DOGMATIC THEOLOGY

V

THE POHLE-PREUSS SERIES OF DOG­
MATIC TEXT-BOOKS
1. God: His Knowability, Essence and At­
tributes. vi & 479 pp., $2.00 net.
2. The Divine Trinity, 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 & 310 pp., $1.50 net.
5. Soteriology.
6. Mariology. (In Press.)

Other Volumes to follow in course of time:
7. Grace : Actual and Habitual.
The Sacraments in General.
Baptism. Confirmation.
The Holy Eucharist.
The Sacrament of Penance.
Extreme Unction. Holy Or­
ders. Matrimony.
Eschatology.

SOTERIOLOGY
A DOGMATIC TREATISE ON THE
REDEMPTION

BY

THE REVEREND JOSEPH POHLE, Ph. D.» D.D.
FORMERLY PROFESSOR OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOLOGY IN THE
CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA, NOW PROFESSOR OF
DOGMA IN THE UNIVERSITY OF BRESLAU

AUTHORIZED ENGLISH VERSION, BASED ON THE FIFTH
GERMAN EDITION, WITH SOME ABRIDGEMENT
AND ADDED REFERENCES

BY

ARTHUR PREUSS

ST. LOUIS, MO.,’ 1914

Published

by

B. Herder

17 South Broadway

Freiburg (Baden)
Germany

I
|

London, W.C.
68, Great Russell Str.

THE NEW YORK
PUBLIC LIBRARY
> *Q

I

ASTOR, LENOX AND
TILDEN FOUNDATIONS

[r

I

ΙΙΙθ______ —

NIHIL OBSTAT.

Sti. Ludooici, die 25. Sept., 1913.
F. Q. HOLWECK,
Censor Librorum.

IMPRIMATUR.
Sit. Ludooici, die 26. Sept., 1913.

^Joannes]. Glennon,
Archlepiscopus Sti. Ludooici.

Copyright, 1913,

by

Joseph Gummersbach.

~ ·. „ All right: reserved.

—BECKTOLD—
PRINTING AND BOOK MFG. CO.
ST. LOUIS, MO.

r_

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE

INTRODUCTION...................................................................... i
Part I. The Work of Redemption........................................... 3
Prefatory Remarks................................................................ 3
Ch. I. Christ’s Mediatorship as aCondition of Our Re- 5
demption.................................................................5
§ i. 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
§ i. The Reality of Christ’s Vicarious Atonement . . 35
Art. I. 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. I. Intrinsic Perfection of the Atonement . 60
Art. 2. Extrinsic Perfection or Universality of the
Atonement............................................................... 75
§ 3. The Concrete Realization of .Christ’s Vicarious
Atonement
84
Art. I. Christ’s. Death on the Cross......................... 85
Art. 2. Christ’^ Descent irnto Hell......................... 91
Art. 3. The Resurrection-.··,,...................................101
Part II. The Thréè* Office's

of

TAe’Redeemer .

.

.

.no

Ch. I. Christ’s Priesthood.................................................. in
§ I. Christ’s Death a True Sacrifice............................. in
§ 2. Christ a True Priest............................................. 127
Ch. II. Christ’s Prophetical Office.................................. 140
Ch. HI. Christ’s Kingship.................................................. 149

INTRODUCTION
Christology deals with the Person of our Di­
τψ σωτηρίας λόγος)
vine Redeemer; Soteriology
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
I

2

INTRODUCTION

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
i Pohle-Preuss, 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.

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, μεσίτη) 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,”
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 (όμοουσιο?) 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 ahvays
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
error see Pohle-Preuss, God the Au­
thor of Nature and the Supernatural,
pp. 17 sq., St. Louis 1912.
3 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Divine

Trinity, pp. 49 sqq., St. Louis 1912.
4 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology,
pp. 10 sqq.
5 In ordine morali sive ethico; in
ordine ontologico sive essendi.

MEDIATORSHIP

7

mediator naturalis and mediator per gratiam. Moses,0
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.0

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
inter Dominum et vos—I stood
between the Lord and you.”
7 Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of

Catholic Theology, Vol. IT, p. 140,
and ed., London 1901.
8 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology.
θ V. infra, Sect. 2.

8

THE WORK or REDEM PTION

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 \vas our natural Mediator is an article of
faith, defined by the Council of Trent. “Si quis
hoc Adae peccatum [originale] . . . per aliud
remedium asserit tolli quam per meritum unius
mediatoris Domini nostri Icsu 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 quem 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
dici mediatores inter Deum et ho­
mines, prout scii, cooperantur ad
unionem hominum cunt Deo disposi­
tive vel ininisterialitcr.” S. Theol.,
33. qu. 26, art. i.— Cfr. Franzelin,
De Verbo Incarnato, tbes. 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 ipsum
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.” 11
12
Both the ontological and the moral mediatorship
of Christ are pregnantly summed up by St. Paul
in I Tim. II, 5 sq. : “ Unus enim Deus, units
11 Cone. Trid., Sess. V, can. 3
(in Denzinger’s Enchiridion Sym­
bolorum, Definitionum et Declara­
tionum in Rebus Fidei et Morum,
ed. Bannwart, n. 790, Friburgi
1908).

12 For a full explanation of this
text cfr. J. N. Schneider, Die Versohnung des IVeltalls durch das Blut
Jesu Christi nach Koi. I, so, Ratisbon 1857.

10

THE WORK OF REDEMPTION

et mediator Dei et hominum,13 homo Christus
Iesus, qui 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 18 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,15 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 ek καί μεσίτης θεού καί
άνθρύπων14 ό ξους ίαυτόν άντίλυτρον υπέρ
πάντων.

15 Cfr. Ileb. X, s sqq.
Ιθδια0ήκηϊ κοινής μεσίτης.
17 Ileb. IX, is18 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.
10 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

2

et divina humanitas Christi.” Serm.,
47, c. 12, n. 2i.
21 “ Non ob hoc mediator est
Christus, quia Verbum; maxime
quippe immortale et maxime beatum
Verbum longe est a mortalibus mi­
seriis; sed mediator est secundum
quod homo.” De Civ. Dei, IX, 15.
For additional Patristic texts see
Petavius, De Incarn., XII, 1-4;
X’asquez, Comment, in S. Theol.,
Ill, disp. 83, c. i.

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 (θεάνθρωπος). 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 AVord
Incarnate, i. c. as man. Cfr. i 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 Avas 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.12 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
(/?) 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.” 5
(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
pudet, quia pudendum est; est mor­
tuus Dei Filius: prorsus credibile,
quia ineptum est; et sepultus resur­
rexit; certum est, quia impossibile."
De Corne Christi, c. 5.

2 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His
Knozeobility, Essence, and Attri­
butes, pp. 466 sqq., St. Louis 1911.
3Ps. LXXXIV, ii.
4 John III, 16.
5 Heb. II, ii.

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?0 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 befitG “ Si quis autem diligenter incar­
nationis mysterium consideret, in­
veniet tantam sapientiae profundita­
tem, quod omnem humanam cogni­
tionem excedat. . . . Unde fit, ut
pie consideranti semper magis ac
magis admirabiles rationes huiusmodi
mysterii
manifestentur.” Contr.
Cent., IV, 54.
7 Pohle-Preuss, Christology, pp.
135 sq.

8 Cfr. John I, 3.
o Pope St. Leo the Great says:
. . ut, quoniam ipse est, per quem
omnia facta sunt et sine quo factum
est nihil, . . . cuius erat conditor,
etiam esset reformator.” (Serm.,
64, Migne, P. L., LIX, 358.)
,10 Cfr. 2 Cor. IV, 4.
11 Cfr. Gen. I, 26.
12 Or. de Ineam. Verbi, 13·

ιό

THE WORK OF REDEMPTION

ted the hypostatic character of the Son of God that,
as the true son of the \7irgin 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 X’irgin, but
did not cease to be the Son of God.” 13

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.
Hob. II, 16: “Nusquam enim angelos appre­
hendit, sod semen Abrahae apprehendit10—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 " JJt homines nascerentur ex
Deo, primo ex ipsis natus est Deus.
Christus enim . . . natur ex Deo,
per quem efficeremur, et natus ex
femina, per quem reficeremur."
Tract, in loa., 2, n. 15.

is " Filius Dei etiam filius hominis
fit, qui ex s. virgine incarnatus est,
nec tomen a filiali proprietate disces·
sit." De Trinitate, 1.— Cfr. St.
Thomas, ,Ç. Thcol.. 3a, qti. 3, art. 8.
10 ΐπιλαμβάΐ'ίται.

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
Π On the possibility of the
Logos’ assuming the nature of an
angel, see Suarez, De Incarn., disp.
14, sect. 2.

18 De Perfect. Moribusque Divinis,
XII, 4.

i8

THE AVORK OF REDEMPTION

marc ct fcmina) ; Eve sprang from the male without fe­
male co-operation (ex mare sine fcmina) ; their descend­
ants arc propagated by sexual generation (y.v mare ct
fcmina) ; Jesus Christ alone originated from a woman
without male co-operation (ex fcmina sine mare). This
fact guarantees the reality and integrity of our Lord’s
human nature, as has been shown in Christology.10
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 Abrgin Alary. 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) AXydif asserted that the Redemption was
an absolute necessity. This proposition is un­
tenable.22
io Pohle-Preuss, Christology, pp.
41 sqq.
20 Cfr. Rom. V, 14 sqq.; 1 Cor.
XV, 45.
21 " Nec mares fastidivit, quia
marem suscepit; >tec feminam, quia
de femina factus est.” Ep., 3. On
the propriety of Christ’s becoming incarnate at the particular
time when He was conceived by the

Blessed Virgin Mary, cfr. Saint
Thomas, 5. Thcol., 3a, qu. 1, art. 56.— 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., λ’οΐ. IV, 3rd ed.,
pp. 209 sqq.
22 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, En­
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, tliat 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 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, pp. 45 sq.

20

THE WORK OF REDEMPTION

of Nature.2* 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,”24
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 (c.rinanitio, κεϊωσις) 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 pcri24 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God the Au­
thor of Nature and the Supernatural,
PP- 45 sq.
25 Gen. I. 31.
2β E. g., Didacus Ruiz (De Volunt.

Dei, disp. 9), Sylvester Maurus (De
Deo, disp. 51), and Viva (De In­
eant., qu. 2, art. 2).
-1 Cfr. De Lugo, De ilyst. Incarn.,
disp. 2, sect. i-z.

NECESSITY OF THE REDEMPTION

21

eriiit nationes, quas tu fecisti? — 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 massa 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
com. 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, co 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 (Dôrholt, 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 Théologie,
PP· 653 sqq., Innsbruck 1892. B.
Funke, Grundlagen und I'oraussetsungen der Satisfaktionstheorie des
hl. Anselm, Münster 1903, furnishes
a notable contribution in support of
Dorholt’s thesis. Cfr. also L. Hein­
richs, Genugtuungstheorie des hl.
Anselmus, Paderborn 1909; and
Pohle-Preuss, God: His Knowability,
Essence, and Attributes, pp. 462
sqq.
30"Sh)U 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 Petavius, De Incarn., II, 13.

22

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 (/. c., 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, 11. 3.
32 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., 3a,
qu. i, art. 2: “Deus per suam
omnipotentem virtutem poterat hu­
manam naturam multis aliis modis
reparare."
33 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., 3a,
qu. 2, ad 2.

34 St. Augustine. Enchir., c. 108:
"Neque per ipsum liberaremur unum
mediatorem Dei et hominum, homi­
nem /esum 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 oportet33
*35*
Filium hominis — The Son of man must be lifted up”
(as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert), and Luke
ΧΧΙλΓ, 26: “Nonne haec oportuit pati™ Christum —
Was it not necessary for Christ to have suffered these
things ? ”37
33 ΰψοθήναι. δεϊ.
36 êoei παθεΐν.
ST Cfr. Heb. IX, 22.— On the sub­
ject of the foregoing paragraphs con­
sult J. Kleutgen, Théologie der Vorzeit, Vol. Ill, pp. 336 sqq., 381 sqq.,
430 sqq., Münster 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 W hich 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 predestination 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 and also by a large number of theo­
logians belonging to other schools, e. g., Gregory
of Valentia, Vasquez, Petavius, Cardinals Toletus and De Lugo, and even by the ‘'ideal”
Lessius.3 Among modern theologians this the­
ory has been espoused by Kleutgen,4 Stentrup,56
Tepe,G and many others.
Toletus and Petavius absolutely reject the Scotist
hypothesis. Chr. Pesch 7 and L. Janssens8 prefer the
Thomist view, but admit the other as probable. In this
they follow St. Thomas himself 0 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- 33 De Praedest. Christi (Opusc., t.
II, pp. 483 sqq., Paris 1878).
4 Théologie der i'orseit, Vol. III.
PP- 393 sqq.

·

5 Soteriologia, thes. 2.
6 Instil. Theol., Vol. Ill, pp. 663
sqq., Paris 1896.

7 Praelecl. Dogin., Vol. IV, 3d ed.,
pp. 216 sqq.
S De Deo-Homine, II: Soteriologia,
pp. 44 sqq.
0 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 \vould 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 AVill, transcending every exi­
gency of nature, must remain unknown to us,
except it be revealed by Sacred Scripture. . . .
Noav, 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
111. c.
12 s. 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 assentiendum videtur. Ea enim quae
a sola Dei voluntate proveniunt
supra omne debitum naturae, nobis
3

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
tum esse a Deo in remedium contra
peccatum, ita quod peccato non exi­
stante 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, σωτηρ).
Cfr. Matth. I, 21 : “Et '•vocabis nomen eius lesum; ipse
cnim13 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:
“ Venit enim Filius 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
yàp,
14 Similarly Matth. IX, 13; Mark
II, 17; Luke I, 31; John III, 17;
13

Rom. Ill, 25; Gal. IV, 4; 1 Tim.
I, 15; i John III, 5.

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.” 13
*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
13 In S. Theol., It. I.
10 Or. contr. Arian., 2, 54. Sim­
ilarly Gregory of Nazianzus (Or..
30, n. 3) and Cyril of Alexandria
(Thesaur., N, 8).
17 “ Quae crat causa incarnationis,
nisi ut caro, quae per se peccaverat,

per se redimeretur? ” De Incarn.,
c. 6, n. 56.
isDf Pccc. Mer. et Rent., I, 26,
39.— Additional Patristic texts in
Lessius, De Praedest. Christi, sect,
i, n. 5; Stentrup, Sotcriologia, thes.
i 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 abovementioned 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 Great20 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
Libri XIII; De Trinit., III. 20.
20 Comment, in Quatuor Libros
Sent., Ill, dist. 20, art. 4.

21 Comment, in Quatuor Libros
Sent., Ill, (list. 7, qu. 3.
22 Cfr. Mastrius, Disp. Theol.,
disp. 4, qu. 1.

THE SCOTISTIC THEORY

31

camp, among them Ambrose Catharinus,23 Ysambert, St. Bernard of Siena, St. Francis de Sales,24
and especially Suarez.2526 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.20
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 quem omnia et
per quem omnia — For whom are all things and by
whom are all things.” 27 Col. I, 16 sqq. : “Omnia per
ipsum et in ipso28 creata sunt ... et ipse est ante
omnes29 et omnia in ipso constant; et ipse est caput
corporis Ecclesiae, qui est principium20 primogenitus ex
mortuis, ut sit in omnibus ipse primatum tenens31 — 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 Pracdestin. E.vimia Christi,
Lugduni 1542.
24 De I’Amour de Dieu, II, 4.
25 De Incarn., disp. 5.
26 “ Primauté de Notrc-Seigneur
Jésus-Christ,” in the Etudes Fran­
ciscaines, 1890, 1900.

27 gi’ 'όν rà πάντα και δι ου τά
πάντα,
28 ets αυτόν,
29 προ πάντων,
30 àpXV. f
31 πρωτεύων.

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 πρωτα'ων, 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 Trinity34
that certain of the Fathers applied Proverbs λΤΙΙ, 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, is: cfr. Rom. VIII, 29.
33 The objections urged against
this interpretation may be read in
De Lugo, De Myst. Incarn., disp.
7, sect. 2.

34 Pohle-Preuss, The Divine Trin­
ity, P· 157·
35 ” Dominus possedit (cKTiae) me
in initio viarum suarum, antequam
quidquant faceret a principio."

THE SCOTISTIC THEORY

33

the First and that all things were created for His sake.39
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,30 “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 ολνη 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 over30 Cfr. Suarez, De Incarn., disp.
5, sect. 2.
37 " Coniugium etiam in statu in­
nocentiae, si homo non peccasset,
futurum sacramentum coniunctionis
Christi cum Ecclesia." (De Nupt.
et Concup., I, 21.)

38 For the Thomist reply to this
argument see Lessius, De Praedest.
Christi, n. 23 sqq.
39 De Perfect. Mor. Div., XII, 4.
40 De Praedest. Christi, n. 9.

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. No sensible hunter
would shoot a cannon to bring down a sparrow.
Christ is not only the crown of the created uni­
verse, He is also the climax of divine glorification.
Without Him the universe would be meaningless.
He who is highest and most perfect in the order of
being, must also be first in the plan of creation,
and the fulness 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
highest and final revelation, the beginning and
end of all things.41
41 Cfr. Jos. Pohle in the Katholik, Mainz 1886, II, 461 sqq., 578 sqq.

CHAPTER II
THE REDEMPTION OF THE HUMAN RACE THROUGH

Christ’s vicarious atonement

SECTION i
the reality of

Christ’s

vicarious atonement

ARTICLE i
e

VICARIOUS ATONEMENT DEFINED

This Chapter deals with the concrete fact of Christ’s
vicarious atonement (satisfactio vicaria) rather than with
the abstract notion of Redemption, which even heretics
do not entirely deny ; hence we’must be careful to define
our terms.

i. Explanation of the Term “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 offered 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 iniuriato.” This applies, of course, only to mortal sin,
which seriously disturbs the sinner’s relation to
1 5. 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 z’icariatio 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 poencc, 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 ôwpeàv rÿ αντοϋ χάριτι,

3 δια τη$ άπολυτρύσ(ω$· 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.” 8
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 T^olenti 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.
e Rom. VIII, 3.— Cfr. Pohle·
Preuss, God: His Knowability, Es­
sence, and Attributes, pp. 466 sqq.

7 απ’ έμαυτον8 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
co 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
» 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 Erlôsung im Lichte der Eernunft, Ratisbon 1886. Edw. von Hartmann’s

specious objections (see that writer’s
book, Die Krisis des Christentums
in der modernen Théologie, pp. 10
sqq., Berlin 1882) are effectively
refuted by B. Dôrholt, 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. Pelagianism credited the sinner with sufficient strength to arise
after falling, nay to attain to a state of perfect sinless­
ness1 without supernatural aid, and hence denied the ne­
cessity of grace and unduly exaggerated the moral ca­
pacity of human nature.1
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
(1539-1604) systematized and developed the teachings
of his uncle in several works : De Christo Servatore, De
Officio Christi, and Brevis Discursus de Ratione Salutis
1 Impeccantia, άναμαρτησία.
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 Julia­
num Pclagianum, De Gestis Pelagii,
De Octo Dulcitii Quaestionibus, Com­
ment. in Psalmos, Scrm., x and xiv,
and in his Epistles to Paulinus, Op­
tatus, Sextus, Celestine, Vitalis, and
Valentine. Cfr. also the l'aria
Scripta ct Monumenta ad Pelagianorunt Historiam Pcrtin tia at the
close of Vol. X of the Benedictine
edition of St. Augustine’s works.

GNOSTICISM

43

Nostrae ex Sermonibus Fausti Socini3 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 Gunther5 held an intermediate position
between the Catholic dogma and these heretical vagaries.
β) Diametrically opposed to the soteriological teach­
ing of the Pelagians and Socinians is that of the Gnostics
and Theosophists.
Gnosticism was at bottom a Manichaean heresy. Its
votaries held that, since the human soul is part of that
principle (hyle) which is essentially bad, sin cannot be a
moral delinquency, and for a man to be redeemed from
sin implies no more than that hi's 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,

4

4th ed., pp. 784 sqq., Freiburg 1910.
5 On the teaching of Hermes
(4- 1831) and Günther (4- 1863),
cfr. J. Kleutgen, S. J., Théologie
der Vorzeit, Vol. Ill, pp. 457 sqq.,
Munster 1870.

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.0

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
e 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.
Doctonent. 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, \vho hath
reconciled us to God in His Ολνη 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 gwes graphic expression to it in the
8 και ούχϊ δη υπόρ μόνων ημών.
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 (Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 122).
— Cfr. the Decretum pro lacobitis
(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 redemp­
tio, . . . anathema sit.” Cone. Tri­
dent., Sess. V, can. 3 (DenzingerBannwart, n. 790).
11 ‘‘ Qui . . . sua sanctissima pas­
sione in ligno crucis nobis iustificationem meruit et pro nobis Deo
Patri satisfecit.” Cone. Trident.,
Sess. VI, cap. 7 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 799)· We use Water-,
worth’s translation.

4r’

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, i Pet. II, 22 sqq.12
We quote its salient passages : “ Surely he hath borne
our infirmities, and carried our sorrows, and we have
thought him as it were a leper, and as one struck by
God and afflicted. But he was wounded for our 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
by A. J. Maas, S. J., Christ in
Type and Prophecy, Vol. II, pp.
231 sqq., New York 1895.
13 The Masoretic text has, he was
called upon. (Cfr. Maas, I. c., p.
240, note.)

14 On certain textual difficulties
connected with the Hebrew word
na'aneli, see Maas., I. c., p. 241,
note.
15 Is. LIII, 4-12.

SCRIPTURAL· PROOF

42

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. c., His sacrificial death.18

b) The New Testament inculcates the dogma
of the vicarious atonement both directly and in­
directly.
a) 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: “’Ίδε ô αμνό? τοϋ Θεοΰ
ό αίρων την αμαρτίαν τοϋ κόσμον.” The αμαρτία τον κόσμου
is original sin. The verb «ρω', 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
ie That is: The punishment which
was to procure our peace with God
and with men, was inflicted on him.
17 In this clause the prophet rather
describes the detail of the Servant’s
sufferings than insists on its vicari­
ous character; but this, too, may be

inferred from the nature of the suf­
fering. Cfr. Maas, Christ in Type
and Prophecy, Vol. II, p. 240, note.
18 Cfr. F. Feldmann, Der Knecht
Gottes in Isaias, Ch. 40-55, Frei­
burg, 1907.
19 Is. LIII, 4 and 11.

48

THE WORK OF REDEMPTION

in mind when he wrote : “Who his own self bore
our sins20 in his body upon the tree ... by
whose stripes you were healed. For you were
as sheep going astray ; but you are now converted
to the shepherd and bishop of your souls.”21
This text clearly inculcates Christ’s vicarious
atonement and describes its concrete realization
(His death on the Cross).
St. Paul is equally clear. Cfr. 2 Cor. V, 21:
“Him, who knew no sin, he hath made sin for
us, that Ave might be made the justice of God
in him.” The graphic phrase v^p vp™v αμαρτίαν
ίποίησεν αυτόν 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. 1 Cor. \7I, 20: “For you arc
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 avr/veyKcv,
21 i Pet. II, 24 sq.
-- αμαρτία = sacrificium pro pec·
cato, Cfr. Gal. Ill, 13.

23 ήγοράσΟητε.
24 Redempti estis, ελντρώθητε.—
Cfr. also Rom. Ill, 24, Eph. I, 7,
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 proxies ( i ) the reality of the atone­
ment and (2) its vicarious character.
β) Indirectly the Bible teaches the vicarious
atonement in all those passages in which Christ
is called the “second Adam” and contrasted with
the progenitor of the human race. Cfr. Rom.
V, 14 sqq. : “Death reigned from Adam unto
Moses, even over them also who have not sinned
after the similitude of the transgression of Adam,
who is a figure of him who was to come. But
not as the offence, so also the gift. For if by
the offence of one, many died; much more the
grace of God, and the gift, by the grace of one
man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
. . . For if by one man’s offence death reigned
through one; much more they who receive 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 représenta-

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 rôle 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 [\vho 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 Iioav
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.

2β i Cor. I, 13.

PROOF FROM TRADITION

51

questions ex professo, but merely adverted to
them upon occasion. That the Socinians made
no attempt to base their teaching upon Patristic
texts, was due to the fact that Hugo Grotius had
triumphantly demonstrated the vicarious atone­
ment from the writings of the Fathers.27 We
will quote but two of the many available texts.
‘Tn accordance with the will of God,” says St.
Clement of Rome, “our Lord Jesus Christ gave
His blood for us, and His flesh for our flesh, and
His soul for our souls.” 28 And St. Polycarp:
“Let us ever cling to our hope and the pledge29
of our righteousness, which is Christ Jesus, who
bore our sins in His oavii 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
tholicae de Veritate Satisfactionis,
published in 1614.
28 Ep. ad Car., I, 49, 6.
29 τω άρραβώνι.
30 Ep. ad Phil., 8.— Many addi­
tional proofs from the writings of
the Fathers are to be found in Pe-

tavius, De Incarn., XII, 9 and
Thomassin, Dogm. Theol., IX, 7.
Cfr. also Dorholt, Die Lehre von
der Genugtuung Christi, pp. 62 sqq.,
Paderborn 1891 and J. F. S. Muth,
Die Heilstat Christi als stellvertretende Genugtuung, pp. 169 sqq.,
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 Adamantins (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. Rivière, Le Dogme de la
Rédemption, Paris, 1905, (English
translation by L. Cappadelta, in 2
vols., London 1909). The above
passage is quoted from Vol. II, pp.
111 sq. of the English translation.
Over one-half of the second volume
is devoted to a discussion of “ The
Devil’s Rights.”
32 Cfr. Riviere-Cappadelta, The

Doctrine of the Atonement, Vol. II,
PP. 113 sqq.
33 In Alatth., 18, 8; In Ioan., 6,
35·
31 ττολλή βλάσφημοί âvota. De
Recta in Détint Fide, I, 27 (Migne,
P. G., XI, 1756 sq.).
35 Cfr. Rivière-Cappadelta, The
Doctrine of the Atonement, Vol. II,
pp. 124 sqq.

THE ROLE OF THE DEVIL

53

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.
Augustine38 attribute our release from the captivity of
Satan to the sacrificial character of Christ’s death on
the Cross and His triumph over Satan to 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.
37 Cfr. John XII, 31; XIV, 30; 3
Cor. IV, 4; Heb. II. 14.
38 De Trinit., IV, 13.— On the

teaching of St. Augustine cfr.
Rivière-Cappadelta, op. cit., II, 146
sqq.
39 De Trinit., XIII, 13, 14, 15.

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 Abélard, and especially St. Anselm, at length
delivered theology from “ a decaying doctrine which was
now superfluous, if not actually dangerous.”41 The
abuse-of-power theory made way for St. Anselm’s 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 " J'cnit princeps huius mundi
ct in Salvatore non invenit quid­
quam. Et quum nihilominus inno­
centi mantis iniecit, iustissime quos
tenebat amisit, quando is qui morti
nihil debebat, accepta mortis iniuriâ
ture illum, qui obnoxius erat, ct
mortis debito et diaboli solvit do­
minio. Qua enim iuslitiâ id secundo
ab homine exigeretur? Homo si­
quidem qui debuit, homo qui solvit.

Na>n si unus (inquit) pro omnibus
mortuus est, ergo omnes mortui sunt
(2 Cor. V, 14): ut videlicet satisfac­
tio unius omnibus imputetur . . .
quia caput et corpus unus est
Christus. Satisfecit ergo caput pro
membris, Christus pro visceribus
suis.” De Erroribus Abaclardi, cap.
6.
41 Rivière-Cappadelta, op. cit., II,
220.

SATISFACTION AND MERIT

55

so loved the world as to give his only begotten Son.” 42
God must not be conceived as an angry tyrant, who 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 Harnack43 and Pfleiderer44 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, Avhile
merit may be defined as a good Avork performed
42 Cfr. also Eph. I, 3 sqq., II, 4
sqq.; Tit. Ill, 4 sq„ and 1 Pet. I, 3.
43 Grundriss der Dogmengeschichte, 4th ed., pp. 304 sqq.

44 Religionsphilosophie, Vol. II,
2nd ed., Berlin 1884, pp. 467 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 unius mediatoris Domini nostri lesu
Christi,” and anathematizes those who say, “ Homines
sine Christi iustitia, per quant nobis meruit instificari,
ant per eam ipsam formaliter iustos esse.”4G Isaias
regarded the Redemption as a meritorious work. Is.
LUI, 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. c., 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
favorem alterius mercede vel praemio
dignum."
4β Cone. Trid., Sess. VI, cap. 7;

Sess. V, can. 3; Sess. VI, can. 10.
Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiri·
dion, n. 799, 790, 820.

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 ans\ver this question
we must distinguish between the terminus a quo
and the terminus ad quem.
Our Lord performed no meritorious actions (in the
technical sense of the term) outside of the period of His
earthly pilgrimage (status viae). Hence the terminus ad
quem was the moment of His death.47 That this is the
teaching of Holy Scripture may be gathered from such
texts as John IX, 4 sq. ; Heb. IX, 12, X, 11 sqq. True,
St. Paul teaches that the glorified Redeemer continues to
“ make intercession for us in Heaven.”48 But the 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 concep47 The question whether this limi­
tation of Christ’s meritorious action
is based upon a positive and free
decree of God, or whether it is due

to an intestine necessity, is purely
speculative, and will be discussed in
Eschatology.
48 Rom. VIII, 34; Heb. VII, 25.

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 tvas 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 justificationis exordium in adultis a Dei per
Christum lesum praeveniente gratia sumendum esse’’
evidently employs the phrase “per Christum Jesum” in
the sense of “ per meritum Christi lesu.” It is likewise
an article of faith that man, in the state of grace which
follows justification, receives all the graces and merits
which come to him solely from the treasury of the merits
of Jesus Christ.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 ΧΧΙλΓ, 26: “Nonne haec oportuit pati Chri­
stum et ita intrare in gloriam suam? — Ought not Christ
to have suffered these things, and so to enter into his
glory?” Phil. II, 9: “Propter quod et Deus exaltavit
illum et donavit illi nomen, quod est super omne nomen —
49 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology,
PP· 259 sqq.
50 Cfr. Ileb. X, 5.
51 Cfr. 2 Tim. I, 9,
52 Cfr. F. Stentrup, Soteriologia,
thes. 36.

53 Cfr. Cone. Trident., Sess. VI,
cap. 16; Sess, XIV, cap. 8. (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 809, 904.)
54 John XV, 5. On the grace of
predestination cfr. St. Thomas, 5.
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 lesum 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.55
In determining the scope of Christ’s merits, Saint
Thomas proceeds as follows : “ Since every perfection
and noble quality must be attributed to Christ, it follows
that He possessed by merit whatever others possess
by merit, unless it be something which would detract
from His dignity and perfection more than
could be gained by merit.”56 Hence, he continues,
“ Christ merited neither grace, nor knowledge, nor beati­
tude of soul, nor Divinity (z. 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.
56 S. Theol., 3a, qu. 19, art. 3.
57 I. c.— Cfr. Simar, Lehrbuch der
Dogmatik, Vol. I, 4th ed., pp. 532
sqq., Freiburg 1899.

5

58 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.

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 arc 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 scp : "". . . you were not redeemed
with corruptible things, . . . but with the pre­
cious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and
undefiled.” Hoav 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. 11.
2 Pretium, λύτρον,

3 Pretio magno,
VI, 20.

τιμηί,

i

Cor.

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 His 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 (άντίλυτρον).” The graphic term άντίλντρον, which St.
Paul here employs instead of plain λύτρον, shows
that he conceives “the redemption for all” as a
full equivalent for sin. “Quanta iniuria, tanta
satisfactio.” 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. Heb. 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.
I)·
4

Semel, Άτταξ.

5 Semel, &παξ.

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 \ralue solely from the infinite dignity
of the Logos.0 But an atonement, the expiatory
power of which is, morally considered, infinite,
cannot be conceived otherwise than as adequate.
β) 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
β Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology,
pp. 161 sqq.
7 Infinitas extrinseca ob benignam
Dei acceptationem.
8 Infinitas intrinseca ob valorem
innatum.

9 Scotus, Comment, in Quatuor
Libros Sent., Ill, dist. 19. Hauzeur
and a few other Scotists attempted
to reconcile their master's teaching
with the sententia communis, but in
vain.

64

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 dignificantis, but per modum
conditionis praeviae. This is beside the question.
What the Scotists assert is that the satisfaction
Avhich 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 behveen 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. \\re have now to show that it was ade­
quate also in quality, i. c., 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
Scotus cfr. P. Minges, O. F. M.,
Compend. Theol. Dogmat. Specialis,
Vol. I, pp. 213 sqq., Monachii 1901;
Theologische Quartalschrift, Tübin­

gen, 1907, pp.
general subject
also De Lugo,
disp. 6, sect.
matic, Vol. Ill,

241 sqq. On the
of this thesis cfr.
De Myst. Incarn.,
1; Scheeben, Dog­
§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
Uno12 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: (“) Equiva­
lence of debit and credit; (β) difference of person
between debtor and creditor; (7) 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 iustitiae. 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.
β) Condition number two demands that debtor and
12 Cfr. Pohle-I’reuss, Cod: His Knowability, Essence and Attributes,
Pl’· 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
γ) The third of the conditions enumerated above is
13 “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., 29, 2, i.
14 On this dangerous error see
Legrand, De Incarn., diss, u, Paris
i860; von Schâzler, Das Dogma von
der Menschwerdung Gottes, §24,
Freiburg 1870; Scheeben, Dogmatik,
Vol. Ill, pp. 29 sqq., Freiburg 1882;
B. Ilôrholt, Die Lehre von der Genugtuung 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. “Satisfactio 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 r.r bonis pro­
priis.10
δ) We come to the fourth condition: “Satisfactio
15 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology,
pp. 132 sqq.

1« Cfr. Ysambert, De Myst. Inearn., 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 nevertheless 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.
e) 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

70

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. hist, thcol..
Vol. Ill, pp. 639 sqq., Paris 1896·

18 Multo niagis, πολλώ μάλλον.
19 In plurcs abundavit, eZs TOUS
πολλοί^ έπερίσσευσεν20 Abundavit, επλεόνασεν.
21 Superabundavit gratia, νπερε·
περισσεύσει* ή χάρις.
22 Cfr. Eph. 1, 3'8; John X, ίο.

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 Iamb, 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.
24 Hom. in Ep. ad Rom., to, 2.
Additional Patristic texts apttd Petav., XII, 9 and Thomassin, IX, 9.

Cfr. also B. Dôrholt, Die Lehre von
der Genugtuung Christi, pp. 376
sqq., 419 sqq.; Muth, Die Heilstat
Christi, pp. 228 sqq.

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." 20 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
volarem absolute et simpliciter in­
finitum ad satisfaciendum et meren­
dum apud Deum.’’ De lucar».,
disp. 4, sect. 4, η. 3·—On the un‘

tenableness of the Scotistic theory
of extrinsic acceptation v. supra,
PP· 63 sqq.
2G6. Theol., 3a. qu. 4S, art. 2, ad
3. Cfr. Suarez, op. cit., n. 1; 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

β) 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 “Unigeni2~ "Si ergo loquamur de redemp­
tione humani generis quantum ad
quantitatem pretii, sic quaelibet pas­
sio Christi etiam sine morte suffecis­
set od 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 et 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 (Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n.
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
O
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
cam, quae tamen propter unionem
ad Verbum pro redemptione totius
humani generis suffecisset, 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 sn>it Dei amicitiae par­
ticipes sunt effecti." Denzinger
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 hereti30 In connection with the Sacrament of Penance.

6

76

THE WORK OF REDEMPTION

cally asserted that “ It savours of Semi-Pelagianism 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 faith1 “Semipelagianum est
dicere,
Christum pro omnibus omnino ho­
minibus mortuum esse aut sanguinem
fudisse.” Prop. Damn. lansenii, 5
(Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion,
n. 1096).

2 ". . . qui propter nos homines
et propter nostram salutem de­
scendit de coelis.”
3 i Thess. V, 9 sq.

CHRIST DIED FOR ALL

77

fui 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 [scii. Apostolis]
autem rogo tantum, sed et pro eis qui credituri
sunt4 per verbum eorum in me, ... ut credat
mundus,3 quia tu me misisti — And not for them
[f. 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:
tion.

Christ died for all men without excep­

This thesis may be qualified as “saltem fidei
proxima.”
Proof. The Provincial Council of Quiercy
(A. D. 853) defined against Gottschalk: “As
there never was, is or will be any man whose
nature was not assumed by our Lord Jesus
Christ, so there never was, is or will be any man
for whom He has not suffered; though not all
4
5
e
7

περί των πιστευόντων.
ΐνα ô κόσμος πιστενσυ·
De Incarn., XIII, 2 sq.
On the misrepresentation of St.

Augustine’s teaching by the Jansenists consult Dechamps, De Haeresi
Janseniana, 1. II, disp. 7.

7δ

THE AVORK OF REDEMPTION

are redeemed by the mystery of His passion.” 8
Pope Alexander VTH, 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 tantum, sed etiam pro totius
mundi12—He is the propitiation for our sins:
and not for ours only, but also for those of the
whole world.” 1 Tim. II, 6 must be interpreted
in consonance with the text just quoted. “Qui
8 “Christus lesus D. N., sicut nul­
lus 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. Dôrholt, Die
Lehre von der Genugtuuug Christi,
PP- 323 sqq.
» “. . . dedit semetipsum pro no­
bis oblationem Deo, non pro solis

electis, sed pro omnibus et solis fide­
libus.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, En­
chiridion, η. 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 ίλασμόϊ·
12 αλλά και irepl 'όλου τού κόσ­
μου.

CHRIST DIED FOR ALL

79

dedit redemptionem semetipsum pro omnibus
[soil, hominibus] —Who gave himself a redemp­
tion for all [f. e., for all men].” The context
shows that St. Paul means to emphasize the
universality of God’s will to save all men. We
may also point in confirmation of our thesis to
such passages as 2 Cor. V, 14, in which the
Apostle numbers among the elect such as are still
in the state of original sin as well as those who
are justified. “Si unns pro omnibus13
1516
14
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 Predestinarianism. 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.10
13 υπέρ πάντων·
14 οι πάντεί.
15 For an explanation of this text
see Al. Schafer, Erklaritng der beiden Briefe an die Korinther, pp.
439 sqq., Münster 1903.
16 We cannot enter into the con­
troversy here. The student will
find it exhaustively treated by Dor-

holt, Lehre von der Genugtuung
Christi, Paderborn 1896, pp. 317
sqq., by Tricassin, De Praedestina­
tione, p. I, sect. 7, punct. 4 sqq.,
and by Franzelin, De Deo Uno,
thes. 32, Rome 1883. The fate of
unbaptized infants will be discussed
in Vol. VII of this series.

8o

THE WORK OF REDEMPTION

Thesis III:
fallen angels.

The atonement did not benefit the

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
(άποκαταστασν, πάντων) y/aS 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 Tertullian, “yet a restoration was never promised
17 Cfr. Denzinger, Enchiridion,
ed. 9, n. 193 and 198. Fr. Diekamp
{Die origenistischen Streitigkeiten
im 6. Jahrhundert und das V. allgemeine Konsil, Münster 1899) has put
a quietus on an ancient controversy
by showing that Origenism was con­
demned both by the Council of Con­
stantinople in 543 and by the Fifth

General Council in 553, though the
acta of the latter do not mention
the fact. Cfr. Chr. Pesch, S. J.,
Thcologische Zeitfragen, Vol. II,
Freiburg 1901.
is Cfr. I’ohle-Preuss, God the Au­
thor of Nature and the Supernat­
ural, pp. 340 sqq.

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: “Qui credi­
derit et baptizatus fuerit, salvus erit; qui vero
non crediderit, condemnabitur — He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he
that believeth not shall be condemned.”
19 De Carne Christi, c. 14.—Cfr.
Dôrholt, Lehre von der Genugtuung
Christi, pp. 353 sqq.—On the partici­
pation of the good angels in the
merits of the Redeemer see PohlePreuss, Christology, pp. 243 sqq.

,20 "Verum etsi ille pro omnibus
mortuus est, non omnes tamen eius
beneficium recipiunt, sed ii dum­
taxat, quibus meritum passionis com­
municatur.” Sess. VI, cap. 3.
Denzinger-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 consequenti, however, the damned are
in fact, though not in principle, excluded from the fruits
of the Redemption. It is correct to say, however, in
spite of this limitation, that Christ also died for the
damned, both past and future, because they are lost
through their own fault.
The atonement may be regarded as universal from
still another point of view. Satisfaction is either merely
sufficient or efficacious. It is sufficient if it provides
adequate means of salvation. It is efficacious if these
means are appropriated and utilized by those to whom
they are offered. Catholic divines unanimously teach
that Christ died for all men secundum sufficientiam,
non tamen secundum efficaciam. It is indeed quite 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 Serin., 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 suâ
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. Effectus

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 extrinsically 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 ? W'e pray : “ By Thy holy
Cross Thou hast redeemed the world.” This does not
imply that our Divine Saviour’s previous actions had
no reference to the purpose of the Redemption. His
whole life, from His conception to His death on the
Cross, was a chain of expiatory actions, each in itself
sufficient to redeem the world in actu primo. But it
was an essential feature of the scheme of salvation that
in actu secundo, i. e., actually, no satisfaction was 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

ARTICLE i

85

.

CHRISTS 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.
I. 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 justificationis causae
sunt finalis quidem gloria Dei et
Christi, . . . efficiens vero miseri­
cors Deus, . . . meritoria autem di­
lectissimus Unigenitus suus D. N.

lesus Christus, qui . . . sua sanctis­
sima passione in ligno crucis nobis
iustificationem meruit et pro nobis
Deo Patri [scii, per appropria­
tionem} satisfecit.” Cone. Trid.,

86

THE WORK OF REDEMPTION

So important a dogma must loom large in the
New Testament and be at least foreshadowed in
the Old.
a) Apart from certain Old Testament types
(such as the sacrifice of Isaac, the scapegoat, the
brazen serpent, etc.),2 the Messianic prophecies
afford numerous intimations of the bloody 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 ja\vs:
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
Sess. VI, cap. 7 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 799).
2 On these and other types of the
suffering Messias see A. J. Maas, S.
J., Christ in Type and Prophecy,
Vol. II, pp. 322-343.

3 Is. XLII, 1-9; XLIX, i sqq.; L,
4 sqq., LIII, 4 sqq. Cfr. Maas,
op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 231 sqq.
4 See supra, pp. 46 sq.
5 Ps. XXI, 7 sqq. Cfr. Maas, op.
cit., Vol. II, pp. 264-287.

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 animant suam redemp­
tionem* 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 tradidit10 illum — He spared not even his
own Son, but delivered him up for us all.” 11
The notion that Christ died for us on the Cross
assumes concrete form in the shedding of His
blood “unto the remission of sins.” 12 Hence
the well-known Pauline axiom, “Sine sanguinis
effusione non Ut remissio 13— Without shedding
of blood there is no remission.” 14 Therefore,
too, subjective salvation, i. e., the application of
β λύτρον = ransom.
7 Matth. XX, 28.
8 εδωκερ.
8 John III, 16.
ίο παρέδωκεΡ'

n Rom. VIII, 32.
12 Cfr. Matth. XXVI, 28.
13 κα1 χωρίς αίματεκχυσίαζ ού
γίνεται αφεσις.
14 Heb. IX, 22.

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, 2: ''aspersionem san­
guinis lesu Christi.” Cfr. Heb,
IX, 13 sq.
ιβ "Consummatum
est.” John
XIX, 30.—The Patristic argument

is developed by Tepe,
Vol. Ill, pp. 651 sqq.
17 S. Theol., 3a, qu.
11; qu. 47, art. 4; qu.
is Cfr. Pohle-Preuss,
pp. 81 sqq.

Inst. Theol.,
46, art. 1-4,
50, art. 1.
Christology,

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.
β) 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.-0 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.” 20
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 (aut niori 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 IVelterlosers, Mainz
1905.
21 Ileb. VI, 6.

22 i John IV, 10.
23 Cfr. the Roman Catechism,
Part I, ch. 5, qu. 4, 14; Billuart,
De Myst. Christi, diss. 9, art. r, and
Oswald, Die Erlosung in Christo
Jesu, Vol. II, §5. Paderborn 1887.

CHRIST’S DESCENT INTO HELL

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 “Quiciinqiie” wrongly
attributed to St. Athanasius. Hence the descen­
sus ad inferos is commonly regarded as an article
of faith. The Fourth Latcran Council (A. D.
1215) teaches somewhat more explicitly: ‘Tie
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, . . .
sed descendit in anima et resurrexit
in carne: ascenditque pariter in
utroque." Caput "Firmiter." (Den-

7

zinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n.
429.)
2 De Myst. Vitae Christi, disp. 43,
sect. 2, n. 7.
3 Inst., II, 16, 10.

92

THE WORK OF REDEMPTION

but it is theologically certain that it was the socalled 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. Χλ’, io: “Non derelinques animam
meam in inferno,4 nec dabis Sanctum tuum videre
corruptionem — Thou wilt not leave my soul in
hell, nor wilt thou give thy holy one to see 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 cius 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 ATilgate renders by in­
fernum is 2δί?ς· 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.*3
4 γην ψνχί)ν els αδον·
G Acts II, 31. Cfr*. Acts XIII, 35.
β Cfr. Bellarmine, De Christo, IV,

6—12', Maas, Christ in Type and
Prophecy, Vol. I, pp. 140 sqq.; Vol.
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
“ preached10 to those spirits that were in prison,”—
hence it must have been substantially present in a partic­
ular place, L e., the limbo.

b) The Tradition in support of our dogma is
as ancient as it is positive.
St. Irenæus 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
< eis τα κατώτερα μέρη
yÿjs.
8 Eph. IV, 9 sq.
0 i Pet. Ill, i8 sqq.
èκήρυξε praedicavit.
il "Nunc autem tribus diebus
conversatus est, ubi erant mortui.’’

Adv. Haereses, V, 31, 1; cfr. also
Adv. Haereses, IV, 27, 2.
12“ Nec ante ascendit in sublimi­
ora coelorum, quam descendit in in­
feriora terrarum, ut illic patriarchas
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 (“5^ κατώτατα} Hebrew,
) may designate
either (a) hell in the strict sense of the term,
i. e., the abode of the reprobates (gehenna) ; or
(b) a place of purification after death, commonly
called purgatory (purgatorium)', or (c) the
biding place of children who have died unbaptized
(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.11 It is not true, as Calvin held,
that Christ’s Descent into hell constituted the climax
of the atonement. The atonement culminated on the
Cross. (“ Consummatum est.") Nor can we conceive
of any reasonable motive why our Lord should have
descended into the gehenna of the damned. The hu­
man beings confined in that awful dungeon were abso13 "Quis ergo nisi infidelis negaferit fuisse apud inferos Christum?”
Ep. 104 ad Evodinm, c. 2, 3 (Migne,

P. L., XXXIII, 710).
n Cfr. Bellarmine, De Christo,
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 Avriters 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, vis., 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, Thesis 4.
16 "Descendente Christo ad in-

feros credidisse incredulos et omnes
exinde liberatos.” De Haer., 79.
17 E. 9-, Clement of Alexandria
and Origen.

9ό

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 (sat ispassio), 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) AVas it perhaps the limbus puerorum, i. e.,
the abode of children who die in the state of oris: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.
is S. Theo!., 3a, qu 51, art. 3:
"Illis vero, qui detinebantur in pur­
gatorio, spem gloriae consequendae
dedit.”
19 “. . . qui iam sufficienter pur­
gati erant, vel etiam qui, dum adhuc

viverent, meruerunt per fidem et
devotionem ad mortem Christi, ut
eo descendente liberarentur a tem­
porali purgatorii poena." (Ibid.)
Cfr. Billuart, De Myst. Christi, diss.
11, art. 3.

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 salvifica consequens,29
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 [ή e., Heaven] 23 was not yet
20 V. supra, Sect. 2, Art. 2, The­
sis 4.
21 Cfr. St. Thomas, .9. 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 fident parentum aut per
aliquod fidei sacramentum [scii, 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 Avord 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. λλ;ο know no more about the
Avhereabouts 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
sqq.

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 duxit 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
Animabus lustorum in Sinu Abrahae
ante Christi Mortem, Rome 1706.

26 Cfr. II. Simar, Dogmatik, Vol.
I, 3rd ed., p. 538, Freiburg 1899.
2" Cfr. Eph. IV, 8.

100

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 (κήρυγμα) as a “gospel,” which means
a message of joy. “ Νεκροί? ευηγγίλίσθη,” 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 (και) some who had abused God’s
28 i Pet. Ill, i8 sqq.
2n èv ώ και toîs ενφνΧακή
ιτνεΰμασιν πορευθεϊς εκήρνξεν,
30 άπειΟήσασίν ποτέ·

31
Evod.,
32
33
34

Cfr. St. Augustine, Ep.
164·
πορευθείί·
^κήρυξε»', praedicavit.
i Pet. IV, 6.

ad

THE RESURRECTION

ιοί

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 νϊελν 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
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 Ολνη future resurrection.2
Christologically, the Resurrection signalizes
to

35 Cfr. Hundhausen, Das erste
Pastoralschreiben des Apostelfiirsten 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, 5.
Theo!., 3a, qu. 52, art. 1.

1 i Cor. XV, 14.
2 i Cor. XV, 13.—For an apol­
ogetic treatment of the Resurrec­
tion we refer the student to Devivier-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.’G 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 ΧΧΙλ7-, 46 sq. : “Thus it is
written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise
3 Cfr. Luke XXIV, 26. V. sufrn. pp. 58 sq.
4 The sole cause of our redemption was the Saviour’s death on

the Cross. (Cfr. supra, pp. 85 sqq.)
r> Part 1, Ch. 6, Qu. 12.
C Rom. IV, 25.

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. I, qu. i: “Ratio merendi
iustificationem attribuitur soli pas­
sioni, non resurrectioni; ratio vero
terminandi et quietandi attribuitur
resurrectioni, ad quam 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 Théologie des
hl. Paulus, 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. Il', Caput
"Firmiter" {supra, p. 91).
10 "Si quis dixerit Domini corpus
post resurrectionem fuisse octhe-

reum et figura sphaerica, anathema
sit." Denzinger’s Enchiridion, 9th
ed., n. 196.
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,13 and by the fact that His risen
body was endowed with certain attributes which
man cannot enjoy except in a transfigured
state.16
12 δυνάμει μεγάλτ), virtute magna.
13 Cfr. Acts II, 22 sqq.; Ill, is;
X, 40 sqq.; XIII, 30 sqq.
14 i Cor. XV, 14; cfr. Rom. X, 9.

15 Matth. XXVIII, 1 sqq.; Luke
XXIV, 36 sqq.; John XX, 19 sqq.
16 This point will be developed in
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 S. 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 redemptis, quam miseri­
corditer sint adiuti, propositis eius­
dem mortis indiciis insinuet; po­
stremo ut in indicio [ultimo], quam
iuste damnentur, ibidem denuntiet.”
19 On the whole subject cfr. Billuart, De Myst. Christi, diss. 12, art.
4 and 6; G. B. Tepe, Inst. Theol.,
Vol. I, pp. 97 sqq., Paris 1894.

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
a\vakening ( 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 consubstantiality with the Father. John V, 21 : “ For as the
Father raiseth up the dead, and giveth life: so the Son
also giveth life to whom he will.” 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
pria sua suscitatus a sepulcro resur­
rexit; hoc ergo exemplo capitis no­
stri confitemur veram fieri resurrec­
tionem carnis omnium mortuorum.’’
Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 286.

8

21 èyepü excitabo.
22 εξουσίαν εχω πάλιν λαβεΐν
αυτήν.
23 ό νιος οδΐ θέλει ζωοποιεί.
24 Acts II, 24 sqq.; Ill, 13 sqq.,Rom. VIII, xi ; 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.— Hunter, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, Vol.
II, pp. 506 sqq., London j. a.— Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of
Catholic Theology, Vol. II, pp. 181-195, 2nd ed., London 1901.
— A. Ritter, Christus der Erlbscr, Linz 1903.—* B. Dorholt, Lehre
von der Genugtuung Christi, Paderborn 1896.— Muth, Heilstat
Christi als slellvertretende Genugtuung, Ratisbon 1904.— K. Staab,
Die Lehre von der stellvertretenden Genugtuung, Paderborn 1908.
— Pell, Lehre des hl. Athanasius von der Siinde und Erlosung,
Passau 1888.— Striker, Erldsungslehre des hl. Athanasius, Frei­
burg 1894.— Weigl, Heilslehre des hl. Cyrill von Alexandrien,
Mainz 1905.—*J. Rivière, Le Dogme de la Rédemption, Paris
1905 (English translation, The Doctrine of the Atonement, 2
vols., London 1909).—E. Hugon, O. P., Le Mystère de la Ré­
demption (a speculative pendant to Rivière’s Le Dogme de la
Rédemption, which is mainly historical), Paris 1911.— H. N.
Oxenham, The Catholic Doctrine of the Atonement: An His­
torical Inquiry into its Development in the Church, London 1865.
(This work, which has been lately translated into French, must
be read with caution. Cfr. La Civiltà Cattolica, Quad. 1431, Feb.
5, 1910).— J. Kleutgen, S. J., Théologie der Vorzeit, Vol. I, 2nd
ed., pp. 336 sqq., Münster 1870 (against Günther).— Friedlieb,
Leben Jesu Christi des Erlosers mit neuen historischen und
ehronologischen Untersuchungen, Paderborn 1887.— Grimm, Le­
ben Jesu nach den vier Evangelien, 7 vols., 2nd ed., Ratisbon
25 Cat. Rom., P. I, c. 6, qu. 8:
"Divina vis turn in corpore inerat,
qua animae iterum coniungit, turn
in anima, qua ad corpus reverti pos­

set, qua et licuit suâ virtute revivis­
cere atque a mortuis resurgere."—
Cfr. Chr. Pesch, Praclcct. Dogmat.,
Vol. IV, pp. 280 sqq.

THE RESURRECTION

109

1890 sqq.— Didon, Ο. P., Jesus Christ, English edition, London
1895.— J. E. Belser, Geschichte des Leidens und Sterbens, der
Auferstehung und Himmelfahrt des Herrn, Freiburg 1903.— 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, His­
toire des Dogmes, Vol. II, 3rd ed., pp. 148 sqq., 285 sqq., 376 sqq.,
Paris 1909.
See also the references in Pohle-Preuss, Christology, pp. 7 sq.,
St. Louis 1913.
* 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.
i. 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
in

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.
(δ) 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
1 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., aa aae, 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
— God demands no human sacrifices — He offers it up
symbolically by destroying or transforming and present2 Jos. Dahlmann, S. J., Dcr Idealismus der indischcn Religionsphilo-

sophie im Zeitaltcr dcr Opfermyslik,
p. 22, Freiburg 1901.

114

OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER

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 sacrificium incruentum(Hebrew,™3) 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
3S. Theol., ia aae, qu. 102, art.
3, ad 5: "Per occisionem anima­
lium significatur destructio pecca­
torum et quod homines erant digni
occisione pro peccatis suis, ac si illa

animalia loco eorum occiderentur ad
significandam expiationem peccato­
rum.” Cfr. N. Gichr, The Holy
Sacrifice of the Mass, pp. 35 sqq.,
3rd ed., St. Louis 1908.

A BLOODY SACRIFICE

115

seek for the specific difference in the materia and
forma.
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 hl. Altertilmcr des Volkcs Israel, II, 134
sqq., Ratisbon 1868.

6 Cfr. Becanus, De Triplici Sacrificio, Naturae, Legis, Gratiae, Opusc.
II, Lugduni 1631.

116

OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER

that Christ’s vicarious atonement was a bloody
sacrifice, made for the purpose of reconciling
the human race to God (sacrificium propitiatorium.)
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 Priestc 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
0 àpxicpéa7 "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. ίο.
(Denzinger-Bannwart, η. ΐ22.)
8 "Etsi semel seipsum in ara cru­
cis morte intercedente Deo Patri
oblaturus erat, ... ut relinqueret

sacrificium, quo cruentum illud
semel in cruce peragendum reprae­
sentaretur, . . . corpus
et
san­
guinem suum sub speciebus panis
et vini Deo Patri obtulit. . . . [Zn
Missa] idem ille Christus . . . in­
cruente immolatur, qui in ara crucis
semel seipsum cruente obtulit . . .
Una cadcmquc est hostia, idem nunc
offerens sacerdotum ministerio, qui
seipsum tunc in cruce obtulit, solâ

A BLOODY SACRIFICE

117

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 LaAv 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 taberofferendi ratione diversâ.” (Cone.
Trid.. Sess. XXII, cap. 1 and 2
Denzinger Bannwart, No. 938 and

940; cfr. also can. 3-4, ibid. n. 950,
951.)

ii8

OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER

nacle in the shape of a calf. Lev. W, 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.” 8
AVhat was thus symbolized in the sacrificial rite is ex­
plicitly set forth in the prohibition of blood, Lev. XVII,
ii :
. . 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, io).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
Lev. XVI. 9; XVI, 20 sqq.
10 Supra, p. 46. Cfr. Knaben-

0

bauer, Erklarung des
Isaias, Freiburg 1881.

Propheten

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.” 11
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

β) 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 Floly 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, i.
12 Heb. X, 4. Cfr. Gal. IV, 9·
13 Cfr. Franzelin, De Verbo In­
carnato, thés, 49, Rome 1 SS i ; Hugo
Weiss, Die ntessianischen Vorbildcr
ini Alten Testament, Freiburg 1905.

14 eavrov npoarjveyKev αμωμιν
τω θίώ·
‘15 Heb. IX, 13-14.
1® ατταξ προσΐνεχθίΐί els τό ττολ\üv àveveyKeiv αμαρτίας- Heb.
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.” 10 “ 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 multis22—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,” 20 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 Deo21 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, 10.
18 μιαν ύπερ αμαρτιών irpoffevéyκαί θυσίανίο Heb. X, 12.
20 μιγ. yàp προσφορά21 Heb. X, 14.
22 καί δούναι την ψυχήν αυτού
λύτρον άντί πολλών23 δούναι την ψυχήν-

24 άντ'ι πολλών, not merely ύπϊρ
πολλών25 λύτρον (strictly, ransom').
20 ΰττίρ πολλών, pro multis.
27 παρύδωκεν έαυτάν ύπερ ήμών
προσφοράν και θυσίαν.
28 προσφορά here means sacrifice
in general, Ουσία, bloody sacrifice.

A BLOODY SACRIFICE

121

“ Qui dedit redemptionem semetipsum pro omnibus,2930
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 :
“ Quem proposuit Deus propitiationem29 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 31 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),33 contains the following passage: “For our
sins he was going to offer the vessel of the spirit [Ê e.,
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 ό Sois έαυτορ αντίλυτρον ΰπ£ρ
πάντων· Αντίλυτρον here means
a ransom given vicariously, by a
representative.
30 ίλαστήριον = a sacrifice of pro­
pitiation.
31 ϊλασμό$·

32 Cfr. 2 Cor. V, 21.
33 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pa­
trology, p. 24.
34 εμελλε . . . προσφέρςιν θυσίαν.
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.” 38

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: (a) Was it in His
Godhead or manhood that Christ combined the
double function of victim and priest? (b) In
what sense did Pie 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
Avas 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 Theopaschitic Monophysitism. Both heretical extremes are
avoided by saying that the Divine Logos was indeed
CO Adv. lud., c. 13. For other
Patristic texts bearing on this subject see Dorholt, Die Lehre von dcr

Gcniigtiiiiiig Christi, § 7-10, Paderborn 1891.

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. i0. V. supra, p. 116.
38 For details consult Bellarmine, De Christo, V, 2-3.
39 Cfr. St. Thomas, S'. Theol., 3a qu 2^, art. 19.

■ 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 Godman (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.
+ 1 V. supra, pp. 67 sq. On the
Divine Appropriations see Pohle-

Preuss, The Divine Trinity, pp. 244
sqq.

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, 20. "Verus
ille 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 Incarnato, thes. 50; Belser, Das Evan-

gelium des hl, 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 the 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 be1 Heb. V, 6; VI, 20.

I27

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. Raul in his Epistle to
the Hebrews. Heb. X, 5: “ Ideo ingredient mundum2
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.
4 sq. :
“ Nec quisquam sumit sibi honorem, sed qui vocatur a
Deo 4 tamquam Aaron; sic et Christus non semetipsum
claridcaz’it, ut pontifex fieret,5 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.”G The “ call ” to the
priesthood which Christ received from His Father was

2 είσερχόμενοτ

els τόν κόσμον3 Cfr. Ps. XXXIX, 7.
4 καλούμενοι άπό τον θίοΰ·

Γ· Ύενηθήναι αρχιερέα6 Heb. V, 4 sq.

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 κατ’ ίξοχην.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.
pp. 228
8 Cfr.
VIII, I

Pohle-Preuss, Christology,
sq.
Exod. XXIX, 1 sqq.; Lev.
sqq.

9 Cfr. Petavius, De Incarn., XII,
3 and 11.

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 ita ordinante sacerdotem alium secundum
ordinem Melchiscdech surgere D. N. lesum Chri­
stum, qui posset omnes, quotquot sanctificandi 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
io Cone. Trid., Sess. XXII, cap. i.
(Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 938.)

H Cfr. F. Socinus, De Christo
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 Melchisedech.” Melchisedech was an earthly priest;
consequently the priesthood of Christ must be an
earthly priesthood.13
β) The prophet Isaias, pointing to the “Man
of sorrows,” i. c., 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
γ) No other sacred writer has portrayed the
earthly priesthood of our Lord so grandly as St.
Paul, whose Epistle to the HebreAVS constitutes
one prolonged refutation of Socinianism.16 The
gist of this Epistle may be summarized as
folloAvs: 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 Melchisedechians (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, thés. 48, η. ii; cfr. also
Chr. Pesch, Praei. Dogniat., 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
i‘The Patristic argument for our
thesis is developed by Pesch, o/>. cit.,
pp. 292 sq. The teaching of the
Scholastics on Christ’s earthly priest­

hood may be best studied in St.
Thomas, Summa Theologica, 3a, qu.
22 art. I.
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
13 Cfr. Heb. V, 7.
20 " Si quis . . . dicit, quod pro
se obtulisset seinetipsum oblationem,
et non potius pro nobis solis {non
enim eguit oblatione, qui peccatum
omnino nescivit), anathema sit.”
Cone. Eph., can. 10 (Denzinger-

Bannwart, n. 122).—On Christ’s
praying cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol.,
3a, qu. 21 and L. Janssens, De
Deo-Homine, Vol. I, pp. 720 sqq.,
Freiburg 1901.
21 Pohle-Preuss, Christology, pp.
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 ever22 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 Heb. ATI, i sqq., where he
opposes our Lord’s “ everlasting priesthood ” to the tem­
poral priesthood of the Levites. Moreover, he distinctly
says in Heb. ATI, 23 sq. : “Alii quidem plures facti sunt
sacerdotes, idcirco quod morte prohiberentur permanere;
hic autem eo quod maneat in aeternum,24 sempiternum
habet sacerdotium2*—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.”

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,” 2G
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
β)

22 els τον aluva·
23 Ps. CIX, 4.
24 δ(ά rà péveiv αΰτον els τον
alüva.

25 άπαράβατον
την lepu·
σΰνην·
2λ Heb. VII, ζζ; Rom. VIII, 34·

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-7 decebat ut nobis esset
pontifex,-6 . . . 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, advocatum29 habemus apud Patrem
lesum Christum iustum; et ipse est propitiatio30 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., a transfigured sacrificial victim. Apoc. \r, 6 : “Et
vidi . . . Agnum stantem tamquam occisum31 — 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 yap·
28 àp%iepev$.
29 παράκλητον·

30 ίλασμός = a sacrifice of propitiation.
31 d>s èa$aypévov·

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 Heaven has given rise to three separate theo­
logical problems: («) What is the precise na­
ture of His everlasting intercession for us? (β)
Does He continue to offer a true sacrifice in
Heaven? (γ) Flow can Flis priesthood endure
after the Last Judgment, when His intercession
must of necessity cease?
a) Theologians are not agreed as to whether
Christ’s heavenly intercession for the human
race is to be conceived as merely implicit (inter­
pretat iva), or as explicit (formalis).
The former view is held by A’asquez 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, έρωταν) to prop the
32 St. Ambrose, In Luc., X, n.
170: “Vulnera accepta pro nobis
coelo inferre maluit, abolere noluit,

ut Deo Patri nostrae pretia libertatis ostenderet."

CHRIST Λ TRUE PRIEST

137

doubtful hypothesis that His intercession is merely virtual ?
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

β) Our second question, it may be well to
premise, has nothing whatever to do with the Socinian 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. Zill35 and P.
33 Cfr. Franzelin, De Verbo Incarnato, thes. 51, n. iii; De Lugo, De
Myst. Incarnationis, disp. 27, sect.
4, n. 61 sqq.

34 Das Opfer des Alten und Neuen
Bundes, pp. 201 sqq., Ratisbon 1870.
35 Der Brief an die Hebraer, pp.
430 sqq., Mainz 1879.

i38

OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER

Schoulza.30 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
Tourncly 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 interpellationis 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
80 Liturgia Catholica Fidei Magis·
tra, Insulis 1901.
37 Tournely, De Incarn., qu. 5,
art. 2; cfr. Franzelin, De Verbo In­
carnato, p. 539.

38 Cfr. F. Stentrup, Soteriologia,
thes. 82; Pesch, Prael. Dogmat.,
Vol. IV, 3rd cd., pp. 300 sqq.

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 sacrificii, secundo
ipsa sacrificii consummatio, quae
quidem consistit in hoc, quod illi
pro quibus sacrificium offertur, finem

10

sacrificii consequuntur. Finis autem
sacrificii quod Christus obtulit, non
fuerunt
bona
temporalia,
sed
aeterna, quae per eius mortem adi­
piscimur.” L. c., ad 2: " Licet pas­
sio et mors Christi de caetera non
sint iteranda, tamen virtus illius
hostiae semel oblatae permanet in
aeternum.”

CHAPTER II

Christ’s

prophetical office

Definition of the Term “Prophet.”—
The word “Prophet” is etymologically derived
from the Greek verb πρόφη/Μ, to say beforehand,
to foretell (Hebr. πκί = vates, seer). In a
wider sense it signifies a teacher {magister,
Βώάσκαλοτ; Hebr. koo = speaker, orator).1
i.

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.1
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. Maas, Christ in Type and
Prophecy, Vol. I, pp. 82 sqq.
2 Cfr. R. Comely, Introd. Spec.

in Libros V. T., Vol. II, pp. 267
sqq., Paris 1887; Maas, op. cit..
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 prophet3
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, I 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

ΝΌ3-

4 Cfr. Deut. XVIII, 18.
6 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):
ture in your ears.” G

“This day is fulfilled this scrip­

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,
Aloses, in whom you trust. For if you did be­
lieve Moses, you would perhaps believe me also;
for he wrote of me.” s After He had fed five
thousand people with a few loaves of bread, those
who had Avitnessed 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 prophet10 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.
0 Cfr. Matth. V, 5,
7 John i, 45.
8 John V, 45 sq.

9 ό προφήτης ό ερχόμενος els τον
κόσμον. John VI, 14.
10 προφήτης péyasαι Luke VII, 16.

CHRIST A TRUE PROPHET

M3

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,13 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.
13 Cfr. John XIV, ίο; XVII, 8.
14 John XIV, 6.
IB Magister, καθηγήτηί·
ιβ Matth. XXIII, io. Cfr. John
XIII, 1317 John III, 2.

18 John I, 8. Cfr. Pohle-Preuss,
Christology, pp. 31 sqq.; H. Schell,
Jahve und Christus, pp. 403 sqq.,
Paderborn 1905.
19 Acts I, i.
20 iroteiv re καί διδάσκεις
21 υπόδειγμα-

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.
23 Gal. IV, 19.
24 Cfr. S. Raue, O. F. M., Chri­
stus als Ersiehcr. Einc nicthodische
Studio iibcr das hl. Evangelium, 2nd
cd., Freiburg 1902. For the teach­

ing of the Fathers consult Fctavius,
De Incarn., II, 10; Stentrup, Soteriologia, thes. 134 sqq.
25 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology,
pp. 249 sqq.

CHRIST A TRUE PROPHET

145

or even with the greatest of the prophets, Moses and John
the Baptist
/3) 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.20 (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. Theol., 3a, qu. 42, art. 1.
27 Matth. X, 27. Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., 3a, qu. 42, 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.” 2S

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.” 20 Having established
her as a teacher, He sent her the Spirit of Truth, who
28 S. Theol., I. c.—On the apoc­
ryphal correspondence between our
Lord and Abgar, King of Edessa,
cfr. R. A. Lipsius, Die edessenische
Abgarsage
kritisch
untersucht,
Braunschweig 1880; J. Tixeront,

Les Origines de l’Eglise d’Edesse el
la Legende d’Abgar, Paris 1888; H.
Leclerq, art. "Abgar” in the Catholic
Encyclopedia, Vol. I, pp. 42 sq.
29 Matth. XXVIII, 20.

CHRIST A TRUE PROPHET

U?

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, λνΐιο 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 “ Johannine 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 on 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
bility” in the Catholic Encyclopedia,
Vol. VII, pp. 790 sqq.; J. Pohle,

art. “Unfehlbarkeit” in Herder’s
Kirchenlexikon, Vol. XII, pp. 240
sqq.

i48

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
oft" if the nations will listen to the voice of Holy Mother
Church.31
31 Cfr. II. Pesch, S. J., Die sosiale Befahiguiig der Kirche, 3d ed.,
Berlin 1911.

CHAPTER III
Christ’s kingship
i. Definition of the Term.—The word
king (rc.v, βασιλ^,^ 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 Crea149

I5O

OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER

tor and Lord of the universe, is the absolute owner of all
things, inchiding 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 [f. e., temple,
church] to my name, and I will establish the throne of
1 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss.
pp. 286 sqq.
2 Cfr. I Pet. II, 25.

God: His Knowability, Essence and Attributes,

CHRIST A TRUE RING

151

his kingdom for ever.” The same prediction is made
in Psalms II, XXX, XXXVII, XLV, LXXII, and CIX.
Isaias,3 Daniel,4 and Zacharias5 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., II.
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.

i52

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 Cæsar the things
that are Cæsar’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 “ Aly 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
β) 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
ls
14
15
18

John VI, 15.
Matth. XXII, 21.
Luke XII, 14.
John XVIII, 36·
Cfr. Ferd. Stentrup, Soteriolo-

gia, thes. 138. For a critical refil­
tation of Loisy’s errors see M.
Lepin, Christ and the Gospel (Englisli tr.), Philadelphia 1910, espeially pp. 475 sqq.

CHRIST A TRUE KING

153

had He no such claim, at least in actu primo? 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 Bellarmine18 hold that Christ had no direct
jurisdiction in secular or temporal matters, while
Suarez19 and De Lugo20 maintain that He had. The
affirmative opinion appeals to us as more probable,
though the Scriptural texts marshalled in its favor by
De Lugo21 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.
18 De Roni. Pontifice, V, 4 sq.
19 De Myst. Vitae Christi, disp.
42, sect. 2.

20 De Myst. Incarn., disp. 30, § 1.
21 L. c., n. 5.
22 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology,
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,23 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 poAvers 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,
pp. 239 sqq.
24 De Lugo, /. c., n. 8.

25 L. c., n. ii.
26 Cfr. Matth. XVII, 23 sqq.

CHRIST A TRUE KING

I55

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 nonnullos” 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 be 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
He 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 ' went up ' in a
fiery chariot into heaven (4 Kings II, 11), or as was
the prophet Habacuc (Dan. ΧΙλ’, 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, but 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
30 John VI, 63; XIV, i sqq.;
XVI, 28.
31 Ό μϊν ουν κύριος Ιησούς μετά
τό λαλήσαι αύτοϊς άνηλήμφΟη eh

τδν ουρανοί’ και ύκάθισεν εκ δεξιών
του θεού·
32 Cat. Rom., P. I, c. 7, qu. 2.
Cfr. S. Thomas, 5. Theol., 3a, qu.
57. art. i.

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,”30 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, ό κύριος) 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.” 3T
β) 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
33 Cfr. Heb. I, 13.
34 Cfr. Eph. I, 20 sqq.
35 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., 3a,
qu. 58.

30 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology,
pp, 95 sq.
37 Cfr. Eph. I, 22 sqq.; Heb. II, 8.

i58

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 νυν ΐμφανισθήναι τώ προσώπω
τοϋ Qeoû ΰπίρ -ημών· Heb. IX, 24.
39 Heb. VII, 25.
40 S’. Theo)., 3a, qu. 57, art. 6.

4< 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. Plence, 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,
Instit. luris Pubi. Ecclesiae, 4th ed.,
Vol. I, p. 24. Rome 1906.

43 Cfr. L. Duchesne, The Beginnings of the Temporal Sovereignty
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 Kirchenlexikon, Vol. XII, 229 sqq.

4.'. Das li’esen des Christcntums,
p. 157, Leipzig 1902 (English tr.:
ll'hat is Christianity? p. 270, 2nd
cd.. 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 executwe right of inflicting punishment.4'1
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
pOAver.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.40
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
4« Cfr. Matth. XVI, 19; XVIII,
15 sqq.
47 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, £achiridion, n. 499, 640, 1504 sq.

4S Cfr. 1 Cor. IV, 21; V, 5: 2
Cor. XIII, 1 sq. ; 1 Tim. I, 20.
49 Cfr. Bouix, Oe ludic., Vol. I,
p. 66, Paris 1855.

102

OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER

out by the secular power (brachium sacculare'), 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 ins 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 ins 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. Juris Eccl. Pub!., Vol. I,
pp. 261 sqq., Rome 1901.
51 Inst. luris Publ. Eccl., 4th ed.,
Vol. I, pp. J90 sqq., Rome 1906.
52 Cfr. Luke IX, 53 sqq.

53 Cfr. Matth. XXVI, 52.
54 "Sancta Dei Ecclesia gladium
non habet nisi spiritualem, non occi­
dit, sed vivificat.” (Dccr. Gral., c.
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.5556

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 abusu,50 and the placetum re­
gium?1—in a word the whole iniquitous system
known in English-speaking countries as Cæsaropapism 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 I’Hommc-Dieu,
Paris 1899.—* V. Thalhofer, Das Opfer des Alien, und Neuen
Blindes, Ratisbon 1870.—Idem, Die Opferlehre des Hebraerbriefes, Dillingen 1855.— W. Schenz, Die priesterliche Tatigkeii
des Messias nach dem Propheten Isaias, Ratisbon 1892.— J.
Grimai, Le Sacerdoce et le Sacrifice de Notre Seigneur JésusChrist, Paris 1908.—* Fr. Schmid, Christus als Prophet, nach
den Evangelien dargestellt, Brixen 1892.—Tanner, S. J., Cruen­
tum Christi Sacrificium, Incruentum Missae Sacrificium Expli55 Cfr. A. Vermeersch, S. J.,
Tolerance (tr. by W. II. Page), pp.
58 sqq., London 1913; J· Pohle, art.
“Toleration” in the Catholic Ency­
clopedia, λ7ο1. XIV; J. Keating, S.
J., in The Month, No. 582, pp. 607
sqq.
56 Cfr. R. L. Burtsell in the Cath­

olic 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.

104

OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER

catuni, Prague 1669.— B. Bartmann, Das Himmelreich und sein
Konig nach den Synoptikeru, 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 Sou of
God, Philadelphia 1910.— Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of Cath­
olic Theology, Vol. II, pp. 196-207, 2nd ed., London 1901.— W.
Humphrey, S. J.. The One Mediator, pp. 1-41, London s. a_
Other authorities quoted in the foot-notes.

INDEX
A

Abélard, 54.
Adam, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33, 40,
42, 49 sq.
Adamantins, 52.
Adequacy of the atonement, 60
sqqAdoration, 112.
"AjStjs 92 sqq.
Æons, 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.
ΆντίΧυτρον, 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.

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

Cæsaropapism, 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

165

ι66

INDEX

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.

Gay, 31.
Gnosticism, 41, 43 sq.
Gottschalk, 77.
Gregory of Nazianzus, 52.
Gregory of Nyssa, St., 52.
Gregory of Valentia, 26, 66
153·
Grotius, Hugo, 51.

D

H

Damascene, St. John, 16.
Dante, 98.
David, 153.
Death of Christ, 85 sqq., in
sqq.
De Luca, 162.
Deluge, ioo 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.
DÔrholt, B., 21, 41.
Du Cappucce, 31.
Duns Scotus, 30, 63.
Durandus, 91.

Harnack, 55, 160.
Hell, Christ’s descent into, 91
sqq.
Henno, 63.
Hierarchy, 15g.
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.

E

Ephesus, Third General Coun­
cil of, 44 sq., 116.
Erastianism, 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

I
Imitation of Christ, 144.
Impeccantia, 42.
Incarnation, The, 13 sqq., ig,
21 sq., 25 sqq., 127 sq.
Inferiores partes terrae, 93.
Infernum, 94.
Infinite value of Christ’s atone­
ment, 72.
Innocent X, 76.
Irenæus, St., 52, 93.
Isaias, 45 sqq., 131, 141 sq.

167

INDEX
Ius circa sacra, 163.
Ius gladii, 161 sqq·

J

Jansenists, 79.
Jansenius, 75 sq.
Janssens, L., 26.
Jewish sacrifice, H7 sq·
John XXII, 155.
John the Baptist, Ι43·
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, 157Last 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 naturalis, 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
sqqOptimism, 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,
105, 118 sqq., 128 sq., 130,
131 sq., 134, 138, 144, 162.
Pelagianism, 41 Sqq.
Pell, G. A., 41.

168

INDEX

S
Perfection of the atonement,
Extrinsic,
Intrinsic, 60 sqq. ;
Sacrifice, m sqq.
75 sqq.
Sacrifice, Bloody, in sqq.
Pesch, Chr., 26.
Sacrificial act, Christ's, 125 sq.
Petavius, 26, 77, 136 sq.
Satisfaction, 35 sqq., 55 sqq., 60
Peter, St., 99 sq.
sqqPfleiderer, 55.
Schell, 31.
Pilate, 151, 152.
Schoulza, P., 137 sq.
Pius V, 73.
Scotists, 25 sq., 30 sqq., 61,
Pius X, 148.
63 sq.
Placetuni regium, 163.
Second Person of the Trinity,
Plato, 95.
Why did He become incar­
Polycarp, St., 51.
nate? 15 sq.
Pope, 154.
Potestas coactiva
of
the “Servant of God,” 46 sq.
Shepherd, Christ our, 150.
Church, 161.
Sin, Grievous, 36 sq.
Poverty of Christ, 155·
Sitting at the right hand of
Prayers of Christ, 132 scl·
God the Father, 155 sqq.
Precious Blood, 48 sq., 61 sq.,
Socinianism, 38, 42 sq., 51, 115,
88.
123, Ι3θ, X31, 137Predestinarianism, 75 sqq.
Socinus, Faustus, 42, 138.
Predestination, 75.
Predestination of the Re­ Socinus, Laelius, 42.
Socrates, 88, 95, 144.
deemer, 24 sqq.
Priest, Christ a true, ill sqq., Sprinkling of the blood of
Christ, 88.
127 sqq.
Priesthood of Christ, in sqq., Stancarus, Francis, 123.
Status exaltationis, 157.
127 sqq.
Prophet, Christ as a, 140 sqq. Status exinanitionis, 157.
Stcntrup, 26.
Prosper of Aquitaine, 79.
Punishment,
The
Church’s Suarez, 22, 31, 33, 61, 66, 69,
right to inflict, 161.
71, 156.
Purgatory, 94, 95 sq.
T
R
Tanner, 66.
Tarquini, 162.
Rationalism, 38, 41 sqq., 115.
Reatus culpae, 36.
Teacher, Christ as a, 140 sqq.
Reatus poenae, 36, 37.
Temporal power of the papacy,
160 sq.
Redemption, Congruity of the,
13 sqq.; Necessity of the, 18 Tepe, 26.
sqq.; A free gift of God, 20 Teresa, St., 90.
sqq.; Predestination of the, Tertullian, 80, 93, 121 sq.
24 sqq.; Through Christ's Thalhofer, 137 sq., 139.
vicarious atonement, 35 sqq. Theosophy, 41, 44.
Resurrection, The, 101 sqq.
Thomas, St., On the functions
Richard of St. Victor, 21.
of mediatorship, 8; On the
Rigor iustitiae, 66, 69.
mystery of the Incarnation,
Risi, 31.
14 sq. ; On the motive of the
Rivière, J., 52.
Incarnation, 26 sq. ; On the
Rupert of Deutz, 30.
infinity of grievous sin, 36;

169

INDEX
On the scope of Christ's
merits, 59; On the dignity of
Christ’s flesh, 72 ; On the ne­
cessity of Christ'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
the 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 sg.
Toleration, 163.
Toletus, Card., 26, 29.
Tournely, 21, 138.
Tradition, 145 sq.
Trent, Council of, 45, 56, 58, 78,
81, 85, 116, 124, 130.
Triumph over hell, Christ’s 95.

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 salvifica, 75, 82, 97.

W
Wyclif, 18 sq.

Y
Ysambert, 31.

Z
Zill, L., 137, 138.
Zwinglians, 123.

THE NEW YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY
REFERENCE DEPARTMENT

This book is under no circumstances to be
taken from the Building

form 410