Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 12.djvu/759

 REDEMPTION

679

REDEMPTION

tr. Paris, 1893), Sabatier (''La doctrine de I'expiation et son evolution historique", Paris, 1903) that they \'iewed Redemption only as the deification of human- ity through incarnation and knew nothing of Christ's vicarious satisfaction. "An impartial inquirj'", says Ri\-iere, " clearly shows two tendencies: one idealistic, which \-iews salvation more as the supernatural resto- ration of mankind to an immortal and Divine life, the other realistic, which considers it rather as the expia- tion of our sins through the death of Christ. The two tendencies run side by side with an occasional con- tact, but at no time did the former completely absorb the latter, and in course of time, the realistic view became preponderant" (Le dogme de la redemption, p. 209). St. Anselm's famous treatise "Cur Deus homo" may be taken as the first sj'stematic presenta- tion of the doctrine of Redemption, and, apart from the exaggeration noted above, contains the sj-nthesis which became dominant in Catholic theologj'. Far from being adverse to the satufactio vicaria popular- ized by St. Anselm, the early Reformers accepted it without question and even went so far as to suppose that Christ endured the pains of hell in our place.

If we except the erratic ^-iews of Abelard, Socinus (d. 1.562) in his "de Deo servatore" was the first who attempted to replace the traditional dogma of Christ's vicarious satisfaction by a sort of purely ethical exemplarism. He was and is still followed by the Rationalist School which sees in the traditional theorj-, all but defined by the Church, a spirit of %andictive- ness unworthy of God and a subversion of justice in substituting the innocent for the guilty. The charge of vindictiveness, a piece of gross anthropomorphism, comes from confounding the sin of revenge and the virtue of justice. The charge of injustice ignores the fact that Jesus, the juridical head of mankind (Eph., i, 22), voluntarily offered Himself (John, x, 15), that we might be saved by the grace of one Sa\'iour even as we had been lost by the fault of the one Adam (Rom., V, 15). It would be a crude conception indeed to suppose that the guilt or culpability of men passed from the consciences of men to the conscience of Christ: the penalty alone was voluntarily assumed by the Redeemer and, in paj-ing it, He washed away our sins and restored us to our former supernatural state and destination.

B. Merits of Christ. — Satisfaction is not the only object and value of Christ's theandric operations and sufferings; for these, beside placating God, al.-o benefit man in several waj-s. They possess, in the first place, the power of impetration or intercession which is proper to prayer, according to John, xi, 42: "And I knew that thou hearest me always. " However, as satisfaction is the main factor of Redemption with regard to God's honour, so man's restoration is due principally to the merits of Christ. That merit, or the quality which makes human acts worthy of a reward at the hands of another, attaches to the works of the Redeemer, is apparent from the easily ascer- tained presence in them of the usual conditions of merit, namely (1) the waj-farer state (John, i, 14); (2) moral hberty (John, x, IS); (3) conformity to the ethical standard (John, \Tii, 29); and (4) Divine promise (Is., liii, 10). Christ merited for Himself, not indeed grace nor essential glory which were both attached and due to the Hj-postatic Union, but acci- dental honour (Heb., ii, 9) and the exaltation of His name (Phil., ii, 9-10). He also merited for us. Such Biblical phrases as to receive "of his fulness" (John, i, 16), to be blessed with His blessings (Eph., i, 3), to be made alive in Him (I Cor., xv, 22), to owe Him our eternal salvation (Heb., v, 9) clearly imply a communi- cation from Him to us and that at least by way of merit. The Council of Florence [Decretum pro Jaco- bitis, Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 711 (602)] credits man's deliverance from the domination of Satan to the merit of the Mediator, and the Council of Trent (Sess. V,

cc. iii, vii, xvi and canons iii, x) repeatedly connects the merits of Christ and the development of our supernatural life in its various phases. Canon iii of Session V says anathema to whoever claims that original sin is cancelled otherwise than by the merits of one Mediator, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and canon X of Session \l defines that man cannot merit without the justice through which Christ merited our justifi- cation.

The objects of Christ's merits for us are the super- natural giJFts lost by sin. that is, grace (John, i, 14, 16) and salvation (I Cor., xv, 22); the preternatural gifts enjoj-ed bj- our first parents in the state of innocence are not, at least in this world, restored by the merits of Redemption, as Christ mshes us to suffer with Him in order that we may be glorified with Hun (Rom., viii, 17). St. Thomas, explaining how Christ's merits pass on to us, says: Christ merits for others as other men in the state of grace merit for themselves (III, Q. xh-iii, a. 1). With us merits are essentially personal. Not so with Christ who, being the head of our race (Eph., iv, 15; v, 23), has, on that score, the unique prerogative of communicating to the subordinate personal members the Divine life whose source He is. "The same mo- tion of the Holy Ghost", says Schwalm, "which impels us individually through the various stages of grace toward life eternal, impels Christ but as the leader of all; and so the same law of efficacious Divine motion governs the indi\-iduality of our merits and the universality of Christ's merits" (Le Christ, 422). It is true that the Redeemer associates others to Him- self "For the perfecting of the saints, ... for the edifjing of the body of Christ" (Eph., iv, 12), but their subordinate merit is only a matter of fitness and creates no right, whereas Christ, on the sole ground of His dignity and mission, can claim for us a partic- ipation in His Di\Tne pri\ileges.

All admit, in Christ's meritorious actions, a moral influence mo^■ing God to confer on us the grace through which we merit. Is that influence merely moral or does it effectively concur in the production of grace? From such passages as Luke, vi, 19, "virtue went out from him", the Greek Fathers insist much on the Svna/u! ^uowoids, or I'is vivifica, of the Sacred Humanity, and St. Thomas (III, Q. xhiii, a. 6) speaks of a sort of effid^ntia whereby the actions and passions of Christ, as vehicle of the Di\-ine power, cause grace by way of instrumental force. Those two modes of action do not exclude each other: the same act or set of acts of Christ may be and probably is endowed with twofold efficiency, meritorious on account of Christ's personal dignity, dynamic on ac- count of His investment with Di%'ine power.

II I. ,4 dequacy of Redem ption. — Redempt ion is styled by the "Catechism of the Council of Trent" (I, v, 15) "complete, integral in all points, perfect and truly admirable". Such is the teaching of St. Paul: "where sin abounded, grace did more abound" (Rora., v, 20), that is, e\Tl as the effects of sin are, they are more than compensated by the fruits of Redemption. Commenting on that passage St. Chrj-so.stom (Hom. X in Rom., in P. G., LX, 477) compares our liabihty to a drop of water and Christ's pajTnent to the vast ocean. The true reason for the adequacy and even superabundance of Redemption is given by St. C\Til of Alexandria: "One died for all . . . but there was in that one more value than in all men together, more even than in the whole creation, for, beside being a perfect man, He remained the onlv son of God (Quod unus sit Christus, in P. G., LXXV, 1356). St. .\nselm (Cur Deus homo, II, xviii) is probably the first ^\Titer who used the word "infinite" in connexion with the value of Redemption: "ut sufficere possit ad solvendum quod pro peccatis totius mundi debetur et plus in infini- tum". This way of speaking was strongly opposed by John Duns Scotus and his school on the double plea