 
 two distinct points in regard to the Resurrection, 
 viz.: (i) Its reality or truth, and (2) the 
 transfigured and glorified state of the risen Re¬ 
 deemer. To safeguard these two aspects of the 
 dogma she strenuously insisted on the real re¬ 
 union of Christ's soul with His body, 9 and form¬ 
 ally rejected the Origenist teaching of the ethereal 
 nature and sphericity of the risen body as well 
 as the heresy of its alleged corruptibility. Thus 
 the Council of Constantinople (A. D. 543) says: 
 “If any one assert that the body of our Lord 
 after the Resurrection was ethereal and spherical 
 in shape, ... let him be anathema.” 10 And 
 the symbol of Pope Leo 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 demon¬ 
 strated from Divine Revelation. 
 
 a) Christ had positively predicted that He 
 would arise on the third day (cfr. Matth. XII, 40; 
 
 9 Cfr. Cone. Lateran. IV, Caput reum et figurd sphaeried, anathema 
 
 "Firmiter“ (supra, p. 91). sit.” Denzinger’s Enchiridion, 9th 
 
 10 “Si quis dixerit Domini corpus ed., n. 196. 
 
 post resurrectionem fuisse aethe- 11 Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 344. 
 
THE RESURRECTION 
 
 105 
 
 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 uncompro¬ 
 misingly stood up for their faith in the Resur¬ 
 rection 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.” 13 
 Though not an eye-witness, St. Paul was a bold 
 and enthusiastic herald of the Resurrection: “If 
 Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching 
 vain, and your faith is also vain.” 14 
 
 That Christ rose in a glorified body is evi¬ 
 denced by the circumstances surrounding 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 Svva/jLei fieydXr], virtute magna. 15 Matth. XXVIII, i sqq.; Luke 
 
 IS 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 i 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 ex¬ 
 hibiting 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 Res¬ 
 urrection is the prototype of a general “resurrec¬ 
 tion of the flesh,” and (2) that Christ arose by 
 His own power. 
 
 Both these truths are clearly taught in the famous 
 Creed drawn up by the Eleventh Council of Toledo 
 (A. D. 675) : “ And on the third day, raised up by His 
 
 17 Cfr. John XX, 27; Apoc. V, 6. 
 
 18 5 . Theol., 3a, qu. 54, art. 4: 
 "Conveniens fuit animam Christi in 
 resurrectione corpus cum cicatrici- 
 bus resumere: primo quidem propter 
 gloriam ipsius Christi . . .; secundo 
 ad confirmandum corda discipulorum 
 circa fidem suae resurrectionis; ter- 
 tio ut Patri pro nobis supplicans, 
 quale genus mortis pro homine per- 
 
 tulerit, semper ostendat; quarto ut 
 sua morte rcdemptis, quam miseri- 
 corditer sint adiuti, propositis eius- 
 dem mortis indiciis insinuet; po- 
 stremo ut in iudicio [ultimo'], quam 
 iuste damnentur, ibidem denuntiet.” 
 
 19 On the whole subject cfr. Billu- 
 art, De Myst. Christi, diss. 12, art. 
 4 and 6; G. B. Tepe, Inst. Theol., 
 Vol. I, pp. 97 sqq., Paris 1894. 
 
THE RESURRECTION 
 
 107 
 
 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” ( virtute propria) points to an ac¬ 
 tive rising (resurgere) , which is more than a miraculous 
 awakening (resuscitari ). 
 
 The dogma is clearly contained in Sacred Scripture. 
 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 consubstan- 
 tiality 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.” 23 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 Resur¬ 
 rection 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 pro - 21 iyep<jo f excitabo. 
 
 pria sua suscitatus a sepulcro resur- 22 ei-ovciav traXiv Xafieiv 
 
 rexit; hoc ergo exemplo capitis no- avTrjv . 
 
 stri confitemur verarn fieri resurrec- 23 b vlos oils deXei £looiroiei • 
 
 tionem carnis omnium mortuorum” 24 Acts II, 24 sqq.; III, 13 sqq.; 
 
 Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 286. Rom. VIII, 11; Gal. I, 1. 
 
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, Insti- 
 tutiones Theologicae, Vol. Ill, pp. 617 sqq., Paris 1896.— Chr. 
 Pesch, S. J., Praelectiones Dogmaticae, Vol. IV, 3d ed., pp. 201 sqq., 
 Freiburg 1909.— L. Janssens, De Deo-Homine, II, Freiburg 1912. 
 — Hunter, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, pp. 506 sqq., 
 London s. a .— Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of Catholic The¬ 
 ology, Vol. II, pp. 181-195, 2nd ed., London 1901.— A. Ritter, 
 Christus der Erldser, Linz 1903.—* B. Dorholt, Lehre von der 
 Genugtuung Christi, Paderborn 1896.— Muth, Heilstat Christi als 
 st ellv e r tret end cn Genugtuung, Ratisbon 1904.— K. Staab, Die 
 Lehre von der stellvertretenden Genugtuung, Paderborn 1908.— 
 Pell, Lehre des hi. Athanasius von der Siinde und Erldsung, Pas- 
 sau 1888.—Strater, Erlosungslehre des hi. Athanasius, Freiburg 
 1894.— Weigl, Heilslehre des hi. Cyrill von Alexandrien, Mainz 
 1905.—J. Riviere, Le Dogme de la Redemption, Paris 1905 (Eng¬ 
 lish translation, The Doctrine of the Atonement, 2 vols., London 
 1909). (A criticism of this work in Chr. Pesch, S. J., Das Siihne- 
 Iciden unseres gottlichen Erldscrs, Freiburg i. B. 1916—E. 
 Krebs, Der Logos als Heiland im ersten Jahrhundert, Frei¬ 
 burg 1910.— E. Hugon, O. P., Le Mystcre de la Redemption (a spec¬ 
 ulative 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 Devel¬ 
 opment in the Church, London 1865. (This work, which has been 
 lately translated into French, must be read with caution. Cfr. La 
 Civilta Cattolica, Quad. 1431, Feb. 5, 1910).— J. Kleutgen, S. J., 
 Theologie der Forfeit, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 336 sqq., Munster 1870 
 (against Gunther).— Friedlieb, Leben Jesu Christi des Erlosers 
 mit neuen historischen und chronologischen Untersuchungen, 
 
 25 Cat. Rom., P. I, c. 6, qu. 8: set, qua et licuit sud virtute revivis- 
 
 “ Divina vis turn in corpore inerat, cere atque a mortuis resurgere .”— 
 qua animae iterum coniungit, turn Cfr. Chr. Pesch, Praelect. Dogmat., 
 in animo, qua ad corpus reverti pos • Vol. IV, pp. 280 sqq. 
 
THE RESURRECTION 
 
 109 
 
 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, Geschichte des Lei- 
 dens 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 in¬ 
 variably 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. 
 
PART II 
 
 THE THREE OFFICES OF THE 
 
 REDEEMER 
 
 The Redemption, considered as an objective 
 fact, must be subjectively appropriated by each 
 individual human being. Hence three functions 
 or offices on the part of our Divine Redeemer, (i) 
 that of High Priest, (2) that of Prophet or 
 Teacher, and (3) that of King. 
 
 no 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 Christ’s priesthood; 
 
 SECTION i 
 
 Christ’s death a true sacrifice 
 
 The present Chapter is chiefly concerned with 
 demonstrating, (i) that the death of Christ was 
 a true sacrifice, and (2) that He Himself was a 
 true priest. It is these facts which give to the 
 Redemption its sacerdotal and hieratic stamp and 
 furnish us with the key to the philosophy of the 
 atonement. 
 
 1. Definition of the Term "Bloody Sac¬ 
 rifice.” —A sacrifice is "the external offering up 
 of a visible gift, which is destroyed, or at least 
 submitted to an appropriate transformation, by a 
 lawful minister in recognition of the sovereignty 
 of God and in order to appease His anger.” 
 
 a) This definition, which will be more fully explained 
 in the dogmatic treatise on the Holy Eucharist, embraces 
 four essential elements: 
 
 (a) A visible gift and its physical or moral destruc¬ 
 tion or transformation, such as the slaughtering of an 
 
 hi 
 
112 
 
 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER 
 
 animal, the burning of cereals, the pouring out of a 
 fluid, etc. 
 
 (/ 3 ) A lawful minister or priest who offers the gift to 
 God. 
 
 (y) An exterior act of worship, consisting in the phys¬ 
 ical presentation of the gift. 
 
 (8) A final end or object, which is the acknowledgment 
 of God’s supreme dominion and the appeasement of His 
 anger. 
 
 Applying the Scholastic distinction between materia 
 and forma, we find that the materia remota of a sacrifice 
 is the visible gift itself, its materia proximo, the act of de¬ 
 struction or transformation, and its forma , the sacrificial 
 act (actio sacrifica), which combines and unifies both 
 the external offering of the visible gift and the intrinsic 
 purpose for which it is offered. This intrinsic purpose 
 or object is the main factor, because it informs and de¬ 
 termines the external act, just as the human soul informs 
 and determines the body. Without a genuine intention 
 on the part of the sacrificing priest there is no sacrifice. 1 
 
 b) The twofold purpose of every sacrifice is the ac¬ 
 knowledgment of God’s supreme dominion and the ap¬ 
 peasement of His anger. 
 
 The first of these objects is attained by adoration, the 
 second by expiation. 
 
 Adoration is the formal element of every sacrifice, i. e., 
 that which essentially constitutes it a sacrifice in the 
 strict sense of the term. Expiation does not enter into 
 the essence of sacrifice, but is a merely secondary 
 factor, because conditioned by the accidental fact of sin. 
 Since both thanksgiving and supplication, when addressed 
 to the Almighty, invariably and necessarily partake of the 
 
 l Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 85, art 2. 
 
SACRIFICE 
 
 113 
 
 nature of absolute worship, sacrifices offered up for these 
 two purposes have no relation to sin. The case is differ¬ 
 ent with expiatory sacrifices. While sin has neither abol¬ 
 ished nor debased, but rather reinforced, the main pur¬ 
 pose of adoration, namely thanksgiving and supplication, 
 it has added a new object which, though in itself second¬ 
 ary, has become inseparable from the notion of sacrifice 
 in consequence of the Fall. 
 
 These considerations explain the usual division into 
 sacrifices of adoration ( sacrificia latreutica) , sacrifices of 
 thanksgiving (sacrificia eucharistica) , sacrifices of sup¬ 
 plication or petition ( sacrificia impetratoria) , and sacri¬ 
 fices of expiation or propitiation ( sacrificia propitiatoria ). 
 As these four objects can never be entirely separated, 
 the various kinds of sacrifice owe their specific appella¬ 
 tions solely to the special emphasis laid on the principal 
 purpose for which each is offered. 
 
 c) A most important element in the concept of sac¬ 
 rifice is the symbolic substitution of some other creature 
 for man. “ The gift takes the place of the giver. By 
 sacrificing an object over which he has control, and 
 offering it up entirely to God, man acknowledges God’s 
 overlordship over his person and life, and it is the latter 
 which is symbolically offered up and destroyed.” 2 
 This symbolism is based on the very nature of sac¬ 
 rifice. The acknowledgment of God as the sovereign 
 Lord of the universe has its human correlative in 
 man’s humble subjection and surrender of himself to 
 his Maker. The most precious gift which man has re¬ 
 ceived from God is life. Since he cannot surrender this 
 
 0 
 
 — God demands no human sacrifices — He offers it up 
 symbolically by destroying or transforming and present- 
 
 2 Jos. Dahlmann, S. J., Der Idea- sophie im Zeitalter der Opfermystik, 
 lismus der indischen Religionsphilo- p. 22, Freiburg 1901. 
 
OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER 
 
 114 
 
 ing in his own stead some living or inanimate creature. 
 This vicarious act assumes its deepest significance in the 
 sacrifice of propitiation, by which, in addition to manifest¬ 
 ing the sentiments already mentioned, man confesses his 
 guilt and admits that he has deserved death in punishment 
 for his sins. It is in this sense that St. Thomas explains 
 the Old Testament holocausts. “ The slaughtering of ani¬ 
 mals,” he says, “ signifies the destruction of sins and that 
 men are deserving of death for their sins, as if those ani¬ 
 mals were killed in their stead to denote the expiation 
 of their sins.” 3 The ethical significance of sacrifice is 
 based on this same consideration. The highest act of 
 divine worship, coupled as it ever should be with sin¬ 
 cere contrition and an ardent desire to be reconciled to 
 God, cannot but elevate, cleanse, and sanctify the human 
 heart, especially in view of the fact that God’s will to 
 save all men and the legitimate institution of the sacri¬ 
 ficial rite confirm human expectation and constitute a rich 
 source of consolation. 
 
 d) The Sacrifice of the Cross is not only a true 
 sacrifice, but in contradistinction to the sacri - 
 Hcium incruentum (Hebrew, ) specifically a 
 bloody sacrifice. What constitutes the differ¬ 
 ence between the two? It cannot be the per¬ 
 son of the lawful minister, nor yet the final 
 object of all sacrifice (except in so far as propi¬ 
 tiation must plainly be the prevailing motive of 
 every bloody sacrifice). Hence we shall have to 
 
 3 S. Theol., ia 2ae, qu. 102, art. animalia loco eorum occiderentur ad 
 3, ad 5: “Per occisionem anima- significandam expiationem peccato- 
 lium significatur destructio pecca- rum ” Cfr. N. Giehr, The Holy 
 torum et quod homines erant digni Sacrifice of the Mass, pp. 35 sqq., 
 occisione pro peccatis suis, ac si ilia 3rd ed., St. Louis 1908. 
 
A BLOODY SACRIFICE 
 
 ii5 
 
 seek for the specific difference in the materia and 
 
 The materia remota of a bloody sacrifice, as its very 
 name suggests, must be a living creature endowed with 
 blood ( victima, hostia). Its materia proxima is the 
 slaying of the victim, accompanied by an effusion of 
 the life-giving fluid ( mactatio cum sanguinis effusione). 
 In regard to the physical forma there is room for a differ¬ 
 ence of opinion, as we do not know for certain whether 
 the sacrificial act ( actio sacrifica), strictly so called, is 
 the slaying of the victim or its oblation. The latter 
 opinion is the more probable, though not certain. First, 
 because the act of slaying, as such, with its con¬ 
 sequent shedding of blood, does not necessarily indicate 
 the purpose of the sacrifice, and consequently requires a 
 more specific determinant, i. e., the act of oblation. 
 Secondly, because in the Mosaic sacrifice the victim was 
 slain by laymen and temple servants, while the oblation 
 of the blood was a function reserved to the lawfully 
 appointed priesthood . 4 Third, because it is impossible 
 to assume that Christ’s bloody sacrifice on the Cross con¬ 
 sisted in the material acts of cruelty committed by His 
 barbarous executioners. 
 
 Hence a bloody sacrifice must be defined as “ the visible 
 oblation of a living creature, the slaying of which is 
 accompanied by the shedding of blood, by a lawful min¬ 
 ister, in acknowledgment of the supreme sovereignty of 
 God, and especially to propitiate His anger.” 5 
 
 2. The Dogma. —The Church has formally 
 defined, against the Socinians and the Rationalists, 
 
 4 Cfr. P. Scholz, Die hi. Alter- 5 Cfr. Becanus, De Triplici Sacri- 
 tiimer des Volkes Israel, II, 134 ficio, Naturae, Legis, Gratiae, Opusc, 
 eqq., Ratiebon 1868. II, Lugduni 1631, 
 
n6 
 
 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER 
 
 that Christ’s vicarious atonement was a bloody 
 sacrifice, made for the purpose of reconciling 
 the human race to God (sacriilcium propitiato - 
 rium .) 
 
 The Council of Ephesus (A. D. 431) declared against 
 Nestorius: “For He offered Himself up for us as an 
 odor of sweetness to God the Father. Hence if any one 
 say that the Divine Logos Himself was not made our 
 High Priest 6 and Apostle ... let him be anathema.” 7 
 The Council of Trent, in defining the Holy Sacrifice 
 of the Mass, bases its definition on the dogma that 
 Christ’s bloody death on the Cross was a true sacrifice: 
 “ Though He was about to offer Himself once on the 
 altar of the Cross unto God the Father . . . that He 
 might leave a visible sacrifice . . . whereby that bloody 
 sacrifice, once to be accomplished on the Cross, might be 
 represented, . . . He offered up to God the Father His 
 own body and blood under the species of bread and 
 wine ... [In the Mass] that same Christ is contained 
 and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered 
 Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the Cross. 
 . . . For the victim is one and the same, the same now 
 offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered 
 Himself on the Cross, the manner alone of offering be¬ 
 ing different.” 8 
 
 6 apx^pea- 
 
 7 “Obtulit enim semetipsum pro 
 nobis in odorem suavitatis Deo et 
 Patri. Si quis ergo Pontificem et 
 Apostolum nostrum dicit factum 
 non ipsum Dei Verbum . . ., ana¬ 
 thema sit” Synod. Ephes., can. io. 
 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 122.) 
 
 8 “Etsi semel seipsum in ara cru- 
 cis morte intercedente Deo Patri 
 cblaturus erat, . . . ui relinqueret 
 
 sacrificium, quo cruentum illud 
 semel in cruce peragendum reprae- 
 sentaretur, . . . corpus et san- 
 guinem suum sub speciebus panis 
 et vini Deo Patri obtulit. . . . [In 
 Missa ] idem ille Christus . . . in- 
 cruente immolatur, qui in ara crucis 
 semel seipsum cruente obtulit . . . 
 Una eademque est hostia, idem nunc 
 offerens sacerdotum ministerio, qui 
 seipsum tunc in cruce obtulit, sola 
 
A BLOODY SACRIFICE 
 
 n 7 
 
 a) The Scriptural proof of our dogma is based 
 partly on the Old and partly on the New Testa¬ 
 ment. 
 
 a ) The argument from the Old Testament 
 may be stated in the terms of a syllogism, thus: 
 The sacrifices of the Old Law, which were almost 
 exclusively bloody oblations, culminated in the 
 idea that the Israelite, conscious of having de¬ 
 served death for his sins, substituted brute ani¬ 
 mals in his own stead and offered them to God as 
 a means of propitiation. Now all the sacrifices of 
 the Old Law were merely types of Christ’s death 
 on the Cross. Therefore Christ’s death must be 
 as truly a vicarious sacrifice of blood and propitia¬ 
 tion as were the sacrifices of the Old Testament. 
 
 Proof of the Major Premise. There is no need of dem¬ 
 onstrating the proposition that the Old Testament sacri¬ 
 fices were true sacrifices, as this is denied by no one. That 
 the Jews practiced symbolic substitution is obvious from 
 the sacrificial rites which they employed. Aside from cer¬ 
 tain unbloody oblations of altogether minor importance 
 they offered three different kinds of sacrifices: burnt offer¬ 
 ings, peace offerings, and offerings for sin. All three 
 required the imposition of hands on the head of the 
 victim to symbolize that the sins of the people were 
 heaped upon it. Thus, when the multitude had trans¬ 
 gressed a divine command through ignorance, they 
 had to bring a sin-offering to the door of the taber- 
 
 offerendi ratione diversa.” (Cone. 940; cfr. also can. 3-4, ibid. n. 950, 
 Trid., Sess. XXII, cap. 1 and 2 95 id 
 
 Denzinger Bannwart, No. 938 and 
 
ii8 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER 
 
 nacle in the shape of a calf. Lev. IV, 13-20: “And 
 the ancients of the people shall put their hands upon 
 the head thereof before the Lord; and the calf being 
 immolated in the sight of the Lord, the priest that is 
 anointed shall carry off the blood into the tabernacle of 
 the testimony. . . . And the priest praying for them, 
 the Lord will be merciful unto them.” On the Feast 
 of Expiation two buck goats were led up to the door 
 of the tabernacle, and one of them was slain as a 
 sin offering. With regard to the other the Mosaic 
 law ordained as follows: “Then let him [the high 
 priest] offer the living goat: and putting both hands 
 upon his head, let him confess all the iniquities of the 
 children of Israel, and all their offences and sins: and 
 praying that they may light on his head, he shall turn 
 him out by a man ready for it, into the desert. And 
 when the goat hath carried all their iniquities into an 
 uninhabited land, and shall be let go into the desert, 
 Aaron shall return into the tabernacle of the testimony.” 9 
 What was thus symbolized in the sacrificial rite is ex¬ 
 plicitly set forth in the prohibition of blood, Lev. XVII, 
 11: “. . . the life of the flesh is in the blood: and 
 
 I have given it to you, that you may make atonement 
 with it upon the altar for your souls, and the blood may 
 be for an expiation of the soul.” The text we have 
 previously quoted from Isaias (Is. LIII, 4 sqq.), derives 
 its deeper significance from the sacrificial rite described 
 by the same prophet (Is. LII, 15; LIII, 7, 10). 10 
 
 Proof of the Minor Premise. The minor premise of 
 our syllogism can be demonstrated from St. Paul’s Epis¬ 
 tle to the Hebrews, particularly Chapters 8 to 10. As 
 the Old Law had but “ a shadow of the good things to 
 
 9 Lev. XVI, 9; XVI, 20 Sqq. bauer, Erklarung des Propheten 
 
 Id Supra, p. 46. Cfr. Knaben- Isaias, Freiburg 1881, 
 
A BLOODY SACRIFICE 
 
 119 
 
 come/’ 11 so in particular its sacrifices merely prefigured 
 the one great sin-offering on the Cross. Being “ weak 
 and needy elements,” it was impossible that “ the blood 
 of oxen and goats ” should “ take away sin.” 12 The 
 student will be able to appreciate the full force of this 
 argument only after a careful perusal of the whole Epis¬ 
 tle. If the Mosaic sacrifices were real and vicarious, 
 this must be true in a far higher sense of the sacrifice 
 of the Cross, which they foreshadowed. 13 
 
 P) The argument from the New Testament is 
 based on the Epistle to the Hebrews, with its 
 explicit assertion that the typical sacrifices of the 
 Old Law found their consummation and perfec¬ 
 tion in the one true sacrifice of the Cross. In a 
 variety of phrases St. Paul reiterates the funda¬ 
 mental truth that, as priest and victim in one per¬ 
 son, Jesus Christ by a single bloody offering 
 atoned for the sins of men and once for all con¬ 
 summated their eternal salvation. 
 
 To quote only a few salient passages: “ For if the 
 
 blood of goats and of oxen, and the ashes of an heifer 
 being sprinkled, sanctify such as are defiled, to the 
 cleansing of the flesh: how much more shall the blood 
 of Christ, who by the Holy Ghost offered himself un¬ 
 spotted unto God, 14 cleanse our conscience from dead 
 works to serve the living God ? ” 15 “ So also Christ 
 
 was offered once to exhaust the sins of many.” 18 “ In 
 
 11 Heb. X, 1. 14 eavrbv irpoar/veyKev ci/xufxtv 
 
 12 Heb. X, 4. Cfr. Gal. IV, 9. tw 0 ew. 
 
 13 Cfr. Franzelin, De Verbo In- 15 Heb. IX, 13-14. 
 
 carnato, thes. 49, Rome 1881; Hugo 18 dira^ irpoaevexOels els rb 7 roX- 
 Weiss, Die messianischen Vorbilder \c 5 v avevey Kelv a/xaprlas • Heb. 
 im Alten Testament, Freiburg 1905. IX, 28. 
 
120 
 
 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER 
 
 the which will we are sanctified by the oblation of the 
 body of Jesus Christ alone.” 17 “ But this man [Christ] 
 
 offering one sacrifice for sins, 18 for ever sitteth on the 
 right hand of God.” 19 “ For by one oblation 20 he hath 
 
 perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” 21 
 
 The sacrificial character of the death of our 
 Divine Lord is expressly inculcated in many other 
 passages of the New Testament. 
 
 Cfr. Matth. XX, 28: “ Filius hominis non venit 
 ministrari, sed ministrare et dare animam suam redemp- 
 tionem pro multis 22 — The Son of man is not come to be 
 ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a 
 redemption for many.” Christ here emphasizes three 
 momenta, viz.: sacrifice, atonement, and the vicarious 
 character of that atonement. “ To give one’s life ” 23 is a 
 distinctly hieratic and sacrificial term; “ for many ” 24 
 denotes vicarious satisfaction, and “ redemption ” 25 in¬ 
 dicates expiation. It follows from this important text 
 that the expression “ for many ” or “ for all,” 26 which 
 occurs so frequently in the New Testament, when used 
 in connection with sacrifice means, not only “ for the 
 benefit of many,” but also “ instead of many.” Cfr. 
 Eph. V, 2: “ Tradidit semetipsum pro nobis oblationem 
 et hostiam Deo 27 in odorem suavitatis — Christ . . . 
 hath delivered himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice 
 to God for an odor of sweetness.” 28 1 Tim. II, 6: 
 
 17 Heb. X, xo. 
 
 18 (uhv inrep afiapniov irpoaev^y- 
 Kas Ovolav. 
 
 19 Heb. X, 1 2. 
 
 20 pua yhp 7 rpoaepop^. 
 
 21 Heb. X, 14. 
 
 22 Kal dovvai rfjv pvxTjv avrov 
 \irpov avTi tt oWaiv. 
 
 23 Sovvai ri/p ^pvx'hv. 
 
 24 avrl ttoWup, not merely xnrhp 
 iro\\u>p. 
 
 25 \vrpov (strictly, ransom). 
 
 26 virep ttoWcov, pro multis. 
 
 27 irapedwKev eavrbv inrbp ij/xuv 
 irpo<T<popav Kal dvalav. 
 
 28 7 rpo<T(f)opd here means sacrifice 
 in general, dvala> bloody sacrifice. 
 
A BLOODY SACRIFICE 
 
 121 
 
 “ Qui dedit redemptionem semetipsum pro omnibus , 29 
 testimonium temporibus suis — Who gave himself a re¬ 
 demption for all, a testimony in due times.” Referring 
 to the Old Testament sacrifice of the Paschal lamb, St. 
 Paul says in his first Epistle to the Corinthians (V, 7) : 
 “ Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus — For Christ 
 our pasch is sacrificed.” The expiatory character of 
 our Lord’s death is expressly asserted in Rom. Ill, 25: 
 “ Quern proposuit Deus propitiationem 30 per fidem in 
 sanguine ipsius — Whom God hath proposed to be a 
 propitiation, through faith in his blood,” and likewise in 
 the first Epistle of St. John (II, 2) : “ Ipse est propi- 
 
 tiatio 81 pro peccatis nostris, non pro nostris autem 
 tantum, sed etiam pro totius mundi — He is the propitia¬ 
 tion for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for 
 those of the whole world.” 32 
 
 b) Christian Tradition has from the first faith¬ 
 fully adhered to the obvious teaching of Holy 
 Scripture in this matter. 
 
 The so-called Epistle of Barnabas, which was prob¬ 
 ably composed at the time of the Emperor Nerva (A. D. 
 96-98) , 38 contains the following passage: “ For our 
 
 sins he was going to offer the vessel of the spirit [i. e. f 
 His sacred humanity] as a sacrifice, 34 in order that the 
 type established in Isaac, who was sacrificed upon the 
 altar, might be fulfilled.” 35 Tertullian expresses himself 
 in a similar strain: “ Christ, who was led like a sheep to 
 
 29 f, 5 ovs eavrop apriXvTpov vtt ep 
 TrapTWP- ’A prCKvrpov here means 
 a ransom given vicariously, by a 
 representative. 
 
 30 IXaarripLOP = a sacrifice of pro¬ 
 pitiation. 
 
 3 1 IXaafxos- 
 
 32 Cfr. 2 Cor. V, 21. 
 
 33 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pa- 
 trology, p. 24. 
 
 34 Z/xeXXe . . . irpocrcpepeiv dvalap• 
 
 35 Ep. Barn., c. 7, n. 3. (Ed. 
 Funk, I, 23.) 
 
122 
 
 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER 
 
 the slaughtering pen, had to be made a sacrifice for all 
 nations." 36 
 
 3. Theological Problems. —Christ vicari¬ 
 ously made atonement for us by immolating Him¬ 
 self; consequently, He is priest, acceptant, and 
 victim all in one. This gives rise to a number of 
 subtle theological problems, which in the main 
 may be reduced to three 1 (a) Was it in His 
 
 Godhead or manhood that Christ combined the 
 double function of victim and priest? (b) In 
 what sense did He simultaneously offer and 
 accept the sacrifice of the Cross? (c) Wherein 
 precisely did the actio sacrifica of His bloody 
 sacrifice consist? 
 
 a) The first question must be decided on 
 Christological principles as follows. The victim 
 (victima, hostia) of the sacrifice of the Cross was 
 the Godman, or, more specifically, the Divine 
 Logos in person, though not, of course, through 
 the functions of His Divine, but those of His 
 human nature. 
 
 To assert that the human nature of our Lord alone 
 was sacrificed on the Cross would be equivalent to Nes- 
 torianism. To hold that it was the Godhead as such 
 that was crucified and sacrificed, would savor of Theo- 
 paschitic Monophysitism. Both heretical extremes are 
 avoided by saying that the Divine Logos was indeed 
 
 S6 Adv. Iud., c. 13. For other Genugtuung Christi, § 7-10, Pader- 
 Patristic texts bearing on this sub- born 1891. 
 ject see Dorholt, Die Lehre von der 
 
THEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS 
 
 123 
 
 sacrificed (principium quod), but only according to His 
 passible manhood (principium quo). This proposition 
 is an immediate deduction from the dogma of the 
 Hypostatic Union. 
 
 A similar answer may be given to the cognate question: 
 In what way did Christ officiate as a priest? In other 
 words, Did He offer the sacrifice of the Cross ( i . e., Him¬ 
 self) to God in His human or in His Divine Nature? 
 The correct answer depends on a true conception of 
 the nature of the Hypostatic Union. Nestorius believed 
 that Jesus Christ and the Logos-Son were two separate 
 and distinct persons, and hence he was entirely consistent 
 in teaching that the man Jesus alone was a high priest, to 
 the exclusion of the Divine Logos. 37 The same con¬ 
 clusion was forced upon the Socinians, who denied the 
 Trinity and consequently also the Divinity of Jesus 
 Christ. Though the Monophysites held a diametrically 
 opposite opinion, they too were perfectly consistent in 
 regarding the Divine Nature of Christ as the instrument 
 of mediation, redemption, and the priesthood; for they 
 imagined Christ’s humanity to have been absorbed and 
 destroyed by His Divinity. We cannot, however, regard 
 without surprise the illogical attitude of certain older 
 Protestant divines, who, despite their orthodox teaching 
 on the Hypostatic Union, either showed Nestorian lean¬ 
 ings, as e . g. Francis Stancarus (d. 1574), or, like cer¬ 
 tain Calvinists and Zwinglians in Switzerland, adopted 
 the Monophysitic view that Christ was our Mediator and 
 High Priest qua Logos and not qua man. 38 The truth 
 lies between these extremes. The Godman was a true 
 priest, not, however, in His divine, but solely in His 
 human nature. 39 
 
 37 Cfr. Concilium Ephes., can. io. V. supra, p. 116. 
 
 38 For details consult Bellarmine, De Christo, V, 2-3. 
 
 39 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., 3a, qu. 22, art. 2. 
 
 . <9 
 
124 
 
 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER 
 
 b) The second question is: How are we to 
 conceive the relation of Christ in His capacity as 
 sacrificing priest, to Christ as the Divine Logos, ; 
 to whom the sacrifice of the Cross was offered? 
 To solve this problem correctly we shall have to 
 bear in mind the truths set forth in the first part 
 of this treatise with regard to the mediatorship 
 of our Lord . 40 
 
 It will not do to represent the first Person of the 
 Blessed Trinity as the sole acceptor of the sacrifice of 
 the Cross, and Christ merely as the sacrificing priest, 
 though this opinion has found some defenders among 
 Catholic divines. It was the Trinity, or God qua God, 
 who had been offended by sin; consequently the sacrifice 
 of the Cross had to be offered up as a propitiation to 
 the entire Trinity. Hence Christ not only offered up 
 the sacrifice of the Cross, but He also accepted it, though 
 of course only in His capacity as God, conjointly with the 
 Father and the Holy Ghost. The Patristic phrase, 
 adopted by the Council of Trent, that Christ “ offered 
 Himself unto God the Father,” must therefore be ex¬ 
 plained as an appropriation. 41 
 
 From what we have said it appears that Christ exer¬ 
 cised in a most wonderful manner three distinct func¬ 
 tions, viz.: that of sacrificial victim, that of the sacrificing 
 priest, and that of the accepting God. As God He ac¬ 
 cepts His own sacrifice; as Godrnan (or Logos) He is 
 both victim ( victima ) and sacrificing priest (sacerdos ), 
 though only according to His human nature. St. Augustine 
 
 40 Supra, pp. 5 sqq. Preuss, The Divine Trinity, pp. 244 
 
 41 V. supra, pp. 67 sq. On the sqq. 
 
 Divine Appropriations see Pohle- 
 
THEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS 
 
 125 
 
 beautifully explains this in his famous work De Civitate 
 Dei. “ And hence that true Mediator, in so far as, by as¬ 
 suming the form of a servant, He became the Mediator 
 between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, though in 
 the form of God He received [accepted] sacrifice to¬ 
 gether with the Father, with whom He is one God, yet 
 in the form of a servant He chose rather to be than 
 to receive a sacrifice, that not even by this instance any 
 one might have occasion to suppose that sacrifice should 
 be rendered to any creature. Thus He is both the 
 Priest who offers and the Sacrifice offered. ,, 42 
 
 c) As regards the sacrificial act itself, it did 
 not formally consist in the killing of the victim. 
 
 To hold that it did, would involve the blasphemous 
 conclusion that the sacrificing priests on Calvary were 
 the brutal soldiers who tortured our Lord and nailed 
 Him to the Cross. No, the real priest was Jesus Christ 
 Himself; His executioners were merely unconscious in¬ 
 struments in the hands of Providence. 
 
 If Christ was the sacrificing priest, it follows that 
 He alone performed the sacrificial act. 
 
 This sacrificial act did not consist in self-immolation. 
 That would have been sheer suicide. It consisted in the 
 voluntary oblation of His Blood, which He allowed to 
 be shed (extrinsic factor) and which He offered to Al¬ 
 mighty God with a true sacrificial intent (intrinsic factor). 
 It was this voluntary oblation of His life and blood 
 
 42 De Civ . Dei, X, 2 0. “Verus 
 tile mediator, inquantum formam 
 servi accipiens mediator effectus est 
 Dei et hominum, homo Christus 
 lesus, quum in forma Dei sacrificium 
 cum Patre sumat [ acceptet ], cum 
 quo et unus Deus est, tamen in 
 
 forma servi sacrificium maluit esse 
 quam sumere, ne vel hac occasione 
 quisquam existimaret cuilibet sacri - 
 ficandum esse creaturae. Per hoc et 
 sacerdos est, ipse offerens, ipse et 
 oblatio.” (Cfr. De Trinit., IV, 14, 
 19). 
 
.126 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER 
 
 (oblatio vitae et sanguinis) which constituted the formal 
 element, and consequently the essence of the sacrifice of 
 the Cross. 43 
 
 This also explains why martyrdom is not a true sac¬ 
 rifice. It has not been instituted as such by God, and, 
 furthermore, no martyr can dispose of his life and blood 
 with the sovereign liberty enjoyed by our Lord, who had 
 absolute control over all the circumstances surrounding 
 His death and gave up His soul when and how He 
 pleased. 44 
 
 43 Cfr. John X, 18. 
 
 44 Cfr. Franzelin, De Verbo In- 
 carnato, thes. 50; Belser, Das Evan- 
 
 gelium des hi. Johannes, pp. 511 
 sqq., Freiburg 1905. 
 
SECTION 2 
 
 CHRIST A TRUE PRIEST 
 
 “ Priest ” and “ Sacrifice ” being correlative terms, 
 the priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ is a logical and 
 necessary corollary of His sacrifice on the Cross. Sa¬ 
 cred Scripture expressly confirms this deduction. 
 
 The concept of “ priesthood ” embraces two essential 
 elements, viz,: (i) unction or ordination, and (2) the 
 offering of sacrifice. To these may be added, as an 
 integral part, sacerdotal prayer. In the case of Christ, 
 moreover, the Bible lays special stress (3) on the eter¬ 
 nity of His priesthood. We shall develop these consid¬ 
 erations in the form of three separate theses. 
 
 Thesis I: Christ’s unction or ordination to thfe office 
 of high priest took place at the moment of His In¬ 
 carnation. 
 
 This thesis voices the common teaching of 
 Catholic divines. 
 
 Proof. If, as we shall show in our next thesis, 
 Christ was truly “a priest according to the order 
 of Melchisedech,” 1 His priesthood must have 
 begun simultaneously with His Incarnation, i. e., 
 at the moment in which the Divine Logos as¬ 
 sumed human flesh in the womb of the Virgin. 
 The Divine Logos could not have been a priest be- 
 
 1 Heb. V, 6; VI, 20. 
 
 127 
 
128 
 
 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER 
 
 fore His Incarnation, because then He was not 
 yet the Godman. Nor was He anointed or conse¬ 
 crated by any special act subsequent to His Incar¬ 
 nation. Hence His ordination must have coin¬ 
 cided with the inception of the Hypostatic Union. 
 
 This view is confirmed by St. Paul in his Epistle to 
 the Hebrews. Heb. X, 5 : “ Ideo ingrediens mundum 2 
 
 dicit: Hostiam et oblationem noluisti, corpus autem 
 aptasti mihi — Wherefore when he cometh into the 
 world, he saith: Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldest 
 not: but a body thou hast fitted to me.” 3 Here the 
 “ fitting of a body ” for the sacrifice of the Cross, 
 and consequently the beginning of Christ’s priesthood, is 
 represented as coincident with His “ coming into the 
 world,” i. e., His conception. 
 
 In the fifth chapter of the same Epistle the Apostle 
 emphasizes the fact that “ every high priest taken from 
 among men, is ordained for men in the things that apper¬ 
 tain to God,” and then declares that Christ did not or¬ 
 dain Himself, but was “ called by God.” Heb. V, 4 sq.: 
 “ Nec quisquam sumit sibi honorem, sed qui vocatur a 
 Deo 4 tamquam Aaron; sic et Christus non semetipsum 
 cl arid c amt, ut pontifex fieretp sed qui locutus est ad eum 
 [= Pater] : Filius meus es tu } ego hodie genui te — 
 Neither doth any man take the honor to himself, but 
 he that is called by God, as Aaron was. So Christ also 
 did not glorify himself, that he might be made a high 
 priest; but he that said unto him: Thou art my Son, 
 this day have I begotten thee.” 6 The “ call ” to the 
 priesthood which Christ received from His Father was 
 
 2 elcrepxo/jicvos eh tov kov/xov • 5 yevyjOijvai apx^pea- 
 
 3 Cfr. Ps. XXXIX, 7. 6 Heb. V, 4 sq. 
 
 4 KaXovfievos ai to tov Geou* 
 
CHRIST A TRUE PRIEST 
 
 129 
 
 the command to redeem the human race. This command 
 went into effect at the moment of His conception. Con¬ 
 sequently, Christ’s priesthood began simultaneously with 
 the unio hypostatica. 
 
 A third argument for our thesis is based on the Sa¬ 
 viour’s proper name, Christus, which means the Anointed 
 One Kar l£oxr)v . 7 Whereas the Levites of the Old Testa¬ 
 ment were anointed to the ministry by an accidental 
 unction with visible oil, 8 the Godman Jesus Christ, 
 by virtue of the Hypostatic Union, is substantially 
 anointed with the invisible oil of Divinity. This sub¬ 
 stantial unction, on account of the object and pur¬ 
 pose of the Redemption, stands in intimate relation¬ 
 ship to the priestly function which He exercised in offer¬ 
 ing the sacrifice of the Cross, and therefore the Hypo¬ 
 static Union as such must be regarded as Christ’s 
 substantial ordination to the priesthood. 
 
 Some of the Fathers appear to teach that our Lord’s 
 ordination took place before His Incarnation. It is to 
 be noted, however, that their manner of expression is 
 distinctly proleptic. What they mean is, that it was by 
 His Incarnation that the not yet incarnate Logos was 
 constituted a priest. Certain other Fathers seem to 
 regard Christ’s baptism in the Jordan as the beginning of 
 His priesthood. Rightly understood, however, these 
 Fathers do not assert that Christ became a high priest 
 when He received baptism, but merely that he exercised 
 His priesthood for the first time on that occasion. There 
 is a clear-cut distinction between an office and the exer¬ 
 cise of its functions; the former differs from the latter 
 as potency differs from act. 9 
 
 7 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, s Cfr. Petavius, De Incarn., XII, 
 
 pp. 228 sq. 3 and 11. 
 
 8 Cfr. Exod. XXIX, 1 sqq.; Lev. 
 
 VIII, 1 sqq. 
 
130 
 
 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER 
 
 Thesis II: During His terrestrial life Christ was a 
 true high priest who exercised His sacerdotal func¬ 
 tions by offering sacrifice and prayer. 
 
 This proposition embodies an article of faith. 
 
 Proof. The Council of Trent defines: “Quo- 
 niam sub priori Testamento teste Apostolo Paulo 
 propter levitici sacerdotii imbecillitatem consum- 
 matio non erat, oportuit Deo Patre misericor- 
 diarum it a ordinante sacerdotem alium secundum 
 ordinem Melchisedech surgere D. N. Iesum Chri¬ 
 stum , qui posset omnes, quotquot sane title andi es- 
 sent, consummare et ad perfectum adducere.” 
 Anglice: “Forasmuch as, under the former Testa¬ 
 ment, according to the testimony of the Apostle 
 Paul, there was no perfection, because of the 
 weakness of the Levitical priesthood; there was 
 need, God the Father of mercies so ordaining, 
 that another priest should rise, according to the 
 order of Melchisedech, our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 who might consummate, and lead to what is per¬ 
 fect, as many as were to be sanctified.” 10 
 
 The heretical antithesis of this dogma is the 
 Socinian teaching that the priesthood of our Lord 
 was in no sense an earthly but exclusively a 
 heavenly priesthood . 11 
 
 a) That the priesthood of our Divine Lord 
 
 10 Cone. Trid., Sess. XXII, cap. i. 11 Cfr. F. Socinus, De Christo 
 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 938.) Servatore, P. II, c. 15. 
 
CHRIST A TRUE PRIEST 
 
 131 
 
 was really and truly an earthly priesthood can 
 easily be proved from Sacred Scripture. 
 
 a) To begin with the Old Testament, we need 
 but point to Psalm CIX, the Messianic character 
 of which is guaranteed by Christ Himself . 12 The 
 fourth verse reads as follows: “Thou art a 
 priest for ever according to the order of Melchi¬ 
 sedech.” Melchisedech was an earthly priest; 
 consequently the priesthood of Christ must be an 
 earthly priesthood . 13 
 
 /?) The prophet Isaias, pointing to the “Man 
 of sorrows/’ L e., the future Messias, presages 
 that “he shall sprinkle many nations.” 14 This 
 sprinkling, from the context, can only mean 
 a sacrificial sprinkling with blood (aspersio san¬ 
 guinis) . 15 
 
 y) No other sacred writer has portrayed the 
 earthly priesthood of our Lord so grandly as St. 
 Paul, whose Epistle to the Hebrews constitutes 
 one prolonged refutation of Socinianism . 16 The 
 gist of this Epistle may be summarized as 
 follows: The priesthood of Melchisedech was 
 far superior to the Levitical priesthood, but 
 the priesthood of Christ is infinitely superior even 
 
 12 Matth. XXIII, 43 sqq. 
 
 13 On the heresy of the Melchise- 
 dechians (who held that Melchise¬ 
 dech was not a man but an incarna¬ 
 tion of the Logos) see St. Augus¬ 
 tine, De Haeres., n. 34; cfr. Blunt, 
 Dictionary of Sects, pp. 304 sq., 
 new impression, London 1903. 
 
 14 Is. LII, 15. 
 
 15 Cfr. Is. LIII, 3 sqq.; Lev. 
 XVI, 18 sq.; Heb. IX, 14 sqq. 
 
 16 A detailed analysis of St. 
 Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews will 
 be found in Franzelin, De Verbo 
 Incarnato, thes. 48, n. ii; cfr. also 
 Chr. Pesch, Prael. Dogmat., Vol. 
 IV, 3rd ed., pp. 291 sq. 
 
 
132 
 
 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER 
 
 to the priesthood of Melchisedech. Therefore, 
 Christ is the holiest, the greatest, the most perfect, 
 in fact the sole High Priest, and He exercised His 
 priesthood in the perfect sacrifice of the Cross . 17 
 
 b) But the sacrifice of the Cross was not the 
 only sacerdotal function performed by our Divine 
 Redeemer. He also officiated as High Priest 
 when, at the Last Supper, He instituted the Holy 
 Sacrifice of the Mass, and when He pronounced 
 the sublime prayer for His disciples recorded 
 in the seventeenth chapter of the Gospel of St. 
 John . 18 
 
 A priest does not always pray in his official capacity 
 as priest; some of his prayers are strictly private and 
 personal. It is only when he pronounces portions of the 
 sacrificial rite, such as the Mass, or liturgical prayers inti¬ 
 mately connected therewith, as those of the Breviary, that 
 his prayer assumes a sacerdotal or hieratic character. 
 Christ’s prayer for His disciples was a strictly sacerdotal 
 or hieratic act, because of its intimate relation to the sacri¬ 
 fice of the Cross. The same is true of the prayers which 
 He uttered at the crucifixion. It is rather difficult to draw 
 a clear-cut line of demarcation between strictly hieratic 
 and purely private prayers in the case of our Divine Lord, 
 because His whole interior life was inseparably inter¬ 
 woven with His mission as the Saviour of mankind, and 
 therefore also with His priesthood. However, we may 
 apply the term “ private ” in a wider sense to those 
 
 17 The Patristic argument for our hood may be best studied in St. 
 thesis is developed by Pesch, op. cit., Thomas, Sutnma Theologica, 3a, qu. 
 pp. 292 sq. The teaching of the 22 art. 1. 
 
 Scholastics on Christ’s earthly priest- 18 John XVII, 1-26. 
 
CHRIST A TRUE PRIEST 
 
 133 
 
 prayers which He offered up, not for His Apostles, or 
 the human race in general, but for Himself, in order to 
 obtain personal favors from His Heavenly Father, as, for 
 instance, when He asked on Mount Olivet that the chalice 
 be removed from His lips, 19 or when He petitioned for 
 His own glorification. 
 
 There is an essential difference between prayer and 
 sacrifice, which should be emphasized here. Christ was 
 able to pray for Himself, but He was not able to offer 
 sacrifice for Himself. This has been clearly defined by 
 the Council of Ephesus (A. D. 431) : “ If any one . . . 
 
 assert that He [Christ] offered Himself as a sacrifice 
 for Himself, and not rather for us alone, (for He who 
 knew absolutely no sin needed no sacrifice), let him be 
 anathema/' 20 
 
 Thesis III: Christ’s priesthood continues everlast¬ 
 ingly in Heaven. 
 
 This proposition also embodies an article of 
 faith. 
 
 Proof. In Christology 21 we concluded from 
 the eternity of Christ’s priesthood to the insep¬ 
 arability of the Hypostatic Union. Here we 
 have to prove the antecedent. The eternity of 
 Christ’s priesthood is an article of faith, because 
 clearly contained in Sacred Scripture. But the 
 manner in which He exercises His sacerdotal 
 
 19 Cfr. Heb. V, 7. Bannwart, n. 122).—On Christ’s 
 
 20 "Si quis . . . dicit, quod pro praying cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., 
 
 se obtulisset semetipsum oblationem, 3a, qu. 21 and L. Janssens, De 
 
 et non potius pro nobis solis ( non Deo-Homine, Vol. I, pp. 720 sqq., 
 
 enint eguit oblatione, qui peccatum Freiburg 1901. 
 
 omnino nescivit), anathema sit.” 21 Pohle-Preuss, Christology, pp. 
 Cone. Eph., can. 10 (Denzinger* 74 sqq. 
 
134 
 
 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER 
 
 office in Heaven remains to be determined by the¬ 
 ological reasoning. 
 
 a) The eternity of our Lord’s priesthood is 
 taught both directly and indirectly in St. Paul’s 
 Epistle to the Hebrews. 
 
 a) The Apostle expressly applies to Christ the Mes¬ 
 sianic verse : “ Thou art a priest for ever 22 according to 
 
 the order of Melchisedfech.” 23 That “ for ever ” in this 
 passage means eternity, not a parte ante but a parte post, 
 and in the strict sense of the term, appears from St. 
 Paul’s way of arguing in ITeb. VII, I sqq., where he 
 opposes our Lord’s “ everlasting priesthood ” to the tem¬ 
 poral priesthood of the Levites. Moreover, he distinctly 
 says in Heb. VII, 23 sq.: “ Alii quidem plures facti sunt 
 sacerdotes, idcirco quod morte prohiberentur permanere ; 
 hie autem eo quod maneat in aeternum, 2i sempiternum 
 habet sacerdotium 25 — And the others indeed were made 
 many priests, because by reason of death they were not 
 suffered to continue: but this, for that he continueth for 
 ever, hath an everlasting priesthood.” 
 
 P) Regarding the manner in which Christ ex¬ 
 ercises His eternal priesthood in Heaven, Revela¬ 
 tion teaches us nothing beyond the fact that He 
 is “always living to make intercession for us,” 26 
 which is a truly sacerdotal function, because, as 
 St. Paul assures us, it bears an intimate relation 
 to the sacrifice of the Cross. Hence we may 
 
 22 els rbv altiva- 25 dirapd^arov $x ei T V J/ leper 
 
 23 Ps. CIX, 4 . cvvyjv- 
 
 24 Sib. to pieveiv aiirov els rbv 20 Heb. VII, 25 ; Rom. VIII, 34. 
 alcove l* 
 
CHRIST A TRUE PRIEST 
 
 135 
 
 conclude that our Lord’s intercession for us in 
 Heaven consists in everlastingly asserting the 
 sacrifice of the Cross. 
 
 Cfr. Heb. VII, 24 sqq.: “ Sempiternum habet sacer- 
 dotium; unde et salvare in perpetuum potest accedentes 
 per semetipsum ad Deum, semper vivens ad interpel- 
 landum pro nobis: talis enim 27 decebat ut nobis esset 
 pontifex , 28 . . . qui non habet necessitatem quotidie 
 , . . hostias offerre; hoc enim fecit semel seipsum offer- 
 endo —[He] hath an everlasting priesthood, whereby he 
 is able also to save for ever them that come to God 
 by him; always living to make intercession for us. For 
 it was befitting that we should have such a high priest 
 . . . who needeth not daily ... to offer sacrifices . . . 
 for this he did once, in offering himself.” 
 
 St. John, too, describes Christ’s heavenly intercession 
 as intimately connected with and based upon the sacri¬ 
 fice of the Cross. Cfr. 1 John II, 1 sq.: " Sed et si 
 quis peccaverit, advocatum 29 habemus apud Patrem 
 Iesum Christum instum; et ipse est propitiatio 30 pro 
 peccatis nostris — But if any man sin, we have an advo¬ 
 cate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just: and he is 
 the propitiation for our sins.” The same Apostle in the 
 Apocalypse represents Christ figuratively as a slain lamb, 
 i. e. y a transfigured sacrificial victim. Apoc. V, 6: " Et 
 
 vidi . . . Agnum stantem tamquam occisum 31 — And I 
 saw ... a Lamb standing as it were slain.” In this light 
 St. Ambrose’s conception of the relation existing between 
 Christ’s heavenly intercession and the marks of the five 
 wounds in His glorified body, as indelible witnesses 
 
 27 ydp. so i\a<rfios = a sacrifice of pro- 
 
 28 apxiepev*’ pitiation. 
 
 29 napdicXrjTOv . 31 us eG<payp,tvov* 
 
136 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER 
 
 of His bloody sacrifice, must appeal to us as profoundly 
 significant: “ He refused to relinquish the wounds 
 
 which He had received for us, but preferred to take 
 them with Him to Heaven, in order to exhibit [them] to 
 His Heavenly Father [as] the purchase price of our 
 liberty.” 32 
 
 b) The doctrine of Christ’s eternal priesthood 
 in Fleaven has given rise to three separate theo¬ 
 logical problems: («) What is the precise na¬ 
 ture of His everlasting intercession for us? (/?) 
 Does He continue to offer a true sacrifice in 
 Heaven? (y) How can His priesthood endure 
 after the Last Judgment, when His intercession 
 must of necessity cease? 
 
 «) Theologians are not agreed as to whether 
 Christ’s heavenly intercession for the human 
 race is to be conceived as merely implicit ( inter¬ 
 pretativei), or as explicit ( formalis ). 
 
 The former view is held by Vasquez and Thomassin, 
 the latter and more probable one by Petavius. As 
 Christ actually prayed for us while on earth, there is no 
 reason to assume that His continued intercession in 
 Heaven is silent or merely implicit,— especially in view of 
 the promise which He gave His Apostles that He would 
 ask the Father to send them another Paraclete. Cfr. 
 John XIV, 16: ‘‘And I will ask the Father, and he 
 shall give you another Paraclete.” Why weaken the 
 term “ ask ” or “ petition ” ( rogare, ipcorav) to prop the 
 
 32 St. Ambrose, In Luc., X, n. ut Deo Patri nostrae pretia liberta- 
 170: “Vulnera accept a pro nobis tis ostenderet 
 coelo inferre maluit, abolere noluit, 
 
CHRIST A TRUE PRIEST 
 
 137 
 
 doubtful hypothesis that His intercession is merely vir¬ 
 tual? 
 
 Certain of the Fathers seem to contradict the view de¬ 
 fended by Petavius. But the construction put upon their 
 utterances by Vasquez and Thomassin is untenable. In 
 reality these Fathers merely wish to emphasize the fact 
 that the theandric prayer of Jesus has none of the de¬ 
 fects necessarily inherent in purely human prayer, such 
 as indigence, a feeling of helplessness and guilt, an ap¬ 
 peal to mercy, etc. The theandric intercession of our 
 heavenly Advocate is based upon the infinite satisfaction 
 which He has given for us, and hence is in no wise 
 an humble supplication for grace, but a confident asser¬ 
 tion of His merits on behalf of those whom He has re¬ 
 deemed. This is one of the reasons why the Church 
 does not pray or instruct her children to pray: “ Lord 
 
 Jesus, intercede for us! ” but: “ Christ, hear us! ” 
 “ Christ, have mercy on us! ” 33 
 
 P) Our second question, it may be well to 
 premise, has nothing whatever to do with the So- 
 cinian error that Jesus offered no true sacri¬ 
 fice on earth but became the High Priest of hu¬ 
 manity only after His Ascension into Heaven. 
 Accepting the sacrificial character of His death, 
 theologians merely ask: Does He continue to 
 offer a true sacrifice for us in Heaven? 
 
 Thalhofer 34 answered this question in the affirmative, 
 and his view has been adopted by L. Zill 35 and P. 
 
 33 Cfr. Franzelin, De Verbo In- 34 Das Opfer des Alten und Neuen 
 carnato, thes. 51, n. iii; De Lugo, De Bundes, pp. 201 sqq., Ratisbon 1870. 
 Myst. Incarnationis, disp. 27, sect. 35 Der Brief an die Hebraer, pp. 
 4, n. 61 sqq. 430 sqq., Mainz 1879. 
 
138 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER 
 
 Schoulza. 36 The purpose of these writers in taking the 
 position they do is twofold: (i) to gain a basis for a 
 reasonable explanation of the metaphysical essence of 
 the Sacrifice of the Mass, and (2) to give a tangible con¬ 
 tent to the Scriptural teaching of Christ’s eternal priest¬ 
 hood. 
 
 Thalhofer declares the formal element of sacrifice to 
 consist, not in the exterior oblation of the victim, which is 
 in some manner or other transformed, but solely in the 
 interior disposition of the sacrificing priest. But this 
 theory is contrary to the common teaching of Catholic 
 divines and does not square with certain generally ad¬ 
 mitted facts. Granted that the disposition of the sac¬ 
 rificing priest is the intrinsic and invisible forma , and 
 consequently the most important part of a sacrifice; yet 
 it can never supply the extrinsic physical form. Christ’s 
 constant pointing to His wounds, of which Thalhofer 
 makes so much, is merely a significant gesture which 
 effects no intrinsic transformation of the kind strictly 
 demanded by the notion of sacrifice. Zill attempted to 
 construct a Scriptural basis for Thalhofer’s theory, but 
 his deductions had already been substantially refuted by 
 Tournely in his argument against Faustus Socinus. 37 St. 
 Paul, far from asserting that Christ offers sacrifice in 
 Heaven, or that He continues His earthly sacrifice there, 
 expressly declares that our Lord merely asserts ad mo - 
 dum interpellation's and forever the sacrifice He has 
 once for all consummated on the Cross. This interpella¬ 
 tion can in no wise be construed as a sacrifice. 38 
 
 36 Liturgia Catholica Fidei Magis - 38 Cfr. F. Stentrup, Soteriologia, 
 
 tra, Insulis 1901. thes. 82; Pesch, Prael. Dogmat,, 
 
 37 Tournely, De Incarn., qu. 5, Vol. IV, 3rd ed., pp. 300 sqq. 
 art. 2\ cfr. Franzelin, De Verbo In- 
 
 carnato, p. 539. 
 
CHRIST A TRUE PRIEST 
 
 139 
 
 y) There remains the third question: How 
 can Christ’s priesthood endure forever, since 
 after the Last Judgment not only the hypothetical 
 sacrifice construed by Thalhofer, but likewise His 
 intercession for us must needs cease? 
 
 There can be no doubt whatever that our Lord’s 
 priestly intercession in Heaven will end with the last 
 Mass celebrated on earth. Nevertheless, His priesthood 
 will continue, in a threefold respect. (1) He will re¬ 
 main “ a priest for ever ” in dignity (secundum digni¬ 
 tatem ), because His sacerdotal character stands or falls 
 with the Hypostatic Union, and consequently is indelible 
 and incapable of being lost. 39 (2) Christ’s priesthood 
 endures eternally in respect of its effectiveness ( secun¬ 
 dum effectum ), in so far as the fruits of the sacrifice 
 of the Cross are unceasingly renewed in the grace and 
 glory enjoyed by the Elect in Heaven. 40 (3) Christ 
 remains the eternal High Priest of humanity secundum 
 affectum; for, while He does not offer up a perpetual 
 sacrifice in the strict and proper sense of the term, He 
 causes a sweet burnt-offering of unending adoration and 
 thanksgiving to rise before the throne of the Most Holy 
 Trinity,— which is after all the ultimate purpose and 
 end of all creation. 
 
 39 Cfr. Thesis I, supra, pp. 127 
 sqq. 
 
 40 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., 3a, 
 qu. 22, art. 5: “In officio sacerdotis 
 duo possunt considerari; primo qui- 
 dem ipsa oblatio sacrifcii, secundo 
 ipsa sacrificii consummatio, quae 
 quidem consistit in hoc, quod illi 
 pro quibus sacrificium offertur, finem 
 
 sacrificii consequuntur. Finis autem 
 sacrificii quod Christus obtulit, non 
 fuerunt bona temporalia, sed 
 aeterna, quae per eius mortem adi- 
 piscimurL. c., ad 2: “ Licet pas- 
 
 sio et mors Christi de caetero non 
 sint iteranda, tamen virtus illius 
 hostiae semel oblatae permanet in 
 aeternum.” 
 
 10 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 Christ's prophetical office 
 
 i. Definition of the Term “Prophet.”— 
 The word “Prophet” is etymologically derived 
 from the Greek verb npo^fu , to speak for some one, 
 then, to foretell (Hebr. = votes, seer). In a 
 wider sense it signifies a teacher ( magister, 
 SiSaovcaAosj Hebr. = speaker, orator ). 1 
 
 The Bible employs the term Prophet in both mean¬ 
 ings, most frequently however in the latter. Old Testa¬ 
 ment prophetism was not limited to extraordinary pre¬ 
 dictions of future events, but comprised primarily the 
 ordinary teaching office, which was clothed with di¬ 
 vine authority and exercised by instruction, admonition, 
 warnings, and threats. The so-called prophetic schools 
 of the Jews were colleges founded for the training of 
 professional teachers of religion, not of prophets in the 
 strict sense of the term . 2 
 
 To say that Christ exercised the office or func¬ 
 tion of a prophet, is equivalent to saying that 
 He possessed in the highest degree the gift of 
 prophecy ( donum prophetiae) and the vocation 
 
 1 Cfr. R. Comely, Comp. Intr. in in Libros V. T., Vol. II, pp. 267 
 
 N. T., 8th ed., p. 381. sqq., Paris 1887; Maas, op. cit., 
 
 2 Cfr. R. Comely, Introd. Spec. Vol. I, 108 sqq. 
 
 I4O 
 
CHRIST A TRUE PROPHET 
 
 141 
 
 of a teacher (magisterium). Soteriology deals 
 with Him only as a teacher. 
 
 2. The Prophetic Teaching Office of 
 Christ. —The Old Testament prophets hailed the 
 future Messias as a teacher of truth, and when 
 Jesus Christ appeared in Palestine, He actually 
 exercised the functions of a teacher in the most 
 exalted sense of the term. 
 
 a) Moses, who both as the founder of a religion and 
 a teacher par excellence, is a prominent type of the 
 Messias, uttered the famous prophecy registered in Deut. 
 XVIII, 15 : “ The Lord thy God will raise up a prophet 3 
 of thy nation and of thy brethren like unto me: him thou 
 shalt hear.” 4 This passage is expressly applied to Christ 
 in the New Testament. 5 
 
 Isaias foretells that the coming Messias will deliver 
 humanity from sin and error. Is. LXI, 1 sq.: “ The 
 
 spirit of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord hath 
 anointed me: he hath sent me to preach to the meek, to 
 heal the contrite of heart, and to preach a release to the 
 captives, and deliverance to them that are shut up; to 
 proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day 
 of vengeance of our God: to comfort all that mourn.” 
 
 Christ Himself publicly read this passage in the syna¬ 
 gogue at Nazareth, and when he had folded the book. 
 
 3 
 
 • T 
 
 4 Cfr. Deut. XVIII, 18. 
 
 5 Acts III, 22 sqq. “Be penitent, 
 therefore, and be converted, that 
 your sins may be blotted out; that 
 when the times of refreshment shall 
 come from the presence of the Lord, 
 and he shall send him who hath 
 been preached unto you, Jesus 
 
 Christ, whom heaven indeed must 
 receive, until the times of the resti¬ 
 tution of all things, which God hath 
 spoken by the mouth of his holy 
 prophets, from the beginning of the 
 world. For Moses said: A prophet 
 shall the Lord your God raise up 
 unto you of your brethren, like unto 
 me: him you shall hear. . . .” 
 
142 
 
 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER 
 
 said (Luke IV, 21): '‘This day is fulfilled this scrip¬ 
 ture in your ears.” 6 
 
 b) The New Testament has confirmed the ful¬ 
 filment of the Old Testament prophecies. It has 
 also demonstrated their truth. When Jesus was 
 engaged in recruiting His disciples, Philip said to 
 Nathanael: “We have found him of whom 
 Moses in the law, and the prophets did write, 
 Jesus the son of Joseph of Nazareth.” 7 It was 
 with the utmost confidence that our Lord appealed 
 to Moses: “Think not that I will accuse you to 
 the Father. There is one that accuseth you, 
 Moses, in whom you trust. For if you did be¬ 
 lieve Moses, you would perhaps believe me also; 
 for he wrote of me.” 8 After He had fed five 
 thousand people with a few loaves of bread, those 
 who had witnessed the miracle enthusiastically 
 exclaimed: “This is of a truth the prophet that 
 is to come into the world .” 9 When He had 
 raised the widow’s son to life, there came a fear 
 on those about Him, “and they glorified God, 
 saying: A great prophet 10 is risen up among 
 us; and, God hath visited his people.” 11 
 
 c) Christ exercised His teaching office by jour¬ 
 neying about Palestine and preaching the glad 
 tidings of salvation. 
 
 6 Cfr. Matth. V f 5. 
 
 7 John 1, 45. 
 
 8 John V, 45 sq. 
 
 9 6 TTpocpriri/js 6 epxo/Jievos els rby 
 Koa/xoV' John VI, 14. 
 
 10 irpo(p 7 ]Tr]s p.eyas- 
 
CHRIST A TRUE PROPHET 
 
 143 
 
 St. Matthew records that “ the people were in admira¬ 
 tion at his doctrine; for he was teaching them as one 
 having power, and not as the scribes and Pharisees.” 12 
 He presented Himself as the absolute Teacher of truth. 
 Cfr. John XVIII, 37: “For this was I born, and for 
 this came I into the world, that I should give testimony 
 to the truth.” For it was “ His Father ” who spoke 
 
 through Him, 13 and He Himself was “ the way, and the 
 truth, and the life.” 14 Consequently, there can be no 
 other teacher beside or above Him: “ Neither be ye called 
 masters; for one is your master, 15 Christ.” 16 Acknowl¬ 
 edging Him as the sovereign teacher of mankind, Nico- 
 demus says: “ Rabbi, we know that thou art come a 
 
 teacher from God; for no man can do these signs which 
 thou dost, unless God be with him.” 17 Even so great 
 a teacher as St. John the Baptist literally paled in the 
 glorious halo which encircled the Divine Master: “ He 
 was not the light, but was to give testimony of the 
 light.” 18 
 
 Nor must we forget the power of our Saviour’s ex¬ 
 ample, which more effectively even than His words 
 prompted men to embrace the truth and lead a virtuous 
 life. Fully realizing that “ Example serves where pre¬ 
 cept fails,” St. Luke in writing his Gospel, as he him¬ 
 self admits, 19 was chiefly concerned with the things 
 which “ Jesus began to do and to teach.” 20 That it was 
 the Redeemer’s express purpose to set a good example 
 is manifest from His own declaration in John XIII, 15: 
 “ For I have given you an example, 21 that as I have 
 
 12 Matth. VII, 28 sq. 18 John I, 8. Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, 
 
 13 Cfr. John XIV, io; XVII, 8. Christology, pp. 31 sqq.; H. Schell, 
 
 14 John XIV, 6. Jahve und Christus, pp. 403 sqq., 
 
 15 Magister, Ka 9 r)yr)Tris- Paderborn 1905. 
 
 16 Matth. XXIII, 10. Cfr. John 19 Acts I, 1. 
 
 XIII, 13. 20 Troiciv re ical SiddoKeiP* 
 
 17 John III, 2 , 21 virodeiy/xa* 
 
144 
 
 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER 
 
 done to you, so you do also.” St. Paul strongly insists 
 on the importance of our being made comformable to 
 the image of the Son of God, 22 and did not rest until 
 Christ had been formed in all his hearers. 23 Christ 
 was the beau-ideal of virtue, because He was without sin; 
 and His example was most effective, because He was im¬ 
 pelled by supreme charity. This accounts for the inex¬ 
 haustible power which flows from the imitation of 
 Christ and never ceases to purify, ennoble, energize, and 
 rejuvenate men and to lead them on to moral perfection. 
 In confirmation of this truth we need but point to the 
 lives of the Saints. 24 
 
 d) For an adequate theological explanation of 
 the singular greatness and perfection of Christ’s 
 prophetical office we must go to its fountain¬ 
 head, the Hypostatic Union. 
 
 a) Endowed with a fulness of knowledge unparalleled 
 in the history of the human race, Jesus was in a position 
 to propound His teaching with absolute certainty and ir¬ 
 resistible conviction. 25 Equipped with miraculous pow¬ 
 ers and the gift of prophecy, He was able to confirm and 
 seal His words by signs and miracles. As the super¬ 
 natural Head of grace, He was in the altogether unique 
 position of one able to enlighten his hearers with the torch 
 of faith and to fire their hearts with His grace. In all 
 three of these respects He has absolutely no peer among 
 men, and it is sheer folly to compare Him with Socrates 
 
 22 Rom. VIII, 29. ing of the Fathers consult Petavius, 
 
 23 Gal. IV, 19. De Incarn., II, 10; Stentrup, Soteri- 
 
 24 Cfr. S. Raue, O. F. M., Chri• ologia, thes. 134 sqq. 
 
 stus als Erzieher. Eine methodische 25 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, 
 Studie iiber das hi. Evangelium, 2nd PP- 2 49 SQQ- 
 ed., Freiburg 1902, For the teach- 
 
CHRIST A TRUE PROPHET 145 
 
 or even with the greatest of the prophets, Moses and John 
 the Baptist 
 
 /?) Nor can it be urged as an argument against the 
 sublimity of His prophetical office, that Jesus addressed 
 Himself only to the Jews of Palestine. He had excellent 
 reasons for confining His personal activity to that particu¬ 
 lar nation and country. We will enumerate four of the 
 principal ones given by St. Thomas. 26 (1) He had to 
 fulfil the promises which God had made to the Jews in 
 the Old Testament. (2) It was becoming that the Gos¬ 
 pel should reach the gentiles through the instrumentality 
 of God’s Chosen People. (3) Jesus had to pay due re¬ 
 gard to the peculiar mentality of the Jewish nation. (4) 
 The method He chose was better adapted than any other 
 to demonstrate the triumphant power of the Cross. After 
 His Resurrection He sent out His disciples to teach and 
 baptize all nations, and when He had ascended into 
 Heaven, He appointed a special Apostle for the gentiles. 
 His teaching was as open and public as the scene of His 
 activity. Unlike the pagan philosophers, He made no 
 distinction between esoteric and exoteric truths. His 
 motto was: “ That which I tell you in the dark, speak 
 
 ye in the light: and that which you hear in the ear, 
 preach ye upon the housetops.” 27 
 
 y) Our Divine Lord had very good reasons for dis¬ 
 daining to consign His heavenly teaching to books. It 
 eminently befitted His high office as Teacher of man¬ 
 kind to employ the most perfect mode of teaching, 
 namely oral instruction, which goes straight to the heart 
 and reaches all, even those who are unable to read. It was 
 for this same reason, in the opinion of St. Thomas, that 
 He commanded His Church to instruct by word of mouth 
 
 26 S. Thee!., 3a, qu. 4 2, art. 1. 
 
 27 Matth. X, 27. Cfr» Thomas, S. Theoh, 3a, qu. 4 2, art. 3. 
 
146 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER 
 
 and constituted oral tradition a source of faith side by 
 side with Sacred Scripture. Some of the wisest men 
 of antiquity (e. g., Socrates and Pythagoras) exercised a 
 tremendous influence over succeeding generations without 
 ever having recourse to the stylus or the pen. Oral in¬ 
 struction was admirably adapted to the propagation of 
 Christianity. Had our Lord presented His teaching in 
 the form of bookish lore, consigned to parchment or papy¬ 
 rus, it would have become a veritable apple of discord. 
 Then again, in the words of St. Thomas, “ those who 
 refused to believe what the Apostles wrote, would not 
 have believed Christ Himself had He consigned His doc¬ 
 trines to writing.” 28 
 
 3. The Ecclesiastical Magisterium a Con¬ 
 tinuation of Christ's Prophetical Office. 
 —As the priesthood of our Divine Lord is con¬ 
 tinued on earth by the celebration of the Holy 
 Sacrifice of the Mass and the administration of 
 the Sacraments, especially Holy Orders, so His 
 prophetic office is continued by the magisterium 
 of the Catholic Church. 
 
 a) The very fact that Christ established a Church to 
 teach “ all nations ” shows that He wished her to continue 
 His prophetical office. He guaranteed her His special 
 assistance and promised to be with her “ all days, even to 
 the consummation of the world.” 29 Having established 
 her as a teacher, Pie sent her the Spirit of Truth, who 
 
 28 S, Theol., 1 . c. — On the apoc- Les Origines de I’ldglise d’Edesse et 
 ryphal correspondence between our la Legende d’Abgar, Paris 1888; H. 
 Lord and Abgar, King of Edessa, Leclerq, art. “Abgar” in the Catholic 
 cfr. R. A. Lipsius, Die edessenische Encyclopedia, Vol. I, pp. 42 sq, 
 Abgar sage kritisch untersucht, Matth. XXVIII, 20, 
 
 Braunschweig 1880; J. Tixeronf 
 
CHRIST A TRUE PROPHET 
 
 147 
 
 informs and vivifies her as the soul informs and actu¬ 
 ates the body, and enables her to keep the deposit of faith 
 intact against all attempts at diminution or distortion. 
 Thus the infallibility of the Church and of her Supreme 
 Pontiff ultimately rests upon the prophetic office of Christ 
 Himself, who is the infallible source and teacher of all 
 truth. 30 
 
 b) This explains why the Church participates in the 
 prerogatives of the prophetic office as exercised by her 
 Divine Founder. As the faithful custodian of the deposit 
 of faith she teaches the whole truth. There is no higher 
 magisterium conceivable than hers. The “ spiritual 
 church ” expected by the Montanists and the “ Johan- 
 nine church ” imagined by some modern heretics are 
 pure figments. Christianity is the absolute religion 
 and cannot be measured by the inadequate yardstick of 
 comparative science. The Catholic Church, through her 
 connexion with Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, enjoys 
 a truly divine authority, by which she proclaims with 
 infallible certainty the dogmas of faith and morals and 
 condemns heretical errors whenever the necessity arises. 
 Her anathemas are as truly binding 011 all men as her 
 dogmatic definitions. Finally, she is endowed with un¬ 
 limited adaptability, which enables her to adjust herself to 
 all times and circumstances, provided they do not run 
 counter to the orthodox faith and the eternal principles of 
 true morality. No matter how times may change, the 
 Catholic Church, ever old and ever young, fills them with 
 her own spirit, overcomes error and sin, and directs all 
 legitimate efforts for the betterment of the race into their 
 divinely appointed channels. There is no error so novel, 
 
 30 Cfr. P. J. Toner, art. “Infalli- art. “Unfehlbarkeit” in Herder’s 
 bility” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Kirchenlexikon, Vol. XII, pp. 2 40 
 Vol. VII, pp. 790 sqq.; J. Pohle, sqq. 
 
148 
 
 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER 
 
 no intellectual malady so grave that the Church is not 
 able to counteract it with antidotes from her spiritual 
 pharmacopoeia. Our own time furnishes a most instruc¬ 
 tive exemplification of this truth. It is a period of 
 transition and fermentation. Pius X has vigorously 
 condemned the Modernistic errors endangering the faith, 
 and there is no doubt that they can be effectively warded 
 off if the nations will listen to the voice of Holy Mother 
 Church. 31 
 
 31 Cfr. H. Pesch, S. J., Die sosiale Befdhigung der Kirche, 3d ed., 
 
 Berlin 19x1. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 Christ's kingship 
 
 i. Definition of the Term. —The word 
 king {rex, Pam\e6s,^ denotes a sovereign invested 
 with supreme authority over a nation, country 
 or tribe. 
 
 a) Kingship includes three separate and distinct 
 functions: legislative, judiciary, and executive, 
 which together constitute the supreme power of 
 jurisdiction or government. 
 
 The royal dominium iurisdictionis must not be con¬ 
 founded with what is known as the right of ownership 
 {dominium proprietatis ). The latter is directed to the 
 possession of impersonal objects, while the former im¬ 
 plies the governance of free persons or subjects. The 
 two differ both logically and in fact, and neither can be 
 directly deduced from the other. The ruling power of 
 a king or emperor by no means implies the possession 
 of property rights either in his subjects or their belong¬ 
 ings. The subjects of a monarch are as free to possess 
 private property as the monarch himself, not to speak of 
 the right of personal liberty. 
 
 It may be well to observe, however, that these limi¬ 
 tations apply to earthly kings only. God, being the Crea- 
 
 m 
 
OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER 
 
 150 
 
 tor and Lord of the universe, is the absolute owner of all 
 things, including men and their belongings. 1 
 
 b) The royal power with its various func¬ 
 tions may be either secular or spiritual. The 
 former is instituted for man's earthly, the latter 
 for his spiritual benefit. Christ's is a spiritual 
 kingdom, and will continue as such throughout 
 eternity. Holy Scripture and the Church fre¬ 
 quently liken His kingship to the office of a shep¬ 
 herd, to emphasize the loving care with which He 
 rules us and provides for our necessities. 
 
 2. Christ's Earthly Kingship as Taught 
 in Sacred Scripture. — Both the Old and the 
 New Testament represent our Lord Jesus Christ 
 as a true King, who descended upon this terres¬ 
 trial planet to establish a spiritual kingdom. This 
 kingdom is the Catholic Church. Christ did not 
 come as a worldly monarch, but as “the bishop 
 of our souls." 2 
 
 a) If we examine the Messianic prophecies of the 
 Old Testament we find the kingdom of Israel, or 
 “ throne of David,” represented as a type of the Messianic 
 kingdom that was to come. Cfr. 2 Kings VII, 12 sq.: 
 “ I will raise up thy [David’s] seed after thee, which 
 shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish 
 his kingdom. He shall build a house [i. e ., temple, 
 church] to my name, and I will establish the throne of 
 
 1 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss. God: His Knowdbility, Essence and Attributes, 
 pp. 286 sqq. 
 
 2 Cfr. 1 Pet. II, 25. 
 
CHRIST A TRUE KING 
 
 I 5 i 
 
 his kingdom for ever.” The same prediction is made 
 in Psalms II, XXX, XXXVII, XLV, LXXII, and CIX. 
 Isaias, 3 Daniel, 4 and Zacharias 5 depict the Messias in 
 glowing colours as a Ruler, as the Prince of peace and 
 the mighty General of a great army. These prophecies 
 were all fulfilled, though not in the manner anticipated 
 by the carnal-minded Jews. The Messias came as a 
 King, but not with the pomp of an earthly sovereign, nor 
 for the purpose of freeing the Jewish nation from the 
 yoke of its oppressors. 
 
 Nevertheless the New Testament hails the lowly in¬ 
 fant born of the Blessed Virgin as a great King. Even 
 before his birth the Archangel informs His Mother that 
 “ The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David 
 his father, and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for 
 ever.” 6 The wise men hurried to His manger from 
 the far East and anxiously inquired: “ Where is he 
 
 that is born king of the Jews?” 7 Yet when, after the 
 miraculous multiplication of loaves, the Jews tried 
 to “ take him by force and make him king,” Jesus 
 “ fled again into the mountain himself alone.” 8 And 
 when, in the face of death, Pilate asked Him: “ Art 
 
 thou a king then ? ” He answered: “ Thou sayest 
 
 that I am a king.” 9 After they had crucified Him, 
 “ they put over his head his cause written: This is 
 Jesus the King of the Jews.” 10 Sorely disappointed in 
 their worldly hopes, and still enmeshed in political am¬ 
 bitions, the two disciples who went to Emmaus lamented: 
 “ But we hoped, that it was he that should have redeemed 
 
 Israel.” 11 
 
 3 Is. IX, 6 sqq., n. 
 
 4 Dan. VII, 13 sqq. 
 
 5 Zach. IX. 
 
 6 Luke I, 32 sq. 
 
 7 Matth. II, 2. 
 
 8 John VI, 15. 
 
 9 John XVIII, 37. 
 
 10 Matth. XXVII, 37 - 
 
 11 Luke XXIV, 21. Cfr. Acts I, 6 , 
 
152 
 
 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER 
 
 b) This seeming contradiction between the Old 
 Testament prophecies and the actual life of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ finds its solution in the 
 Church’s teaching that His is a purely spiritual 
 kingdom. Cfr. Is. LX, 18 sqq.; Jer. XXIII, 5 
 sqq.; Ezech. XXXVII, 21 sqq. For the sake of 
 greater clearness, it will be advisable to separate 
 the quaestio iuris from the quaestio facti , and 
 to treat each on its own merits. 
 
 a) The quaestio facti .— Taking the facts as we know 
 them, there can be no doubt that Christ never intended 
 to establish an earthly kingdom. He fled when the Jews 
 attempted to make him king. 12 He acknowledged the 
 Roman Emperor as the legitimate ruler of Palestine and 
 commanded the Jews to “ render to Csesar the things 
 that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” 13 
 He consistently refused to interfere in secular affairs, 
 as when he said to the man who asked Him to ad¬ 
 judicate a question of inheritance: “ Who hath ap¬ 
 
 pointed me judge, or divider, over you?” 14 And He 
 expressly declared before Pilate: 15 “ My kingdom is 
 
 not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, 
 my servants would certainly strive that I should not be 
 delivered to the Jews: but now my kingdom is not from 
 hence.” 16 
 
 /?) The quaestio iuris .— What first strikes us from 
 the juridic point of view is: Did Christ merely refrain 
 from asserting His legal claim to secular kingship, or 
 
 12 John VI, 15. gia, thes. 138. For a critical refu- 
 
 13 Matth. XXII, 21. tation of Loisy’s errors see M. 
 
 14 Luke XII, 14. Lepin, Christ and the Gospel (Eng- 
 
 15 John XVIII, 36. lish tr.), Philadelphia 1910, espe- 
 
 16 Cfr. Ferd. Stentrup, Soteriolo • ially pp. 475 sqq. 
 
CHRIST A TRUE KING 
 
 153 
 
 had He no such :claim, at least in actu primof Catholic 
 theologians agree that as “ the Son of David ” Christ 
 possessed no dynastic title to the kingdom of Juda; first, 
 because His Messianic kingdom extended far beyond the 
 limits of Palestine, in fact embraced the whole world; 
 and secondly, because neither the Blessed Virgin Mary 
 nor St. Joseph, though both descended from the “ house 
 of David,” had any hereditary claim to the throne which 
 had been irretrievably lost under Jechonias. 17 There is 
 another point on which theologians are also of one mind. 
 By virtue of His spiritual kingship the Godman possesses 
 at least indirect power over all secular affairs, for else His 
 spiritual power could not be conceived as absolutely un¬ 
 limited, which would have imperiled the purpose of the 
 Incarnation. This indirect power over worldly affairs is 
 technically known as potestas indirecta in temporalia. 
 
 Its counterpart is the potestas directa in temporalia , 
 and in regard to this there exists a long-drawn-out con¬ 
 troversy among theologians. Gregory of Valentia and 
 Cardinal Bellarmine 18 hold that Christ had no direct 
 jurisdiction in secular or temporal matters, while 
 Suarez 19 and De Lugo 20 maintain that He had. The 
 affirmative opinion appeals to us as more probable, 
 though the Scriptural texts marshalled in its favor by 
 De Lugo 21 cannot be said to be absolutely convincing. 
 These texts (Matth. XXVIII, 18; Acts X, 36; 1 Cor. 
 XV, 27; Apoc. I, 5 and XIX, 16) can be explained 
 partly by the doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum, 22 
 partly by reference to our Lord’s spiritual kingdom. De 
 Lugo’s theological arguments, however, are very strong 
 
 17 Cfr. Jer. XXII, 30. 20 De Myst. Incarn., disp. 30, § 1. 
 
 18 De Rom. Pontifice, V, 4 sq. 21 L. c., n. 5. 
 
 19 De Myst. Vitae Christi, disp. 22 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, 
 
 42, sect. 2. pp. 184 sqq. 
 
154 
 
 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER 
 
 indeed. Take this one, for example. Christ’s direct 
 jurisdiction in matters temporal is based on the Hypo¬ 
 static Union. On account of the Hypostatic Union His 
 sacred humanity was entitled to such excellencies and 
 prerogatives as the power of working miracles, the ful¬ 
 ness of knowledge, the highest measure of the beatific 
 vision, the dignity of headship over all creatures, 2 ' 3 etc. 
 And it is but reasonable to conclude that there must 
 have been due to Him in a similar way that other pre¬ 
 rogative which we may call kingship over all crea¬ 
 tures. 24 From this point of view it may be argued that 
 the theandric dignity of our Lord, flowing from the Hy¬ 
 postatic Union, gave Him an imprescriptible claim to 
 royal power, so that, had He willed, He could have 
 deposed all the kings and princes of this world and con¬ 
 stituted Himself the Head of a universal monarchy. 
 
 Bellarmine’s apprehension that this teaching might 
 exert a pernicious influence on the papacy, is absolutely 
 groundless. For, in the first place, Christ’s vice-gerent 
 on earth is not Christ Himself, and secondly, the pre¬ 
 rogatives and powers enjoyed by our Lord, even those 
 of a purely spiritual nature, are not eo ipso enjoyed 
 by the Pope. “ Christ was able to do many things in the 
 spiritual realm,” rightly observes De Lugo, “ which the 
 Pope cannot do; for example, institute sacraments, con¬ 
 fer grace through other than sacramental channels, 
 etc.” 25 
 
 These considerations also explain why Christ declared 
 Himself legally exempt from the obligation of paying 
 taxes and “ paid the didrachmas ” solely to avoid scan¬ 
 dal. 26 
 
 23 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, 25 L. c., n. n. 
 
 pp. 239 sqq. 26 Cfr. Matth. XVII, 23 sqq. 
 
 24 De Lugo, l. c., n. 8 . 
 
CHRIST A TRUE KING 
 
 155 
 
 The question as to the property rights enjoyed by our 
 Divine Saviour may be solved by the same principle 
 which we have applied to that of His temporal juris¬ 
 diction. Vasquez was inconsistent in rejecting De 
 Lugo’s solution of the former problem after accepting 
 his view of the latter. 27 For, while it is perfectly true 
 that the Godman never laid claim to earthly goods, but 
 lived in such abject poverty that He literally “ had not 
 where to lay his head,” 28 this does not argue that He 
 had no legal right to acquire worldly possessions. The 
 simple truth is that He had renounced this right for good 
 reasons. 
 
 It is an article of faith, defined by Pope John XXII 
 in his Constitution “ Quum inter nonnnllos ” that Christ 
 actually possessed at least a few things as His personal 
 property. 29 
 
 3. Christ’s Heavenly Kingship, or the 
 Dogma of His Ascension and Sitting at the 
 Right Hand of the Father.— The Resurrec¬ 
 tion of our Lord and His Descent into hell merely 
 formed the preliminaries of His kingly office. It 
 was by His glorious Ascension that He took for¬ 
 mal possession of His royal throne in Heaven, 
 which Holy Scripture describes as “sitting at the 
 right hand of God.” Both His Ascension and 
 His sitting at the right hand of God are funda¬ 
 mental articles of faith, as may he judged from 
 the fact that they have been incorporated into the 
 Apostles’ Creed. 
 
 27 De Incarn., disp. 87, cap. 6. 
 
 28 Luke IX, 58. Cfr. St. Thomas, 
 
 11 
 
 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 40, art. 3. 
 29 Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 494. 
 
156 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER 
 
 a) There is no need of entering into a detailed Scrip¬ 
 tural argument to prove these dogmas. Our Lord Him¬ 
 self clearly predicted His Ascension into Heaven, 30 and 
 the prophecy was fulfilled in the presence of many wit¬ 
 nesses. Mark XVI, 19: “And the Lord Jesus, after 
 Fie had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and 
 sitteth on the right hand of God.” 31 
 
 The argument from Tradition is copiously developed 
 by Suarez in the 51st disputation of his famous treatise 
 De Mysteriis Vitae Christi. 
 
 Our Lord “ ascended by His own might,” says the 
 Roman Catechism, “ and was not raised aloft by the 
 power of another, as was Elias, who 4 went up ’ in a 
 fiery chariot into heaven (4 Kings II, 11), or as was 
 the prophet Flabacuc (Dan. XIV, 35 sqq.), or Philip the 
 deacon (Acts VIII, 39), who, borne through the air 
 by the divine power, traversed far distant parts of the 
 earth. Neither did He ascend into heaven solely as 
 God, by the supreme power of the Divinity, blit also 
 as man; for although the Ascension could not have taken 
 place by natural power, yet that virtue with which the 
 blessed soul of Christ had been endowed, was capable 
 of moving the body as it pleased; and his body, now 
 glorified, readily obeyed the command of the actuating 
 soul. And thus we believe that Christ, as God and 
 man, ascended by His own power into heaven.” 32 
 
 The phrase, “ sitteth on the right hand of God,” must 
 not, of course, be interpreted literally, since with God 
 there is neither right nor left. It is a figurative ex¬ 
 pression, intended to denote the exalted station occupied 
 
 SO John VI, 63; XIV, 1 sqq.; rbv ovpavov Kal eKadiaev e/c 
 XVI, 28. tov Oeov. 
 
 31 'O juev obi' Kvpios ’Itjcous /aera 33 Cat. Rom., P. I, c. 7, qu. 2. 
 \a\rjaai avTois avTjXTjfupdii eh Cfr. S. Thomas, S. Theol., 3a, qu. 
 
 57, art. 1. 
 
CHRIST A TRUE KING 
 
 157 
 
 by our Lord in heaven, 33 and also His calm, immutable 
 possession of glory and jurisdiction over the whole 
 universe. 34 It is in His capacity of royal judge that 
 Jesus will one day reappear with great power and maj¬ 
 esty “to judge the living and the dead.” 35 
 
 b) The two dogmas under consideration have 
 both a Christological and a Soteriological bearing. 
 
 a) From the Christological point of view our Saviour’s! 
 Ascension as well as His sitting on the right hand of 
 the Father signalize the beginning, or rather the con¬ 
 tinuation, of the status exaltationis, of which His Resur¬ 
 rection and Descent into hell were mere preludes. His 
 humiliation ( status exinanitionis) in the “ form of a 
 servant,” 36 His poverty, suffering, and death, made 
 way for an eternal kingship in Heaven. The truly 
 regal splendor of our Divine Redeemer during and 
 after His Ascension is more strongly emphasized in the 
 Apostolic Epistles than in the Gospels. In the Epistles 
 the epithet “ Lord ” ( Dominus, 6 KvpLos) nearly always 
 connotes royal dominion. Cfr. 1 Tim. VI, 15: “Who 
 is the Blessed and only Mighty, King of kings, and Lord 
 of lords.” It is only since His Ascension into Heaven 
 that Christ rules the universe conjointly with the Father, 
 though this joint dominion will not reach its highest 
 perfection till the day of the Last Judgment, when all 
 creation will lie in absolute subjection “ under His feet.” 37 
 
 /?) From the Soteriological point of view it would be 
 wrong to represent Christ’s Ascension (not to speak of 
 His Resurrection and Descent into hell) as the total or 
 
 83 Cfr. Heb. I, 13. 36 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, 
 
 34 Cfr. Eph. I, 20 sqq. pp. 95 sq. 
 
 S6 Cfr. St. Thomas, S, Theol., 3a, 37 Cfr. Eph. I, 22 sqq.; Heb. II, 8 . 
 
 qu. 58. 
 
158 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER 
 
 even partial cause ( causa meritoria) of our Redemption. 
 The atonement was effected solely by the sacrifice of the 
 Cross. Nevertheless St. Paul writes: “Jesus . . . en¬ 
 tered . . . into heaven itself, that he may appear now in 
 the presence of God for us.” 38 In other words, He con¬ 
 tinues to exercise His mediatorial office in Heaven. 
 How are we to understand this? St. Thomas explains 
 it as follows: “ Christ’s Ascension is the cause of our 
 
 salvation in a twofold way, first on our part, and sec¬ 
 ondly on His. On our part, in so far as His Ascension 
 directs our minds to Him. . . . On His part, in so far 
 as He ascended for our salvation, (i) to prepare for 
 us the way to Heaven, ... (2) because Christ entered 
 Heaven, as the High Priest entered the Holy of holies, 
 to make intercession for us; 39 . . . (3) in order that, 
 seated as Lord God on the throne of Heaven, He 
 might thence send us divine gifts.” 40 As is apparent 
 from the last-mentioned two points, Christ’s kingship 
 is closely bound up with His priesthood. In fact it 
 may be said in a general way that the three functions 
 or offices of our Divine Redeemer are so closely inter¬ 
 twined that they cannot be separated. 
 
 For the special benefit of canonists we would observe 
 that the threefold character of these functions furnishes 
 no adequate basis for the current division of the power 
 of the Church into potestas ordinis, potestas magisterii, 
 and potestas iurisdictionis . 41 The traditional division into 
 potestas ordinis and potestas iurisdictionis is the only 
 adequate and correct one from the dogmatic point of 
 view. 42 
 
 38 vvv i/uf>avi(T8rjvai TW irpoauiru 
 rov Oeov \nrkp ijpiuv- Heb. IX, 24. 
 
 39 Heb. VII, 25. 
 
 40 S'. Theol., 3a, qu. 57, art. 6. 
 
 41 This division is employed by 
 Walter, Phillips, Richter, Hinschius, 
 and others. 
 
 42 Cfr. Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. 
 
CHRIST A TRUE KING 
 
 159 
 
 4. Christ’s Kingship as Continued in His 
 Church on Earth. —We have shown that our 
 Divine Redeemer did not claim secular or tem¬ 
 poral jurisdiction. It follows a fortiori that the 
 Church which He has established is a purely 
 spiritual kingdom and must confine herself to the 
 government of souls. 
 
 a) The Catholic Church was not established as a polit¬ 
 ical power. She represents that peaceful Messianic king¬ 
 dom which was foreshadowed by the Old Testament 
 prophets and which the Prince of Peace founded with His 
 Precious Blood. Hence the hierarchical order displayed 
 in the papacy, episcopate, priesthood, and diaconate, is 
 purely spiritual. Hence, too, the means of sanctification 
 which the Church employs (prayer, sacrifice, and the 
 sacraments) are of an exclusively spiritual character. 
 Christ, who was the King of Kings, did not disturb the 
 earthly monarchs of His time in their jurisdiction, and it 
 cannot be the mission of His Church to grasp at political 
 power or treat temporal rulers as her vassals. Hers 
 is a purely spiritual dominion for the sanctification of 
 souls. 
 
 Being God’s kingdom on earth, the Church exists in 
 and for this world, but is not of it. The theory of a few 
 medieval canonists that she enjoys direct jurisdiction over 
 all nations and rulers, has no foundation either in 
 Sacred Scripture or in history. It is unevangelical for 
 the reason that Christ never claimed such power. It 
 is unhistorical because the “ donation of Constantine,” 
 on which it rests, is a fiction. 43 This theory, which was 
 
 I, p. 67, Freiburg 1873; Cavagnis, 43 Cfr. L. Duchesne, The Begin - 
 Instit. Iuris Publ. Ecclesiae, 4th ed., nings of the Temporal Sovereignty 
 Vol. I, p. 24, Rome 1906. of the Popes (English tr.), p. 120, 
 
i6o 
 
 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER 
 
 inspired by the imposing phenomenon of the Holy Roman 
 Empire, has never been adopted by the Church, nor is it 
 maintained by the majority of her theologians and canon¬ 
 ists. The relation between Church and State still re¬ 
 mains a knotty problem. 44 Harnack seriously distorts the 
 truth when he says: “ The Roman Church in this way 
 
 privily pushed itself into the place of the Roman world- 
 empire, of which it is the actual continuation; the empire 
 has not perished, but has only undergone a transforma¬ 
 tion. If we assert, and mean the assertion to hold good 
 even of the present time, that the Roman Church is the 
 old Roman Empire consecrated by the Gospel, that is no 
 mere ‘ clever remark/ but the recognition of the true 
 state of the matter historically, and the most appropriate 
 and fruitful way of describing the character of this 
 Church. It still governs the nations; its popes rule like 
 Trajan and Marcus Aurelius; Peter and Paul have taken 
 the place of Romulus and Remus; the bishops and arch¬ 
 bishops, of the proconsuls; the troops of priests and 
 monks correspond to the legions; the Jesuits, to the im¬ 
 perial body-guard. The continued influence of the old 
 Empire and its institutions may be traced in detail, down 
 to individual legal ordinances, nay, even in the very 
 clothes. That is no church like the evangelical com¬ 
 munities, or the national churches of the East; it is a 
 political creation, and as imposing as a world-empire, 
 because the continuation of the Roman Empire.” 45 The 
 possession of political power may be useful, nay, rela¬ 
 tively speaking, necessary to insure to the Pope the free 
 and untrammelled exercise of his spiritual functions; but 
 
 London 1908; J. P. Kirsch in the 
 Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V, pp. 
 118 sqq. 
 
 44 Cfr. J. Pohle in Herder’s Kir- 
 chenlexikon, Vol. XII, 229 sqq. 
 
 45 Das Wesen des Christentums, 
 p. 157, Leipzig 1902 (English tr.: 
 What is Christianity ? p. 270, 2nd 
 ed., New York 1908). 
 
CHRIST A TRUE KING ' 161 
 
 it does not enter into the essence of the papacy, which for 
 centuries has flourished without it and still commands the 
 highest respect in spite of its spoliation by the Italian 
 government. 
 
 , / 
 
 b) The Church exercises a truly royal domin¬ 
 ion over the souls of men, and hence must be enti¬ 
 tled to all the prerogatives of a spiritual kingship. 
 .That is to say, within the limits of her divinely or¬ 
 dained constitution, she possesses legislative as 
 well as judicial power over her members, includ¬ 
 ing the executive right of inflicting punishment. 46 
 There can be no exercise of judicial power with¬ 
 out the power of compulsion ( potestas coactiva s. 
 vindicativa ) and it is, moreover, a formally de¬ 
 fined dogma that the Church possesses this 
 power. 47 
 
 The penalties which she is authorized to inflict are, 
 of course, predominantly spiritual (penitential acts, ec¬ 
 clesiastical censures, and especially excommunication). 48 
 But she can also impose temporal and bodily punish¬ 
 ments ( poenae temporales et corporales ). We know 
 that she has exercised this power, and it would be temera¬ 
 rious to deny that she possesses it. 49 
 
 Has the Church also the power to put malefactors 
 to death ( ius gladii) ? Canonists are not agreed on 
 this point, though all admit that if the Church decides 
 to inflict the death penalty, the sentence must be carried 
 
 46 Cfr. Matth. XVI, 19; XVIII, 48 Cfr. 1 Cor. IV, 21; V, 5; 2 
 
 15 sqq. Cor. XIII, 1 sq.; 1 Tim. I, 20. 
 
 47 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, En- 49 Cfr. Bouix, De Iudic., Vol. I, 
 
 chiridion , n. 499, 640, 1504 sq. p. 66, Paris 1855. 
 
OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER 
 
 162 
 
 out by the secular power (brachium saeculare), because it 
 would be unbecoming for the Spouse of Christ to stain 
 her hands with blood, even if a deadly crime had been per¬ 
 petrated against her. 
 
 It is a historical fact that the Church has never pro¬ 
 nounced (much less, of course, executed) the death sen¬ 
 tence or claimed the right to inflict it. Whenever, in 
 the Middle Ages, she found herself constrained to pro¬ 
 nounce judgment for a crime which the secular power 
 was wont to punish by death ( e . g. voluntary and obsti¬ 
 nate heresy), she invariably turned the culprit over to 
 the State. The cruel practice of burning heretics has 
 fortunately ceased and will never be revived. 
 
 Regarded from the standpoint of religious principle, 
 the question of the ius gladii is purely academic. The 
 great majority of canonists seem to hold that the Church 
 does not possess the right of inflicting capital punishment. 
 The contrary teaching of Tarquini and De Luca 50 has 
 occasioned much unfavorable criticism, and Cavagnis 
 undoubtedly voices the conviction of most contemporary 
 canonists when he says 51 that the so-called ius gladii has 
 no solid basis either in Scripture or Tradition. Our Di¬ 
 vine Redeemer did not approve the infliction of capital 
 punishment, 52 nay, He restrained His followers from 
 inflicting bodily injury. 53 St. Paul, in spite of his sever¬ 
 ity, never took recourse to any but spiritual measures. 
 The great Pope Nicholas I said: “ God’s holy Church 
 has no other sword than the spiritual; she does not kill, 
 she dispenses life.” 54 Her kingdom is purely spiritual, 
 
 50 Inst, luris Eccl. Publ., Vol. I, 53 Cfr. Matth. XXVI, 52. 
 
 pp. 261 sqq., Rome 1901. 54 "Sancta Dei Ecclesia gladiutn 
 
 51 Inst. luris Publ. Eccl., 4th ed., non habet nisi spiritualem, non occi - 
 Vol. I, pp. 190 sqq., Rome 1906. dit, sed vivificot ." (Deer. Grat., c. 
 
 52 Cfr. Luke IX, 53 sqq. 6 , causa 33, qu. 2.) 
 
CHRIST A TRUE KING 163 
 
 and hence she must leave the infliction of capital pun¬ 
 ishment to the secular power. 55 
 
 The most determined opponent of the Church’s 
 royal office is modern Liberalism, which employs 
 all the powers of civil government to obstruct 
 the exercise of her spiritual jurisdiction or to 
 circumscribe that jurisdiction as narrowly as pos¬ 
 sible. Among the means invented for this pur¬ 
 pose are the so-called ius circa sacra , the appella- 
 tio tamquam ab abusup Q and the placetum re- 
 giump 1 —in a word the whole iniquitous system 
 known in English-speaking countries as Csesaro- 
 papism or Erastianism 58 and based on the per¬ 
 nicious fallacy that the State is supreme in 
 ecclesiastical affairs. 
 
 Readings : —* St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, 3a, qu. 22, and 
 the Commentators.— A. Charre, Le Sacrifice de THomme-Dieu, 
 Paris 1899.—* V. Thalhofer, Das Opfer des Alten und Neuen 
 Bundes, Ratisbon 1870. — Idem, Die Opferlehre des Hebrder- 
 briefes, Dillingen 1855.— W. Schenz, Die priesterliche Tdtigkeit 
 des Messias nach dem Propheten Isaias, Ratisbon 1892.— J. 
 Grimal, Le Sacerdoce et le Sacrifice de Notre Seigneur Jesus- 
 Christ, Paris 1908 (English tr. by M. J. Keyes, The Priesthood 
 and Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Philadelphia 1915).— 
 * Fr. Schmid, Christus als Prophet, nach den Evangelien darge- 
 
 otic Encyclopedia , Vol. I, pp. 650 
 sqq. 
 
 57 Cfr. S. Luzio in the Catholic 
 Encyclopedia, s. v. “ Exequatur,” 
 Vol. V, pp. 707 sq. 
 
 58 On the true meaning of this 
 loosely used term see B. Ward in 
 the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V, 
 pp. 514 sqq. 
 
 55 Cfr. A. Vermeersch, S. J., 
 Tolerance (tr. by W. H. Page), pp. 
 58 sqq., London 19x3; J. Pohle, art. 
 “ Toleration ” in the Catholic Ency¬ 
 clopedia, Vol. XIV; J. Keating, S. 
 J., in The Month, No. 582, pp. 607 
 sqq. 
 
 56 Cfr. R. L. Burtsell in the Cath- 
 
164 
 
 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER 
 
 stellt, Brixen 1892.— Tanner, S. J., Cruentum Christi Sacrihcium, 
 Incruentum Missae Sacrificium Explicatum, Prague 1669.— B. 
 Bartmann, Das Himmelreich und sein Konig nach den Synopti- 
 kern, Paderborn 1904.— A. J. Maas, S. J., Christ in Type and 
 Prophecy, 2 vols., New York 1893-5.— M. Lepin, Christ and the 
 Gospel, or Jesus the Messiah and Son of God, Philadelphia 1910. 
 — Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology, Vol. II, 
 pp. 196-207, 2nd ed., London 1901.— W. Humphrey, S. J., The 
 One Mediator, pp. 1-41, London s. a. — P. Batiffol, L’Enseignement 
 de Jesus, Paris 1906.— J. H. Newman, Sermons Bearing on Sub¬ 
 jects of the Day, New Impression, London 1898, pp. 52-62.—Other 
 authorities quoted in the foot-notes. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 < 
 
 THE ATONEMENT IN ITS RELATION TO GOD’S IMMUTABILITY 
 J (See page 39) 
 
 There is another objection to the doctrine of Christ’s 
 vicarious atonement which deserves a brief refutation 
 because it has seemed so strong to at least one Catholic 
 ■writer (Schell) that it has led him to substitute a new 
 and false conception of the atonement for the traditional 
 one of Catholic theology. This objection is based on the 
 immutability of the Divine Essence and may be formu¬ 
 lated as follows: The atonement implies a change of 
 mind or heart in God, but there can be no change in God 
 because He is actus purissimus. 
 
 To assume a real change of mind or heart in God as a 
 .result of the atonement would indeed contradict the dogma 
 
 i 
 
 of His immutability. But there is no such change in¬ 
 volved in the dogma of the atonement, rightly understood. 
 'As the sun by means of the same rays produces contrary 
 effects, e. g. melts ice and dries out a swamp, according 
 to the differing quality of matter, so the immutable will 
 of God either hates or loves man according as his moral 
 state renders him worthy or unworthy of divine favor. 
 The change involved in the process of justification, there¬ 
 fore, is not in the least a change on the part of God, but 
 entirely on the part of the sinner. God immutably loves 
 that which is good and holy, whereas the sinner changes 
 from evil to good. When we say that the passion of Our 
 Lord “ appeased ” the divine wrath, we do not mean that 
 
 165 
 
166 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 it affected God after the manner of a real cause or motive 
 and induced Him to change His mind or will. The divine 
 intellect and the divine will are predetermined in and by 
 themselves from all eternity and admit no external influ¬ 
 ence. In speaking of a reconciliation of God or the ap¬ 
 peasement of His wrath, the Church and her theologians 
 merely adapt themselves to the understanding of the peo¬ 
 ple, and what they mean to inculcate is that the redemp¬ 
 tion of the human race was predetermined by God from 
 all eternity solely on condition that adequate satisfaction 
 would be given by the Godman. No matter whether the 
 future Redemption be conceived as an absolute or as a 
 hypothetical result of God’s predetermination, there is no 
 trenching upon His immutability, because He inevitably 
 foresaw the fulfilment or non-fulfilment of the condition 
 and arranged His eternal plan of salvation accordingly. 
 In the objective order of things God can will a future 
 event either immutably in itself, or in connection with 
 and as a consequence of some other event, which is related 
 to the first as a cause to its effect. The causes involved 
 in such a hypothetical decree of the divine will operate 
 entirely outside of the Divine Essence without in any wise 
 influencing or changing that Essence. 1 
 
 1 See the chapter on “ God’s Im¬ 
 mutability ” in the first volume of 
 this series, God: His Knowability, 
 Essenca, and Attributes, 2nd ed., 
 pp. 298-305, St. Louis 1914, and P. 
 
 Stufler’s paper, " Die Erlosungstat 
 Christi in Hirer Besiehung su Gott/* 
 in the Innsbruck Zeitschrift fur 
 katholische Theologie, 1906, pp. 385 
 sqq. 
 
INDEX 
 
 A 
 
 Abelard, 54. 
 
 Adam, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33, 40, 
 
 42, 49 sq. 
 
 Adamantius, 52. 
 
 Adequacy of the atonement, 60 
 sqq. 
 
 Adoration, 112. 
 
 *'A i8tjs 92 sqq. 
 
 /Eons, 6. 
 
 Albert the Great, 30. 
 
 Alexander VIII, 78. 
 
 Ambrose Catharinus, 31. 
 
 Ambrose, St., 29, 135 sq. 
 
 Angels, 16 sq., 33 sq., 80 sq. 
 Anselm, St., 21, 54, 55. 
 
 ’A vrC\vTpop ) 62. 
 
 Apocatastasis, 80. 
 
 Appellatio tamquam ab abusu, 
 163. 
 
 Ascension, Christ’s, 155 sqq. 
 Athanasius, St., 15, 29. 
 
 Atonement, Vicarious, 35 sqq.; 
 Properties of, 60 sqq.; Real¬ 
 ization of, 84 sqq. 
 
 Augustine, St., 10, 16, 21, 22, 
 
 29, 33, 42, 53, 67, 79, 82, 93, 
 
 95, 124 sq. 
 
 B 
 
 Bajus, 73. 
 
 Baptism, 103. 
 
 Baptism of Christ, 129. 
 
 Barnabas, Epistle of, 121. 
 Bellarmine, 153, 154. 
 
 Bernard of Clairvaux, St., 53. 
 Bernard of Siena, 31. 
 
 167 
 
 Berruyer, 67. 
 
 Beza, 92. 
 
 Blavatsky, Madame, 44. 
 
 Body of Christ, Glorified, 105 
 sq. 
 
 Bonaventure, St., 26 sq. 
 
 Books, Why Christ wrote no, 
 145 sq. 
 
 Bougaud, 31. 
 
 C 
 
 Csesaropapism, 163. 
 
 Calvin, 10 sq., 75, 91, 92, 94. 
 Calvinists, 123. 
 
 Capital punishment, Has the 
 Church the right to inflict 
 it? 161 sqq. 
 
 Capreolus, 58. 
 
 Cavagnis, 162. 
 
 Child, Why Christ came into 
 the world as a, 17 sq. 
 
 Christ, Our Mediator, 7 sqq; 
 His Incarnation, 13 sqq.; 
 Why He assumed a human 
 rather than an angelic na¬ 
 ture, 16 sqq.; Why He came 
 into the world as a child, 
 17 sq.; Gained merits for us, 
 56 sq.; When? 57 sq.; The 
 principal object of His meri¬ 
 torious actions, 58 sq.; Ade¬ 
 quacy of His atonement, 60 
 sqq.; Superabundance there¬ 
 of, 70 sqq.; Died for all the 
 faithful, 75 sqq.; Died for 
 all men, 77 sqq.; His death 
 on the cross, 85 sqq.; His 
 
INDEX 
 
 168 
 
 descent into hell, 91 sqq.; 
 His Resurrection, 101 sqq.; 
 His priesthood, ill sqq., 127 
 sqq.; His intercession for us 
 in Heaven, 135 sqq.; His 
 prophetical office, 140 sqq-; 
 His kingship, 149 sqq.; His 
 Ascension and sitting at the 
 right hand of the Father, 155 
 sqq. 
 
 ’ Christus, 129. 
 
 Chrysostom, St. John, 71. 
 
 Church, The Catholic, 146 sqq., 
 159 sqq. 
 
 Clement VI, 74 - 
 
 Clement of Rome, St., 51. 
 
 Congruity of the Redemption, 
 
 13 sqq-. 
 
 Constantine, Donation of, 159. 
 
 Cross, 85 sqq.; Sacrifice of the 
 114 sqq. 
 
 Cyril of Jerusalem, St., 71. 
 
 D 
 
 Damascene, St. John, 16. 
 
 Dante, 98. 
 
 David, 153 - 
 
 Death of Christ, 85 sqq., ill 
 sqq. 
 
 De Luca, 162. 
 
 Deluge, 100 sq. 
 
 De Lugo, 26, 153 sqq. 
 
 Demiurge, 6. 
 
 De Rada, 63. 
 
 Descent into hell, Christ’s, 91 
 sqq. 
 
 Devil, Role of the, in the In¬ 
 carnation, 51 sqq. 
 
 Diekamp, Fr. 80. 
 
 Dominus, 157. 
 
 Dorholt, B., 21, 41. 
 
 Du Cappucce, 31. 
 
 Duns Scotus, 30, 63. 
 
 Durandus, 91. 
 
 E 
 
 Ephesus, Third General Coun¬ 
 cil of, 44 sq., 116. 
 
 Erastianismi, 163. 
 
 Eternity of Christ’s priesthood, 
 133 sqq. 
 
 Expiation, 112, 121. 
 
 F 
 
 Faber, F. W., 31. 
 
 Francis de Sales, St., 31. 
 Franzelin, 66. 
 
 Frassen, 63. 
 
 Funke, B., 21. 
 
 G 
 
 Gay, 31. 
 
 Gnosticism, 41, 43 sq. 
 Gcrttschalk, 77. 
 
 Gregory of Nazianzus, 52. 
 Gregory of Nyssa, St., 52. 
 Gregory of Valentia, 26, 66, 
 
 153 - 
 
 Grotius, Hugo, 51. 
 
 H 
 
 Harnack, 55, 160. 
 
 Hell, Christ’s descent into, 91 
 sqq. 
 
 Henno, 63. 
 
 Hierarchy, 159. 
 
 Holy Orders, 146. 
 
 Holy Roman Empire, 160. 
 Homo gloriosus, 26, 30. 
 
 Homo passibilis, 26, 30. 
 Hypostatic Union, 14, 22, 63, 
 65, 74 , 123, 129, 133 , 139 , 144 , 
 
 154 - 
 
 I 
 
 Imitation of Christ, 144. 
 Impeccantia, 42. 
 
 Incarnation, The, 13 sqq., 19, 
 21 sq., 25 sqq., 127 sq. 
 Inferiores partes terrae, 93. 
 Infernum, 94. 
 
 Infinite value of Christ’s atone¬ 
 ment, 72. 
 
 Innocent X, 76. 
 
 Irenaeus, St, 52, 93. 
 
 Isaias, 45 sqq., 131, 141 sq. 
 
INDEX 169 
 
 Ius circa sacra, 163. 
 Ius gladii, 161 sqq. 
 
 J 
 
 Jansenists, 79. 
 
 Jansenius, 75 sq. 
 
 Janssens, L., 26. 
 
 Jewish sacrifice, 117 sq. 
 
 John XXII, 155. 
 
 John the Baptist, 143. 
 
 Joseph, St., 153. 
 
 Judge, Christ the royal, 157. 
 Jurisdiction of the Church, 
 159 sq. 
 
 Justification, 103. 
 
 K 
 
 Kenosis, 20. 
 
 King, 149 sq. 
 
 “King of the Jews,” 151. 
 Kingship, Christ’s, 149 sqq. 
 Kleutgen, 26. 
 
 L 
 
 Last Judgment, 157. 
 
 Last Supper, 132. 
 
 Lateran, Fourth Council of 
 the, 91. 
 
 Leo IX, 104. 
 
 Lessius, 17, 26, 33. 
 
 Leibniz, 19. 
 
 Liberalism, 163. 
 
 Limbo, Speculations regarding 
 the location of, 98. 
 
 Limbus patrum, 91 sq., 94, 95. 
 Limbus puerorum, 96 sqq. 
 Logos, 6, 24. 
 
 Luke, St., 143. 
 
 Lull, Raymond, 19. 
 Lutheranism, 40. 
 
 M 
 
 Magisterium, The ecclesiasti¬ 
 cal, 146 sqq. 
 
 Malebranche, 19. 
 
 “Man of Sorrows,” 131. 
 
 Martyrdom not a true sacrifice, 
 126. 
 
 Mary B. V., 153. 
 
 Mass, 116, 132, 146. 
 
 Mastrius, 64. 
 
 Mediator, 5 sqq. 
 
 Mediator nafuralis, 7. 
 
 Mediator per gratiam, 7. 
 Mediatorship, 5 sqq. 
 Melchisedech, 127, 130, 131 sq. 
 Merit, 55 sqq. ( 
 
 Merits of Christ, 56 sqq. 
 Meritum de condigno, 56. 
 Meritum de congruo, 56. 
 Messias, 141. 
 
 Milton, 98. 
 
 Modernism, 50, 148. 
 Monophysitism, 122, 123. 
 Montanism, 147. 
 
 Mosaic sacrifices, 117 sqq. 
 Moses, 141, 142, 145. 
 
 N 
 
 Necessity of the Redemption, 
 18 sqq. 
 
 Nestorianism, 122, 123. 
 Nicholas I, 162. 
 
 Nominalists, 61. 
 
 O 
 
 Offices of the Redeemer, no 
 sqq. # 
 
 Optimism, 19 sq. 
 
 Ordination to the priesthood, 
 Christ’s, 127 sqq. 
 
 Origen, 52, 80. 
 
 Origenism, 104. 
 
 “.Our Father,” The, 43. 
 
 P 
 
 Pantheism, 41. 
 
 Paraclete, 136 sq. 
 
 Passion, Christ’s, 72, 86 sqq. 
 Paul, St., 38, 48, 50, 76, 79, 103, 
 IOS, 118 sqq., 128 sq., 130, 
 131 .sq., 134 , 138, 144 , 162. 
 Pelagianism, 41 sqq. 
 
 Pell, G. A., 41. 
 
170 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Perfection of the atonement, 
 Intrinsic, 60 sqq.; Extrinsic, 
 75 sqq. 
 
 Pesch, Chr., 26. 
 
 Petavius, 26, 77, 136 sq. 
 
 Peter, St., 99 sq. 
 
 Pfleiderer, 55. 
 
 Pilate, 151, 152. 
 
 Pius V, 73. 
 
 Pius X, 148. 
 
 Placetum regiuni, 163. 
 
 Plato, 95. 
 
 Palycarp, St, 51. 
 
 Pope, 154. 
 
 Potestas coactiva of the 
 Church, 161. 
 
 Poverty of Christ, 155. 
 
 Prayers of Christ, 132 sq. 
 
 Precious Blood, 48 sq., 61 sq., 
 
 88 . 
 
 Predestinarianism, 75 sqq. 
 
 Predestination, 75. 
 
 Predestination of the Re¬ 
 deemer, 24 sqq. 
 
 Priest, Christ a true, in sqq., 
 127 sqq. 
 
 Priesthood of Christ, hi sqq., 
 127 sqq. 
 
 Prophet, Christ as a, 140 sqq. 
 
 Prosper of Aquitaine, 79. 
 
 Punishment, The Church’s 
 right to inflict, 161. 
 
 Purgatory, 94, 95 sq. 
 
 R 
 
 Rationalism, 38, 41 sqq., 115. 
 
 Reatus culpae, 36. 
 
 Reatus poenae, 36, 37. 
 
 Redemption, Congruity of the, 
 13 sqq.; Necessity of the, 18 
 sqq.; A free gift of God, 20 
 sqq.; Predestination of the, 
 24 sqq.; Through Christ’s 
 vicarious atonement, 35 sqq. 
 
 Resurrection, The, 101 sqq. 
 
 Richard of St. Victor, 21. 
 
 Rigor iustitiae, 66, 69. 
 
 Risi, 31. 
 
 Riviere, J., 52. 
 
 Rupert of Deutz, 30. 
 
 S 
 
 Sacrifice, in sqq. 
 
 Sacrifice, Bloody, III sqq. 
 
 Sacrificial act, Christ’s, 125 sq. 
 
 Satisfaction, 35 sqq., 55 sqq., 60 
 sqq. 
 
 Schell, 31. 
 
 Schoulza, P., 137 sq. 
 
 Scotists, 25 sq., 30 sqq., 61, 
 63 sq. 
 
 Second Person of the Trinity, 
 Why did He become incar¬ 
 nate? 15 sq. 
 
 “Servant of God,” 46 sq. 
 
 Shepherd, Christ our, 150. 
 
 Sin, Grievous, 36 sq. 
 
 Sitting at the right hand of 
 God the Father, 155 sqq. 
 
 Socinianism, 38, 42 sq., 51, 115, 
 123, 130, 131, 137. 
 
 Socinus, Faustus, 42, 138. 
 
 Socinus, Laelius, 42. 
 
 Socrates, 88, 95, 144. 
 
 Sprinkling of the blood of 
 Christ, 88. 
 
 Stancarus, Francis, 123. 
 
 Status exaltationis, 157. 
 
 Status exinanitionis, 157. 
 
 Stentrup, 26. 
 
 Suarez, 22, 31, 33, 61, 66, 69, 
 7 h 156. 
 
 T 
 
 Tanner, 66. 
 
 Tarquini, 162. 
 
 Teacher, Christ as a, 140 sqq. 
 
 Temporal power of the papacy, 
 160 sq. 
 
 Tepe, 26. 
 
 Teresa, St., 90. 
 
 Tertullian, 80, 93, 121 sq. 
 
 Thalhofer, 137 sq., 139. 
 
 Theosophy, 41, 44. 
 
 Thomas, St., On the functions 
 of mediatorship, 8; On the 
 mystery of the Incarnation, 
 14 sq.; On the motive of the 
 Incarnation, 26 sq.; On the 
 infinity of grievous sin, 36; 
 
INDEX 
 
 On the scope of Christ’s 
 merits, 59; On the dignity of 
 Christ’s flesh, 72; On the ne¬ 
 cessity of Qirist’s Passion, 
 72 sq.; On the universality 
 of the atonement, 82 sq.; On 
 the congruity of Christ’s 
 death on the cross, 88 sq.; 
 On His descent into hell, 96; 
 On sacrifice, 114; On the 
 priesthood, 139; On the ques¬ 
 tion why Christ confined His 
 personal activity to one par¬ 
 ticular time and country, 
 145; On the question why 
 thie Redeemer taught only by 
 word of mouth, 145 sq.; On 
 Christ’s Ascension, 158. 
 
 Thomassin, 136 sq. 
 
 Thomists, 26 sqq., 64 sq. . 
 
 Toledo, Eleventh Council of, 
 106 sq. 
 
 Toleration, 163. 
 
 Toletus, Card., 26, 29. 
 
 Toumely, 21, 138. 
 
 Tradition, 145 sq. 
 
 Trent, Council of, 45, 56, 58, 78, 
 81, 85, 116, 124, 130. 
 
 Triumph over hell, Christ’s 95. 
 
 171 
 U 
 
 Unction of Christ, 127 sqq. 
 "Unigenitus” Bull, 73 sq. 
 Universality of the atonement, 
 75 sqq. 
 
 .V 
 
 Vasquez, 26, 136 sq., 155. 
 Vicarious atonement, 35 sqq.; 
 
 Properties of, 60 sqq. 
 Voluntas salviiica , 75, 82, 97. 
 
 W 
 
 Wyclif, 18 sq. 
 
 Y 
 
 Ysambert, 31. 
 
 Z 
 
 Zill, L., 137, 138. 
 Zwinglians, 123. 
 
\ 
 
 ■\ 
 
 
I 
 

 Date Due 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *» 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 NOV 1 5 ’63 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 r~ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <f>