Chapter XXXIII. Question 48

WAKA SE SR RRR E ER RBBSBSBBSASBBRBRBRRRRARERBEABEEBERSSRESESESE EERE EEEE

THE EFFICIENCY oF CHrIsT’s PASSION

HIS question of St. Thomas must be carefully considered, and all its articles must be explained, because it is of great importance.

He answers that Christ’s passion caused our salvation by way of merit, satisfaction, sacrifice, redemption or liberation, and that it was the efficient cause.

Division and orderly arrangement of this question. Certain recent historians seem to think that St. Thomas placed in quasi-juxtaposition the notions of merit, satisfaction, sacrifice, and redemption, not subordinating them. They also find that this question is too complex, as if the holy Doctor did not know how to preserve the unity of the mystery by showing how it predominantly illustrates Christ’s love for the Father and for us.

Truly it would be contrary to St. Thomas’ method of procedure, not to subordinate these various notions, for it is the mark of the wise man to do so. If, on the contrary, this question is carefully examined, its wonderful order becomes quite clear.

1. The holy Doctor finds these different notions in Sacred Scripture and tradition, and he had therefore to explain them all as to their theological significance in due order.

2. These notions are of themselves subordinated as in the present enumeration beginning from the more universal and ascending to the less universal, and they all presuppose Christ’s charity, which holds the first place. For Christ’s act of charity is primarily meritorious, but it is strictly satisfactory only if it is laborious and difficult; for every satisfactory act is meritorious, but not vice versa. Then an act that is both meritorious and satisfactory is not always in the strict sense a sacrifice, whereas, on the contrary, a perfect sacrifice, such as 562 a holocaust, is both meritorious and satisfactory. Moreover, in the enumeration, redemption is taken in the restricted sense of liberation from the slavery of sin and the devil, but not in the complete sense, whereby Christ is said to be the cause or the author of our salvation. Wherefore several authors explain this question of St. Thomas, as we shall, by considering the different ways of redemption in the adequate sense, that is, by way of merit, satisfaction, sacrifice, liberation, and effectiveness. But in this enumeration, as E. Hugon observes, merit, satisfaction, and sacrifice belong to redemption as constitutive elements, but our liberation and the efficiency of our salvation in the application of the merits and satisfaction of the Passion, belong to it as consecutive elements or effects. Thus the orderly arrangement of these articles and the beautiful structure of this question become increasingly apparent. But the liberation and restoration of the human race is called objective redemption, and to this Jesus has condign right, the Blessed Virgin Mary, however, a congruent title. The application of this liberation and restoration to this particular person, such as to Peter or Paul, is called subjective redemption.

3. Finally, Christ the Savior in redeeming us practiced different subordinated virtues. First of all, He practiced charity, to which merit strictly belongs, for the other virtues are meritorious only as they are commanded by charity. Secondly, He practiced justice, of which satisfaction is a part. Thirdly, He practiced religion, to which sacrifice belongs. But these three elements, as stated, constitute the work of redemption from which our liberation and restoration follow, by the effective application of the merits and satisfaction of the Passion. Thus St. Thomas succeeded very well in the orderly arrangement of this question. It is no wonder that this question is rather complex, because the higher and more universal is the cause, the more it includes several modes of causality; but in this complexity shines forth the splendor of its unity, inasmuch as all these elements manifest Christ’s love for the Father and for us.

This orderly arrangement is seen to be all the more profound when we take note of the fact that Christ, the head of the human race, as generally admitted, could have redeemed us by whatever meritorious act without painful satisfaction and sacrifice in the strict sense.

First ARTICLE

ON REDEMPTION BY WAY OF MERIT

State of the question. At the beginning of this first article St. Thomas presents three difficulties. It seems that Christ’s passion was not the meritorious cause of our salvation: (1) because suffering, as such, is not meritorious; (2) He did not even merit our salvation as an interior offering of Himself, because Christ from the beginning of His conception, merited for us in fact by merit that is of infinite value. Therefore it would be superfluous for Him to merit again what He had already merited; (3) because charity is the foundation of merit, and this charity did not increase in Christ by His passion. Therefore He did not merit our salvation more by His passion than He had merited it before.

Reply. Nevertheless the answer is that Christ by His passion merited salvation for all His members.

This conclusion is of faith, for the Council of Trent says: “Our Lord Jesus Christ,’ when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity whereby He loved us,” merited justification for us by His most holy passion on the wood of the cross.” * The Council also says: “If anyone shall say that men are justified without Christ’s justice, whereby He merited for us; let him be anathema.” *

Scriptural proof. St. Paul says: “For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners; so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just.” ° In other words, just as by Adam’s demerit we lost grace, so by the merit of Christ’s grace we receive grace. Again he says: “Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” ê In another epistle, he says: “God hath predestinated us unto the adoption of children through Jesus Christ

. unto the praise of the glory of His grace, in which He hath graced us in His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the remission of sins according to the richness of His grace.” * Jesus Himself said: “The Son of man must be lifted up, that

whosoever believeth in Him may not perish, but may have life everlasting.” ë By His passion He merited exaltation for Himself,’ and for us sanctification, for Jesus said: “And for them do I sanctify [or sacrifice] Myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.” *°

Theological proof. St. Thomas gives the fundamental argument as follows: Grace was given to Christ, not only as an individual, but inasmuch as He is the head of the Church, and therefore Christ’s works are referred to Himself and to His members, just as the works of another man in a state of grace are referred to himself. But it is evident that whoever suffers for justice’ sake, provided he is in the state of grace, merits his salvation thereby. Consequently Christ by His passion merited not only His exaltation but also salvation for all His members.

We are concerned here with condign merit, whereby Christ the head, by His theandric supernatural love that is of infinite value, merited for us in justice, the supernatural goods lost by sin, namely, grace and eternal life, as explained above.** All the conditions required for merit are eminently verified in this great act of charity, namely, grace and eternal life; for Christ was still a wayfarer, and God by appointing Him mediator and Head, had ordained His works for the salvation of His members.

Reply to first objection. Christ’s suffering was meritorious not inasmuch as it was suffering, but inasmuch as Christ bore it willingly.

Reply to second objection. “From the beginning of His conception Christ merited our eternal salvation; but on our side there were some obstacles, whereby we were hindered from securing the effect of His preceding merits.” Thus the souls of the just were awaiting Him in limbo,"? for by His descent into limbo He delivered the holy fathers detained there. As St. Thomas says: “The holy fathers while yet living were delivered from original as well as actual sin through faith in Christ; also from the penalty of actual sins; but not from the penalty of original sin, whereby they were excluded from glory since the price of man’s redemption was not yet paid.” '* Farther on, St. Thomas remarks: “Original sin spread in this way, that at first the person infected the nature, and afterward the nature infected the person. Whereas Christ in reverse order at first repairs what regards the person and afterward will simultaneously repair what pertains to the nature in all men. . . . But the penalties of the present life, such as death, hunger, and thirst, will not be taken away until the ultimate restoration of nature through the glorious resurrection.” **

Reply to third objection. “Christ’s passion has a special effect, which His preceding merits did not possess, not on account of greater charity, but because of the nature of the work, which was suitable for such an effect.” 1 This means that the other preceding merits of Christ had indeed already a personal and infinite value, but the merits of the Passion had a greater objective value on account of the dignity of the object itself most arduous, namely, the sacrifice on the cross or the supreme holocaust. Right from the beginning, Christ offered up to His Father all His future merits, even those of the Passion, for St. Paul says: “When He cometh into the world, He saith, . . . ‘Behold I come.’ ” 1° Christ’s oblation and merit continued throughout His life until He completed the work of redemption, by saying: “It is consummated.” *7

WHAT CHRIST MERITED FOR US BY HIS PASSION

He merited for us all we had lost in Adam,'* Thus the Evangelist says: “And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace,” +° from the first grace to the last grace.

Hence He merited for us sanctifying grace, the infused virtues, and the seven gifts, likewise all actual graces whereby we are prepared for justification, by means of which we perform meritorious acts and persevere. He likewise merited for us eternal life, or salvation, and also final resurrection or the preternatural gifts that we lost through Adam, namely, immunity from death, pain, concupiscence, and error.

But Christ’s passion is a universal cause that produces its effect only if the fruits of Christ’s merits are applied to us through the instrumentality of the sacraments or without them, and frequently

men, because of concupiscence or pride, place obstacles in the way of their application. Wherefore we said above °° in treating of Christ’s merit, that the efficacious graces which de facto are not granted, such as the grace of a good death for Judas, these Christ merited as offered to men in the sufficient grace, but not as here and now bestowed or to be conferred. For God offers us the efficacious grace in the sufhcient grace, as the fruit is contained in the flower, but if a person resists the sufficient grace, then the efficacious grace is not conferred. For we must cooperate in our salvation, wherefore St. Paul says: “And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; yet so if we suffer with Him that we may be also glorified with Him.” *? But Christ merited for the elect by His passion all the effects of their predestination, namely, their calling, justification, perseverance, and glorification.”?

WHETHER CHRIST'S PASSION BROUGHT ABOUT OUR SALVATION BY WAY OF ATONEMENT

State of the question. St. Thomas asks in this second article whether Christ’s passion caused our salvation by way of satisfaction. In his accustomed way, he most wisely set forth the state of the question in the three difficulties he presented. But because this question is again raised by the Socinians, the liberal Protestants, and the Modernists, we must inquire: (1) what the liberal Protestants and Modernists denied about this mystery of redemption and what was their conception of it; (2) what Sacred Scripture and tradition have to say about it; (3) whether Christ truly and strictly, or only improperly, satisfied for us; (4) whether Christ’s operations were intrinsically of infinite value as regards both merit and satisfaction; (5) whether Christ’s satisfaction was not only intrinsically condign, but also superabundant, and to what kind of justice it belongs?

THE STAND TAKEN BY THE EARLIER PROTESTANTS AND THE OPPOSITE OPINION OF THE LIBERAL PROTESTANTS

The general observation is that, as regards the dogma of redemption, the earlier Protestants erred by excess, whereas the Socinians 20 Cf. Ila, q. 19, a. 4.

and liberal Protestants deviated from the truth by defect, because of their excessive reaction against the Reformers. For in Luther’s opinion and still more in Calvin’s, Christ took upon Himself our sins as to become hateful to God and was cursed by Him, and on the cross, or in His descent into hell, He suffered the torments of the damned, so that He went so far as to be guilty of the sin of despair in saying: “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” ** whereas, on the contrary, these words are a quotation from one of the psalms of the Old Testament, the concluding words of which express great confidence in God.** The Reformers concluded from this teaching of theirs, that there is nothing left for us to do or suffer, for we are saved by faith alone in Christ’s merits.

Going to the other extreme, however, the Socinians and liberal Protestants fell into the opposite defect, and said that Christ redeemed us only in a moral sense, in that He saves only by His doctrine and example, in the same way as the prophets and martyrs did, although in a higher degree.

Thus the Socinians said that Christ satisfied for us only in the broad sense and metaphorically, by His heroic preaching and example, dying like the martyrs, that is, by affixing the seal to His preaching by the shedding of His blood. Thus His death moves us morally to perform penitential acts whereby our sins are forgiven; but, as they say, Christ did not, strictly speaking, die for us, that is, in our place, by paying the penalty incurred by our sins. Consequently they deny vicarious satisfaction in the strict sense.

No wonder the Socinians ended in this heresy; for they denied Christ’s divinity. The denial of the mystery of the Incarnation results in the denial of the mystery of redemption. Pope Paul IV condemned them, for they: “asserted that there are not three persons in the omnipotent God . . . , that our Lord Jesus Christ is not truly God . . . and did not undergo a most bitter death on the cross that He might redeem us from sins and eternal death and reconcile us with the Father for eternal life.” ?5

This Socinian error stems from another, namely, that, although they acknowledge that God punishes obstinate sinners, yet they want Him freely to forgive those that fall again, without demanding any

satisfaction from them, otherwise, so they say, this would not be a manifestation of His mercy.

Liberal Protestants in our times and Modernists assent to this concept of redemption, as is evident from the Modernist propositions condemned by Pius X, one of which reads: “The doctrine of the sacrificial death of Christ is not evangelical, but originated with St. Paul.” **

Scriptural proof. Sacred Scripture testifies that Christ redeemed us by paying the price, namely, by shedding His blood. But this means to satisfy in the strict sense and not merely metaphorically, namely, by preaching, giving us advice and example, as the apostles did. In the strict sense He died for us by paying the penalty that is due for our sins. This is already evident from the above-quoted scriptural texts *7 concerning the mystery of redemption considered in a general way. To these must be added the following texts: “Behold the Lamb of God, behold Him who taketh away the sin of the world.” ** “Even as the Son of man is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a redemption for many.” *° “This is My blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.” * “For you are bought with a great price. Glorify and bear God in your body.” *! “You are bought with a price; be not made the bondslaves of men.” *? “Knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things as gold or silver . . . , but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled.” ** “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.” * In a word, as St. Paul says: “Christ died for our sins.” *°

Proof from tradition. We have already given the testimony of the Fathers, and the following patristic texts deserve special mention. Thus St. John Chrysostom says: “Christ died indeed for all that He might keep His promise to all in what concerns Him . . . for He

85] Cor. 15:3. See also Rom. 3:24f.; Eph. 1:7; 5:2; | Tim. 2:6; 4:10; Apoc. 1:5; 5:9. Cf. Prat’s Theology of St. Paul, Il, 311 £.

took away the sins of men and offered them to the Father . . . that He might forgive them.” °° St. Augustine says: “In the remission of our sins the innocent blood of Christ was shed. . . . In this redemption, Christ’s blood is given for us as the price. . . . Christ undertook, though innocent, our punishment, that thereby He might free us from guilt and also put an end to our punishment.” *7

Definitions of the Church. The councils have frequently declared that Christ died so that the nature lost by Adam might be repaired by Him; ** that He satisfied for the sins of the whole world; ° that the satisfaction is infinite ® and superabundant. Christ, by His death on the cross, redeemed us from sins and reconciled us with the Father,? and this He did because of His love for the human race, and not through fate.* Hence He is the Redeemer, the Savior, the Mediator between God and men.**

THEOLOGICAL PROOF THAT CHRIST TRULY AND STRICTLY SATISFIED FOR US

The Socinians maintain that the above-mentioned texts from Sacred Scripture must be understood of satisfaction and redemption improperly so called, as we read in various passages of the Old Testament that God is said to have redeemed His people,*® or when Moses is said to have been sent as redeemer,**® although in these cases there was no real redemption.

Therefore the texts from Sacred Scripture must be examined by the light of revealed principles as enunciated in Scripture. In this

37 De Trinitate, Bk. XIII, chap. 14, no. 18; chap. XV, no. 19. Cf. Rouet de Journel, Index patrist., Index theol., no. 419.

39 bid., nos. 122f., 286, 319, 323, 462, 794f. 799, 809, 820, 1096, 1294f., 1409. Christ accomplished our redemption by way of true vicarious satisfaction. Cf. also J. Rivière, Le dogme de la rédemption; La rédemption chez les Pères Grecs, pp. 101- 210. La rédemption chez les Pères Latins, pp. 211-78. Le dogme de la rédemption chez St. Augustin; Le dogme de la rédemption, étude théologique; and Dict. théol. cath., art. “Rédemption,” cols. 1932-42.

as any two men are one in charity, the one can atone for the other, as will be shown later. But the same reason does not hold good of contrition and confession, because atonement consists of an outward action, for which helps may be used, among which friends are to be computed.” °° Contrition requires that the sinner’s bad disposition be removed by his own act, and nobody can receive a sacrament for another.

Satisfaction is not indeed merely an external act, but it must be measured externally, that is, the satisfaction must be equal to the reparation of the offense, whereas contrition must directly remove the sinner’s bad interior disposition.”

Hence Christ, as head of the human race, could both merit and satisfy de condigno for us, whereas the Blessed Virgin Mary, who had neither the grace of union nor the grace of headship, merited de congruo for us what Christ merited de condigno, and she likewise satisfied de congruo, as explained in Mariology. Satisfaction corresponds to merit and is proportionate to it.

Reply to second objection. St. Thomas observes: “Christ’s love was greater than His slayer’s malice, and therefore the value of His passion in atoning surpassed the murderous guilt of those who crucified Him; so much so that Christ’s suffering was sufficient and superabundant atonement for His murderer’s crime.” This means that God the Father loved more Christ’s act of love in suffering for us than the malice and offense of deicide displeased Him.

Reply to third objection. “The dignity of Christ’s flesh is not to be estimated solely from the nature of the flesh, but also from the person assuming it, namely, inasmuch as it was God’s flesh, the result of which was that it was of infinite worth.” It is likewise with Christ’s act of charity in offering Himself, for it was a theandric act. This constitutes essentially the mystery of the redemption. Thus Christ strictly satisfied for us.°?

51 Consult Cajetan’s commentary on this article.

52 Redemption, inasmuch as it is willed by God, is indeed by way of merit, satisfaction, and sacrifice, but absolutely speaking redemption can be conceived, so it seems, by way of a theandric act, without pain, satisfaction, and sacrifice each in the strict sense; because the theandric act of love even of itself is more pleasing to God than all sins are displeasing to Him. But we human beings acknowledge the generosity of love only if it be manifested by a generous acceptance of suffering. Thus it is commonly said that sacrifice is a real manifestation or proof of true love.

First objection. To make atonement belongs to the one who commits the sin. But Christ did not sin. Therefore it was not for Him to make satisfaction.

Reply. I distinguish the major: that it belongs to the one who commits the sin to atone for it, when the sinner or the representative are as one mystic person, this I concede; when the head of the human race is excluded, then I deny the major. But Christ is the head of the human race.

Second objection. There is no atonement by committing a greater offense. But in Christ’s passion the greatest of all offenses was perpetrated. Therefore no atonement was made by committing a greater offense.

Reply. St. Thomas answers the second objection to this article by saying that “Christ’s love was greater in His passion than the murderous guilt of those who crucified Him; so much so that Christ’s suffering was sufficient and abundant atonement for His murderers’ crime.”

Third objection. Atonement implies equality with the trespass. But there is no equality in this case, because Christ did not suffer in His Godhead that was offended by sin, but in His flesh. Therefore Christ by suffering in the flesh did not establish equality of atonement.

Reply. I distinguish the major: that atonement implies material equality, this I deny; that it implies formal equality, that is, in accordance with the value of the price paid, this I concede. I distinguish the minor: that Christ suffered merely materially in the flesh, this I deny; in the flesh that was assumed by the Word, and offered to God by a theandric act of charity, this I concede; and I deny the consequent and consequence.

Fourth objection. If Christ died in our place, then why do we die and endure the other penalties of sin?

Reply. It is because the principal reason why Christ died is to free us from eternal death, but not immediately from temporal death and the other penalties of this life but afterward “in the ultimate restoration of nature through the glorious resurrection .. . ; for Christ first repairs what regards the person, and afterward will repair what pertains to the nature in all men.” 5°

Fifth objection. For perfect atonement Christ ought to have submitted to the punishment of sin, namely, eternal death.

Reply. If the atonement concerned merely penal and material compensation, then I concede the antecedent; but I deny it if it is a question of formal atonement whose principal value is estimated from the love of the person who offers, because of His theandric act of charity. Moreover, Christ’s voluntary and temporal death was of infinite value in that by it He offered to God the life of the Word incarnate.

Sixth objection. God is infinitely merciful. But to exact so great an atonement is repugnant to infinite mercy. Therefore God did not exact so great an atonement.

Reply. That God’s infinite mercy excludes His infinite justice, this I deny; that it implies infinite justice conjoined with it, this I concede. Similarly I distinguish the minor.

God could have indeed pardoned the offense out of His pure mercy, but He willed to unite it with His justice, and so He mercifully gave us the Savior, who was able to offer adequate satisfaction to divine justice. “For God so loved the world as to give His only-begotten Son.” °* “Mercy and truth have met each other; justice and peace have kissed.” °° Hence in this mystery there is nowise a diminution of mercy, but its manifestation in the highest degree.

Seventh objection. God freely remits the sins of those who fall again into sin. Therefore He does not exact atonement from them.

Reply. I distinguish the antecedent: that God freely remits them as regards sinners, this I concede; as regards Christ the Redeemer, this I deny.

Eighth objection. God exhorts us to be benign, merciful, so that we do not become revengeful. Therefore in this way God pardons our offenses.

Reply. I distinguish the antecedent: if it is solely a question of our own subordinated right, then I concede the antecedent; if it also concerns higher rights, for example, the common good of one’s country, then I deny it. Just as the judge must, for the common good of one’s country, exact satisfaction from anyone who has done harm to or betrayed it, so the supreme Judge must proclaim the right of the supreme Good to be loved above all things. Moreover, the divine

Judge, who is also merciful, gave us the Savior. So sometimes the general of an army for the safety of one’s native land sends his most beloved son to death by placing him in command of a heroic legion, and his son freely accepts this glorious mission for the safety of the fatherland; in fact, he thanks his father for putting such a trust in him, and both are united in the same heroic love of their native land. Thus God the Father and Christ the Savior are united in the same love of the supreme goodness and the diffusion thereof for the salvation of souls. Thus Christ became the glorious conqueror over sin, the devil, and death.

Hence St. Thomas very well says: “God loves Christ not only more than He loves the whole human race, but more than He loves the entire created universe; because He willed for Him the greater good in giving Him a name that is above all names, so far as He was true God. Nor did anything of His excellence diminish when God delivered Him up to death for the salvation of the human race; He rather became thereby a glorious conqueror: the government was placed upon His shoulder, according to Isaias 9:6.” °°

Ninth objection. The remission of sins was not gratuitous if Christ completely paid the debt. But the remission of sins is gratuitous. Therefore Christ did not completely pay the debt.

Reply. I distinguish the major: that it was not gratuitous as regards Christ, this I concede; that it was not for us, this I deny.

Tenth objection. It is inhuman for the innocent and just to be punished for the guilty one. But it would have been so in this case.

Reply. I distinguish the antecedent: that it is inhuman, if the innocent person is not a voluntary victim, this I concede: otherwise, I deny it. Here the voluntary victim, however, has the supreme love of God and His neighbor at heart, and His vocation is the most sublime of all vocations.”

Eleventh objection. Then our satisfactions would be superfluous, which is unbefitting. Therefore Christ did not fully pay the debt.

Reply. That they are superfluous in the sense that they would again

57 St. Thomas explained above (q. 47, a. 3) in what sense “God the Father spared not even His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all” (Rom. 8:32). He delivered Him up: (1) by eternally preordaining Christ’s passion for the liberation of the human race; (2) by inspiring Him with the will to suffer for us and by infusing charity in Him; (3) by not shielding Him from the Passion, but exposing Him to His persecutors.

be meritorious for reconciling the human race with God, this I concede; for the application of this reconciliation, this I deny.

Thus St. Paul says: “I fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for His body which is the Church.” ** This means that I fill up not what is wanting in the price paid for redemption but as to its application; for this application is effected only by good works, for St. Paul says: “We are joint-heirs with Christ, yet so if we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified with Him.” °° Just as the first cause does not nullify the effect of the secondary cause, but endows it with the dignity of causality, so Christ’s satisfaction does not nullify our satisfactions, but enkindles them and attributes validity to them. Thus Christ enkindles victim souls and assigns to them a share of His victory over sin and the devil.°°

Thus we conclude that Christ truly and in the proper sense redeemed us, by satisfaction strictly so called and a propitiatory sacrifice, both of which were the result of His supreme love for God His Father and for souls that must be saved. Thus God’s love and mercy in a certain way transcend His justice, as already explained,** because redemption is principally a work of love and mercy of both God the Father and Christ toward men to be redeemed.

Conclusion. The solution of these objections sets the mind at rest as far as discursive reasoning is concerned, but we must rise above discursive reasoning to the act of faith and also the simple intuition of contemplation, which proceeds from lively faith illumined by the gifts of the Holy Ghost. Thus we attain to “a certain and most fruitful understanding” °° of this mystery, as the Vatican Council declares. We must firmly believe that Jesus is the Savior and Redeemer in the strict sense of these words, with no attenuation of their meaning. In fact, the divine reality of this mystery far surpasses our conception of it, which means that Christ is ever so much more profoundly and sublimely the Redeemer than we think Him to be, when we attribute satisfaction in the true and strict sense to Him. In this, not only is theology free from all exaggeration, but it also cannot sufficiently express the surpassing reality of this mystery. There is more in God and in Christ than in the whole of our theology.

THE INFINITE VALUE OF CHRIST'S SATISFACTION

Were Christ’s operations intrinsically of absolutely infinite value both for meriting and satisfaction ?

State of the question. Certain theologians such as Durandus, Scotus, G. Biel, Lychetus, and others teach that Christ’s satisfaction is only extrinsically condign, superabundant, and of infinite value, namely, because of God’s gracious acceptance.** Yet these theologians acknowledge that Christ’s works had, because of the divine person of the Word, the greatest of value, that was not capable of being equaled by a mere creature, and for this reason it was fitting that they should be accepted by God for infinite value.

On the contrary, almost all other theologians hold that Christ's works were intrinsically, because of the divine suppositum, of absolutely infinite value for both meriting and satisfying. So say William of Paris, Alexander of Hales, St. Thomas, and all Thomists, St. Bonaventure, and many others.**

It must be observed that these same principles apply equally to both merit and satisfaction, for it is the meritorious act that becomes satisfactory, when it is of an afflictive nature, and when this affliction is accepted by God and offered to Him in reparation for the offense.

However, before we prove this more common opinion, it must be noted that there is a difference between merit and satisfaction. Merit concerns the reward to be obtained by the rewarded and it therefore concerns either the good of the person meriting or of another, for whom the person merits. But satisfaction refers to the reparation that must be made for the injustice done to another’s right. But merit and satisfaction both enter into Christ’s works.

Moreover, it must be observed that there is a real and intrinsic relation of Christ’s theandric operations both to the object by which they are specified and to the principle by which they are elicited. In Christ the principle that elicits these acts is the divine suppositum or the divine person of the Word, and the principle whereby these acts

88 Cf. Durandus, Com. in III Sent., d. 20, q. 2; Scotus, Com. in Ill Sent., d. 19, q. un., no. 7; G. Biel, Com. in III Sent., d. 19, q. un.; Lychetus, Com. ad Scotum in III Sent., d. 19, q. un., nos. 9-11.

Cf. M. J. Scheeben, Dogmatik, Bk. IV, no. 415, his judgment on the insufficiency of Scotus’ doctrine concerning the Incarnation.

64 Cf. Gulielmus Paris., Cur Deus Homo (before middle); Alensis, Part HI, q. 1, no. 4; St. Thomas, Ila, q. 1, a. 2, ad 2; q. 46, a. 6, ad 6; St. Bonaventure, III Sent., d. 20, a. I, 2, 3-5.

are elicited is the human nature, that operates by means of the faculties and habits or the virtues and gifts.

These operative principles, by which the suppositum operates, are physically finite, and so in Christ’s works as man there is no such thing as physical infinity. But as regards their moral value, this can be estimated either from the more or less exalted nature of the object, and thus Christ’s dolorous passion is objectively more meritorious than His other operations, or they can be estimated from the subject eliciting these acts, that is intrinsically and morally infinite, namely, because of the suppositum, although these operations of Christ come in contact with their object in a finite way. Thus there is a distinction between the personal value of all Christ’s acts of charity, and their more or less exalted objective value.**

First authoritative proof. Pope Clement VI in explaining the words of St. Paul °° and St. Peter ĉ regarding the oblation of Christ, says: “The innocent Christ, who was immolated on the altar of the cross, shed not a little drop of blood, though this would have sufficed for the redemption of the entire human race, because of the union with the Word, but streams of it, like unto a river, so that ‘from the sole of the foot unto the top of the head, there is no soundness in Him.’ °* Thus it is an infinite treasure for men, whereby those who use it may share in God’s friendship. There is not the least fear that this treasure will suffer any loss by its use, both on account of Christ’s infinite merits, as already stated, and for this reason, that the more many are drawn by the application of these merits to holiness of life, all the more there is an increase in the accumulation of their individual merits.” °°

Clement VI says that Christ’s merits are of infinite value, not because of their extrinsic acceptation by God, but “on account of the union of Christs human nature with the Word.” 7° The Supreme

°° It must be noted that for Thomists, in the order of grace and glory, several of these operations are of intrinsic value, such as intrinsically efficacious grace, happiness of heaven which is intrinsically impossible to lose; whereas, on the contrary, in the opinion of certain theologians, these have only an extrinsic value. The reason for this difference of opinion is that in these questions the Thomists consider, not only the fact itself, but the nature of this fact or act, or divine gift.

Pontiff speaks as St. Thomas does, whom we shall immediately quote. It is evident that the hypostatic union with the Word is not something of extrinsic denomination, as, for example, a bank note is, whose value is by some law decreed to represent a determinate sum ‘of money. This constitutes the outstanding difference between paper money and gold or silver.

Second authoritative proof. St. Thomas says: “Sin committed against God has a kind of infinity from the infinity of the divine majesty, because the greater the person we offend, the more grievous the offense. Hence for condign satisfaction it was necessary that the act of the one satisfying should have an infinite efficiency, as being of God and man.” ** Again, he says: “Christ willed to deliver the human race from sins not merely by His power, but also according to justice. And therefore He did not simply weigh what great virtue His suffering would have from union with the Godhead, but also how much, according to His human nature, His pain would avail for so great a satisfaction.” ? Such is the reply given by St. Thomas to his corresponding objection, which is as follows: “The slightest pain would have sufficed to secure man’s salvation, because from His divine person it would have had infinite virtue. Therefore it would have been superfluous to choose the greatest of all pains.” 7 In this article he says: “The dignity of Christ’s flesh (and likewise of His human nature) is not to be estimated solely from the nature of flesh, inasmuch as it was God’s flesh, the result of which was that it was of infinite worth.” “ If this is said of Christ’s flesh, a fortiori this applies to charity. St. Thomas speaks in like manner in several other passages.

Theological proof. Both the meritorious and the satisfactory value of actions is derived not only from the object or from the principle whereby they are elicited, but also, and especially, from the dignity of the person who operates, and the greater the dignity of the person who operates, the more this increases the value of the operation. But Christ’s person is infinitely worthy.

Therefore although Christ’s operations, from the principle and the finite mode whereby they attain their object, are of infinite value, yet because the infinite dignity of the person from whom they pro-

ceed, they have both meritorious and satisfactory values that are infinite; or the possibility of estimating their value is morally infinite.

The minor is certain, since Christ’s person is the person of the Word.

First proof of major. Actions generally belong to the supposita, and moral immanent actions come from the person, as from the principle that formally and freely elicits them.

Second proof. In a special manner satisfactory and meritorious actions formally include the offerer, who by these actions submits and offers himself to the one to whom he avows his obedience. Thus in the notion of meriting and satisfying, the relation is not between merit and the person meriting, between satisfaction and the person satisfying; but the person is related to these actions by way of a moral form; for these actions are intrinsically related to the person who elicits them and who freely offers himself, the more what is offered to God belongs more intimately to the person, the more precious it is, for example, the immolation of the body or personal pain.

Wherefore we generally estimate of greater value a gift offered to us by a person of great merit than an equally valuable gift offered to us by a person of lower dignity. Thus it is said of God: “The Lord had respéct to Abel and to his offerings,” *° in that He considered more the person offering than the gift offered. Therefore, a fortiori, God looks upon the person of His Son offering Himself on the cross. More briefly, Christ’s operations are intrinsically and morally of infinite value because they are theandric.

Confirmation. The common saying is: the greater the dignity of the person offended, the greater the offense, in that the greater the dignity of the person who honors and satisfies, the greater the dignity of the conferring honor and satisfactory work.

Another proof. There is a moral value in Christ’s works of meriting always greater graces and of satisfying for an ever greater number of sinners. From this we clearly see that they are of infinite value.

SOLUTION OF THE OBJECTIONS

First objection. Every created work is intrinsically finite. But every meritorious work of Christ is human and hence created. Therefore every meritorious work of Christ is intrinsically finite.

Reply. I distinguish the major: that every created work is intrinsically and physically finite, this I concede; that it is so morally, this I deny; if the principle that elicits the act is of infinite dignity. I concede the minor. I distinguish the conclusion in the same way as I do the major. Christ’s meritorious acts bear an intrinsic relation to the divine person of the Word.

But I insist. Even the oblation that the Blessed Virgin Mary made of Christ in the temple was intrinsically related to the person of the Word incarnate who was offered. And yet this action of the Blessed Virgin Mary was neither intrinsically of infinite value, nor sufficient for the redemption of the human race.

Reply. I distinguish the antecedent; that this oblation indicated an intrinsic order to the infinite person of Christ merely objectively considered, this I concede; that it indicates relation to Christ as to the principle, and subject which attributes a personal and infinite value to the action, this I deny. More briefly, this oblation of the Blessed Virgin Mary was objectively of’ infinite value, because she offered an infinitely worthy object, namely, the Word incarnate; but the oblation was not personally of infinite value.

Thus, in some manner, the act of charity whereby the Blessed Virgin Mary loved God was indeed infinite objectively considered, but subjectively or personally, it was of finite value, just as the act of charity is of any pure creature whatever; although the merits of the Blessed Virgin Mary were in their order of inestimable value because of the fullness of her charity.

Another objection. There is nothing greater than infinity. But the act of Christ’s divine will is greater than the act of His human will. Therefore this second act is not of infinite value.

Reply. I distinguish the major: that there is nothing greater than absolute infinity in the order of being, namely, than God who is infinite, this I concede; nothing greater than infinity of a certain kind, for example, the moral value of acts, this I deny. I concede the minor because the act of Christ’s divine will is infinite, not only morally, but also physically. I distinguish the conclusion: that Christ’s meritorious act is not absolutely infinite even physically, this I concede; that it is not morally of infinite value, this I deny.

Still I insist. But in this order of moral value it is false to say that all Christ’s merits are of infinite value, for His act of charity in offering Himself on the cross was of greater value than any other of His meritorious acts, for example, those of preaching to the people or conversing with His disciples.

continued. So it ought to be with Christians, and especially religious.

Third difficulty. Then our satisfaction would be superfluous.

Reply. As was said in replying to the second difficulty: they are superfluous in reconciling the human race with God, this I concede; that they are so in the application of this reconciliation, this I deny. In fact, it pertains to the abundance of Christ’s satisfaction not only that He Himself satisfy, but that also He cause others to satisfy, just as it belongs to the perfection of the first cause to give the dignity of causality to others.

Fourth difficulty. Christ, however, in this way would have been entitled to a greater reward of merit than God could have given Him, for an infinite reward is a contradiction in terms.

Reply. Merit of infinite value does not demand an actually infinite reward, just as divine omnipotence is made manifest not because it produces something that is actually infinite, for this is an impossibility; but because of all things made by God, He can always make a better thing than He has made. Thus Christ merited the salvation of human beings without any limit to their number and although this would prolong the end of the world beyond the truly appointed time, human beings would always find in Christ’s merits a sufficient source of salvation. Moreover, Christ merited something infinite in this sense, that He merited the Eucharist which is a sacrifice of infinite value, whereby the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated until the end of time and whereby the merits of the Passion are continually applied to our souls. Likewise He merited the beatific vision for the elect and their love of God, which they cannot lose, and these are infinite on the part of the object seen and loved.

Finally, the infinite value of Christ’s satisfaction is made manifested in the adequate reparation made for the offense against God, for this reparation demands an act that is morally infinite in value, not only potentially but actually.

Hence this thesis is certain chiefly on account of the proof given above.

First doubt. Was Christ’s satisfaction not only intrinsically condign, but also intrinsically superabundant ?

Reply. It is of faith that Christ satisfied for us condignly, for St. Paul says: “Christ Jesus who gave Himself a redemption for all”; ‘7 and the Council of Trent declares: “Our Lord . . . made satisfac-

tion to God the Father for us.” 78 It concerns condign satisfaction, or the voluntary and equal payment of the debt, namely, of the sins that offended God.

But from what has been said, it also follows that.Christ’s satisfaction was intrinsically superabundant. And this is the more common opinion.

Scriptural proof. St. Paul says: “Where sin abounded, grace did more abound,” 7° and this was especially so in the Savior. `

The Fathers, too, in the explanation of this text affirm the superabundance of Christ’s merits. Thus St. John Chrysostom says: “For Christ paid for more than we owed.” 8°

Theological proof. The principal one is that given by St. Thomas, which is as follows: “He properly atones for an offense, who offers something which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offense. But by suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race. First of all, because of the exceeding charity (theandric) from which He suffered; secondly, on account of the dignity of His life which He laid down in atonement, for it was the life of one who was God and man; thirdly, on account of the extent of the Passion, and on account of the greatness of the grief endured.” $1

Several theologians give an additional reason, namely, that the satisfaction was superabundant because by sin God, who is offended, is made morally subject indeed to a creature; but by His passion and crucifixion the Word incarnate because of His exceeding love subjects Himself even physically and really to penalties and sufferings. This reason is cogent if we consider that Christ’s acts of charity and humility in suffering on the cross were theandric acts of intrinsically infinite value. Hence the reply to the present doubt is a corollary to the preceding thesis.

As regards the extent of this satisfaction, it is universal, inasmuch as it is sufficient for the salvation of all men without exception.

Sacred Scripture declares it to be so in the following text: “He

8° Com. in Rom., Hom. 10. Cf. Rouet de Journel, Enchiridion patristicum, nos. 421 f., for testimony of several other Fathers.

[Christ] is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.” $°

Second doubt. Was Christ’s satisfaction for men according to strict justice and as absolute right demands.

State of the question. Satisfaction is said to be according to strict justice when it is perfect according to the nature of justice,** that is, it must be made: (1) to another; (2) from the debtor’s own means to which the creditor is not entitled on some other grounds; (3) the creditor must be under obligation to accept the satisfaction. The difficulty is that Christ Himself as God was offended, and that He could not, so it seems, satisfy to Himself; for justice concerns another.

The question so presented is disputed. Vasquez, Molina, Lugo, Billot and others deny that Christ’s satisfaction was according to strict justice.*4

It is generally admitted by the Thomists, especially by Capreolus, Cajetan, Salmanticenses, Billuart, and others, who quote various texts of St. Thomas. St. Bonaventure also forms the affirmative opinion.*® Suarez °° and, among more recent theologians, Franzelin, Pesch, Paquet, Janssens, and others take the affirmative view.

Proof of thesis. Strict satisfaction must be that which is made: (1) to another; (2) from the debtor’s own means to which the creditor is not entitled on some other grounds; (3) the creditor must be under obligation to accept the satisfaction. But such was the nature of Christ’s satisfaction. Therefore it was according to strict justice.

Proof of minor.

1. It was made to another, inasmuch as the divine person, who exists in both the divine nature and the human nature, satisfied to Himself, who exists in the divine nature. It is not necessary that satis-

83 “Ex parte formace” here means those elements that constitute justice truly as such, just as body and rational soul truly constitute the nature of man. (Tr.)

8t Vasquez, in Iam, disp. 3, c. 1 f. Molina, in Jam, q. 21, a. 1; Lugo, De mysterio incarnationis, disp. 3, sect. 1, no. 4; L. Billot, De Verbo incarnato, thesis 53.

85 Cf, Cajetan, in Iam, q. 1, a. 2. Salmanticenses, De incarnatione, disp. 1, no. 214. See also Capreolus, Ferrariensis, Alvarez, John of St. Thomas, and others in their commentaries on St. Thomas. Among texts from St. Thomas, cf. IIa, q. 1, a. 2, ad 2; g. 48, a. 2. Also St. Bonaventure, in II Sent., disp. 20, q. 5.

86 Suarez (disp., IV, sect. 3, no. 11) says about this opinion of the Thomists: “I consider it so certain that the contrary opinion seems neither probable nor pious nor sufficiently consistent with the faith.”

faction be made to another suppositum, for it suffices that it be made to another by reason of the nature, because the distinction between the natures is the foundation for the distinction between rights and correlative duties. Thus Christ merited not as God, but as man. If Aristotle says: “Justice concerns another,” ® namely, another person, the reason is that he is speaking about human things.**

2. This satisfaction must be made out of one’s own means, namely, from what belongs to the divine person in the human nature, and to which the creditor is not entitled, because God the creditor was not strictly entitled to Christ’s meritorious and satisfactory works inasmuch as He was man, but they belonged properly to Christ as man, inasmuch as He was free; and they belonged only in a general way to God. But general ownership does not do away with particular ownership, just as the universal cause does not do away with the particular cause, just as a citizen pays to the state something that belongs to him as his own, although the state has the title of general domain over it.

3. God is not absolutely bound to accept this satisfaction, but only hypothetically, on the supposition that God constituted Christ our surety and Redeemer, whom He inspired to make this satisfaction to Him.

Confirmation. Strict satisfaction is that which is equal to the offense; but Christ’s satisfaction was superabundant, for as St. Thomas says: “He properly atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offense. But by suffering out of theandric love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race.” °° Therefore this satisfaction was more than equivalent, more than according to strict justice, but truly and properly superabundant. We must always have recourse to this celebrated text of St. Thomas, which more clearly solves these doubts than anything that has been written on this subject after his time.

Third doubt. Was Christ’s satisfaction an act of commutative justice?

State of the question. Justice is a virtue that attributes to each one his own. It is divided into general and particular. General justice,

which is also called legal, immediately concerns the common good, just as equity or epikeia does. Particular justice is divided into distributive, whereby the superior gives to the subjects what is due to them in proportion to their merits or their needs, and commutative, whereby one person gives to another not in proportion to the needs of the other, but pays according to equity the debt and the price owing to the other. To the question as thus presented, the more common answer is in the affirmative.

Scriptural proof. St. Paul says: “You are bought with a great price.” ° Therefore it was the payment of the price that is strictly required for redemption, as above stated.

Theological proof. Two things are required and suffice for an act of commutative justice, namely, a strict obligation to pay the debt and absolute equality between the price and the debt. But it was so with Christ’s satisfaction, which was not only equal, but superabundant, and Christ was bound to make this satisfaction because He was constituted as surety and Redeemer of men. Therefore this satisfaction perfectly complies with all that is required for commutative justice.

It must be noted, however, that, although Christ’s satisfaction is especially and formally an act of commutative justice, it was commanded by charity toward God and men, and by the virtue of religion, so that it was a latreutic act. In fact, it reflects many other virtues, such as magnanimity and magnificence inasmuch as it was superabundant, mercy toward sinners, humility, meekness, and other virtues.

It must also be observed that Christ’s commutative justice differs specifically from ours, because of its formal object. For its formal object is not a debt to man adjustable by a human method of reasoning in accordance with equality, but it is a debt owing to God adjustable in accordance with equality that transcends every human rule and measure. Wherefore we say that this satisfaction perfectly complies with all that is required for commutative justice.

The question here would be the universality of Christ’s satisfaction, inasmuch as Christ died for all men without exception. But this subject is now frequently discussed in the treatise on the One God, in connection with the question of God’s universal will to save, and we therefore refer the student to that treatise. However, we shall take up the principal points farther on.**

Reply. The answer is evidently in the affirmative, inasmuch as the value of redemption as to its sufficiency is infinite and thus it includes all men without exception, inasmuch as it is God’s will to save all.

An example of the sublime genius of St. Thomas in comparison with all his commentators is apparent from the fact that he solves all these doubts about satisfaction in accordance with strict and even commutative justice, and this most briefly and clearly by means of this exalted principle, when he says: “He properly atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves equally [namely, satisfaction according to strict commutative justice] or even more [namely, superabundant satisfaction] than he detested the offense. But by suffering out of theandric love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race.” °? In fact, what Christ offered was more pleasing to God than He detested the offense of the devils, although Christ did not redeem them, because they are incapable of redemption. The mystery of redemption consists essentially in this statement of St. Thomas.

ON REDEMPTION BY WAY OF SACRIFICE

State of the question. In this third article St! Thomas asks whether Christ’s passion operated by way of sacrifice. He begins by presenting three difficulties. It seems that it did not: (1) because the truth must correspond with the figure; but in the sacrifices of the Old Law, which were figures of Christ, human flesh was never offered; nay, such sacrifices were considered impious; (2) sacrifice is a sacred sign; but Christ’s passion is not a sign, but the thing signified by other signs; (3) those who killed Christ did not perform any sacred act or offer sacrifice, but rather did a great wrong.

Several heretics de facto denied that Christ’s passion was a true sacrifice. (1) Pelagius, Abelard, and Hermes considered it to be evidence of great love and the most sublime example of heroism, such as martyrdom. (2) The Socinians said that Christ was a priest only on Ascension Day and then He offered sacrifice only in heaven, interceding with the Father for us. (3) The liberal Protestants and Modernists deny Christ’s priesthood, and they see in His death only a most

noble example of fortitude of soul, as in martyrdom.®* But martyrdom is not in itself strictly speaking a sacrifice, for it is not an elicited act of latria, but of fortitude, and not all martyrs are priests. .

Catholic doctrine. It is of faith that Christ is a priest and that He offered Himself on the altar of the cross, a sacrifice in the true and strict sense. The Council of Ephesus teaches that Christ is “our High Priest and Apostle, who offered Himself for us as an odor of sweetness to God.” ** Likewise the Council of Trent declares that Christ “offered Himself once on the altar of the cross to God the Father by means of His death, there to operate for them [men] an eternal redemption.” *°

Scriptural proof. It is explicitly revealed that Christ offered a true sacrifice on the cross. Already in the Old Testament the prophet says of the innocent and just servant of Jahve: “Surely He hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows. . . . He was wounded for our iniquities; He was bruised for our sins.” °° He was therefore a victim for us; but He was also a priest offering Himself for us to reconcile us with God, for it is said: “If He shall lay down His life for sin, He shall see a long-lived seed, and the will of the Lord shall be prosperous in His hand . . . and He shall see and be filled.” °

In the New Testament we read: “Christ hath loved us, and hath delivered Himself for us an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness.” °’ “Christ our Pasch is sacrificed.” ° “Him, who knew no sin yet He hath made sin for us [victim for sin], that we might be made the justice of God in Him.” ?°° “Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood,” ?°? which means a propitiatory victim. Again the Apostle says: “Being now justified by His blood.” ° And also: “Christ gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and might cleanse to Himself a people acceptable.” +°

?3 So says A. Sabatier, La doctrine de l’expiation et son évolution historique, pp. 37, 97 f. So also Loisy, L’évangile et l'Eglise, chaps. 3 and 4.

St. Paul treats especially of Christ’s priesthood in the following texts: “Having therefore a great high priest that hath passed into the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God.” 1°* “For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men . . . that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins.” 1° “But Christ . . . neither by the blood of goats, nor of calves, but by His own blood, entered once into the holies, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats .. . sanctifies such as are defiled, to the cleansing of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who by the Holy Ghost offered Himself unspotted unto God, cleanse our conscience from dead works to serve the living God ?” 1°° “Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many.” ° “For by one oblation He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.” °°

Testimony of tradition. Both the Greek and Latin Fathers have commented on the above-mentioned texts from Scripture, such as St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius, Origen, St. Cyprian, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine." Two famous testimonies of St. Augustine are quoted by St. Thomas in the present article.

Theological proof. St. Thomas shows that Christ’s voluntary death was truly a sacrifice and the most perfect of all sacrifices. He proves this by saying: “A sacrifice properly so called is something done for that honor which is properly due to God, in order to appease Him. But Christ offered Himself up for us in the Passion,!?® and this voluntary enduring of the Passion was most acceptable to God, as coming from charity. Therefore it is manifest that Christ’s passion was a true sacrifice.” 11!

In this proof we find verified the definition of sacrifice as already explained by St. Thomas,’”” in that it is, strictly speaking, the offering of a sensible thing by a priest made to God by means of a real,

or in some way, change of the thing offered in testimony of God’s supreme dominion, and our subjection to Him.

Thus Christ truly offered Himself to death by not repelling His killers, and after He was struck, by not preventing death, which He could have done.’**

Therefore His voluntary death differs from simple martyrdom, as Father Vosté observes, who says: “The martyrs differ from Christ because, as a general rule, they were neither priests nor, strictly speaking, sacrificed themselves, for they were not free either to die or not to die, nor underwent death by some sacred rite, and their death was not an elicited act of religion, but an act of fortitude whereby they chose in preference to lose their life rather than deny the faith.” ***

In fact St. Thomas, referring to St. Augustine,’*® shows that the sacrifice of the cross, which was prefigured by the sacrifices of the Old Testament, was the most perfect of all sacrifices. For a sacrifice is more perfect, the more the priest is united with God to whom he offers it, with the victim which he offers, with the people for whom he offers it. But Christ, who is priest as man, cannot be more united with God, for He is God; nor with the victim, for He offers Himself; nor with men, who are His members. For St. Augustine says: “That the same one true Mediator reconciling us with God through the peace-sacrifice might continue to be one with Him to whom He offered it, might be one with them for whom He offered it, and might Himself be the offerer and what He offered.” **°

The sacrifice of the cross is offered on account of four ends, namely, adoration, petition for graces to be obtained, reparation for offenses, and thanksgiving. So it is also with the Sacrifice of the Mass, whereby the fruits of the sacrifice of the cross are applied to us.

Reply to first objection. St. Thomas shows beautifully how the sacrifice of the cross surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Testament which prefigured it, and he quotes St. Augustine’s wonderful text.

Reply to second objection. The sacrifice of the cross, typified by the ancient sacrifices of the Old Testament, signifies Christ’s immense love for us, and also the necessity for us to mortify the flesh and refrain from sin. ™™"

Reply to third objection. Christ’s passion on the part of His killers was a crime and a deicide; on Christ’s part suffering willingly out of love, it was the most perfect of all sacrifices. Hence the very slaying of Christ does not have to be renewed sacramentally in the Sacrifice of the Mass, but in the Mass “the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross.” +18

Particular opinion. In recent times Father Maurice de la Taille 1° conceived the notion that the Last Supper and the voluntary death of Christ on the cross are two component parts of the same sacrifice. At the Last Supper, Christ as priest offered Himself to be immolated on the cross, and on the cross, however, He was actually immolated and forever retains His state as victim.

However, if it were so, then Christ’s voluntary death on the cross would not be a sacrifice in the strict sense, but only a part of the sacrifice. But this seems to be contrary to the traditional teaching, which, even irrespective of the Last Supper, considers the passion and death of our Lord as a most perfect sacrifice, and as such is explained by St. Thomas in the present article and elsewhere without any reference to the Last Supper.”

Truly Christ’s oblation not only continues throughout the Passion, but is expressed sensibly by these words of Christ: “Father, into Thy hands I commend My Spirit. And saying this, He gave up the Ghost.” ’** These are, so to speak, the words consecrating the sacrifice on the cross. This sacrifice is eminently a ritual, since as it is the thing signified in all ritualistic sacrifices, and inasmuch as it is the perfect fulfillment according to God’s eternal preordination of the entire cultus of the Old Testament, a fulfillment that will ever afterward be commemorated by the Sacrifice of the Mass until the end of the world.

Hence this new theory does not seem to be in harmony with what the Council of Trent says about the Last Supper and the cross not being two complementary parts of one and the same sacrifice, but two sacrifices. The Council says: “Our Lord, though He was about

120 Cf. E. Hugon, Revue thomiste, July-September, 1922. See refutation of Father de la Tailles theory in Lepin’s L’idée du sacrifice de la Messe, pp. 688-90; also A. Michel, Dict de théol. cath., art. “Messe,” cols. 1245 f.

to offer Himself on the altar of the cross unto God the Father .

by means of His death . . . ,in the Last Supper, on the night in which He was betrayed, that He might leave to His own beloved spouse the Church, 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.” 1°? This text distinguishes between “offered” and “about to offer,” and the sacrifice of the Last Supper is called “unbloody,” whereas the sacrifice of the cross is called “bloody.”

Hence the traditional teaching must be retained whereby, even irrespective of the Last Supper, Christ’s voluntary death on the cross was not only a part of the sacrifice, but a true and even most perfect sacrifice, and solely of itself fully sufficed. The Resurrection and Ascension strictly speaking add nothing to the redemptive value of the cross, but are a visible manifestation that the sacrifice on Calvary was ratified and accepted by the Father for our redemption.

REDEMPTION BY WAY OF LIBERATION

In this fourth article St. Thomas asks whether Christ’s passion brought about our salvation by way of redemption. In this article redemption is not taken in the general sense of the term as when Christ is said to be “cause of our salvation,” but in a restricted sense as meaning, “liberation from the bondage of sin, from the debt of punishment and the bondage of the devil.” Thus a distinction is made between this mode of redemption and the others previously considered. It is not now a question of what constitutes the mode of redemptive work, but of its effect, as also is the case in the sixth article.

St. Thomas begins by presenting three difficulties: (1) Men never ceased to belong to God; therefore they are not redeemed; (2) nor are they to be redeemed from the bondage of the devil, because the devil has no right over them; (3) because Christ did not pay the price of redemption to the devil.

Reply. Nevertheless the answer is that Christ’s passion liberated us from the bondage of sin, the devil, and the debt of punishment.

Scriptural proof. It is of faith, for at the time of the Annunciation, the angel of the Lord said to Joseph: “Thou shalt call His name

Jesus. For He shall save His people from their sins.” +? The Precursor says of Him: “Behold the Lamb of God, behold Him who taketh away the sin of the world.” 1** Jesus says of Himself: “The Son of man is come . . . to give His life a redemption for many.” **° Before His passion He says: “Now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to Myself.” 17°

St. Paul says: “Giving thanks to God . . . who hath delivered us from the power of darkness and hath translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the remission of sins.” +°" Farther on he says: “And you, when you were dead in your sins . . . He hath quickened together with Him [Christ], forgiving you all offenses, blotting out the handwriting of the decree which was contrary to us. And He hath taken the same out of the way, fastening it to the cross; and despoiling the principalities and powers, He hath exposed them confidently in open show, triumphing over them in Himself.” 1*8

And again he says: “That through death He might destroy him who had taken the empire of death, that is to say, the devil.” 1°

In other words, Christ by His passion regained the victory over the devil and sin, and already virtually over death, which is “the wages of sin,” **° as is afterward made manifest by His resurrection, which is the forerunner of ours.

Testimony from tradition. Our liberation is likewise made clear from this source. Rouet de Journel *** has collected many passages from the Latin and Greek Fathers, who explicitly taught that Christ redeemed us from sin and the bondage of the devil, by paying the price of our redemption, not to the devil but to God.

Theological proof. St. Thomas proves this truth from other revealed texts as follows:

Man was held captive on account of sin in two ways: First of all, by the bondage of sin, because “whosoever committeth sin is the serv-

181 Rouet de Journel, Enchiridion patrist., nos. 413, 420.

ant of sin,” 1°? and “by whom a man is overcome of the same also He is the slave.” 13° Since, then, the devil had overcome man by inducing him to sin, man was subject to the devil’s bondage. Secondly, as to the debt of punishment, to the payment of which man was held fast by God’s justice.

“Since, then, Christ’s passion was a sufficient and a superabundant atonement for the sin and the debt of the human race, it was as a price at the cost of which we were freed from both obligations.” *** This is the effect of the satisfaction; it is not a constitutive element, but a consequence of this satisfaction.

More briefly: Sin brings about a twofold bondage, namely, of sin and debt of punishment. But Christ’s passion was a superabundant satisfaction both for sin and the debt of punishment. Therefore it liberated us from both kinds of bondage. The Council of Trent retains this proof.”

Reply to first objection. Men never ceased to belong to God, in that they were always under His power; but by sin they ceased to belong to God as regards union with Him by charity. And men liberated from sin by Christ suffering for them are said to have been redeemed by His passion.

Reply to second objection. “Man by sin had offended God and, by consenting to the devil, had become his subject. And therefore justice required man’s redemption with regard to God, but not with regard to the devil.”

Reply to third objection. “The price of our redemption had to be paid not to the devil, but to God”; but the price being paid to God, by the reparation of the offense, men were liberated from the bondage of sin, and consequently from the bondage of the devil. Thus we have a most excellent correction of certain exaggerations of Origen and St. Gregory of Nyssa, who seem to affirm that the devil has certain rights over us. The devil has no right over us, and these same Fathers elsewhere give the true teaching. Christ paid the price of our redemption by repairing the offense committed against God. Therefore He paid this price, not to the devil, but to God; and it follows from this that men are freed from the devil’s bondage.**®

WHETHER IT IS PROPER TO CHRIST TO BE THE REDEEMER

State of the question. It seems that also God the Father redeemed us, because He gave His Son in redemption for our sins. Moreover, the sufferings of other saints were also conducive to our salvation, for the Apostle says: “I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ in my flesh for His body, which is the Church.” 1*7 Therefore it seems that not only Christ ought to be called the Redeemer.

Reply. Nevertheless the answer is that to be the Redeemer immediately belongs properly to Christ, inasmuch as He is man, although the redemption may be ascribed to the whole Trinity as its first cause.

This article concerns the redemption of the whole human race, which, as stated in the preceding article, is the effect of Christ’s passion.

Scriptural proof. St. Luke records that St. Peter says: “There is not salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.” 138

The Apostle declares that Christ is the Savior of all men, without exception, saying: “For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” 1° He also says: “For it became Him . . . who had brought many children into glory, to perfect the author of their salvation, by His passion.” **°

Hence, too, the Blessed Virgin Mary was redeemed by Her Son, by the merits of her Son suffering, but by a preservative and most perfect redemption. Thus Christ merited de condigno for His mother also the first and last graces, but not the divine maternity, because thus He would have merited the Incarnation and Himself.

Theological proof. It is as follows: For someone to redeem, two things are required, namely, the act of paying and the price paid which is his own. But the price of our redemption is Christ’s blood, or His bodily life, which is what Christ paid. Hence each of these belongs immediately to Christ as man; but to the whole Trinity, as

187 Col. 2:24. 188 Acts 4:12. 189 Rom. 3:23; cf. ibid., 5:12, 19; see also Gal. 3:13, 22; II Cor. 5:14; I Tim. 2:6. 140 Heh, 2:10.

oe EFFICIENCY OF CHRIST’S PASSION 597 to the first cause, to whom Christ’s life belonged, and from whom He received the inspiration to suffer for us.

Reply to first objection. Thus the redemption belongs immediately to the man Christ, but principally to God."*?

Reply to third objection. As Cajetan observes, a doubt arises concerning this reply, because the holy Doctor says elsewhere '” that the treasury of the Church, from which indulgences derive their efficacy, contains the sufferings of the saints. Pope Clement VI expressly says the same.'* But it is an evident fact that the sufferings applied to us through indulgences by way of satisfaction and by this way of redemption, are of benefit to the Church.'**

Cajetan justly replies to this difficulty, by saying: “The author has in mind, however, the sufferings of the saints absolutely considered. Thus between Christ’s sufferings and those of the saints there are many points of difference. The first is in the word ‘sufferings.’ For Christ’s sufferings absolutely redeem the Church; whereas the sufferings of the saints do not do so absolutely, but satisfy for us only by way of superfluity, as stated by St. Thomas, here and as contained in the bull of Clement VI. The second difference is in the word ‘redemption’; for Christ’s passion redeems us absolutely, because it liberates us from guilt and punishment; but the sufferings of the saints redeem us only in a relative sense, namely, from a certain punishment, the temporal punishment that is due to actual sin. The third is in the word ‘beneficial.’ It is because Christ’s passion is of benefit to the Church by way of redemption, even if there is no key of the Church that unlocks the door for us; but the sufferings of the saints are satisfactory on my behalf only if by means of the authoritative power of the keys they be applied to me.

“Therefore so many conditions are required so as to verify the fact that the sufferings of the saints benefit the Church by way of redemption, and for this reason the affirmative answer is only relatively true; we could simply and unconditionally deny the assertion without any prejudice to the truth, and say that the sufferings of the saints do not benefit the Church by way of redemption. And along with the truth

144 Thus the just person can merit de congruo (fittingly), the conversion of a sinner, as St. Monica merited the conversion of St. Augustine. See also Ia Iae, q. 114, a. 6.

of this negative conclusion it is already evident that the same must be said of the doctrine concerning the efficacy of indulgences from the merits of the saints.” 14 Such is Cajetan’s conclusion. More briefly, it is only Christ who frees us from guilt and eternal punishment, the merits of the saints free us from temporal punishment, and this only on the previous understanding that “our redemption was accomplished by Christ alone . . . inasmuch as He is the Head of the Church, and the Author of human salvation, as the Scripture says, and the saints can merit the first grace for another only congruously.” **°

Moreover, St. Thomas makes known more explicitly his mind on this subject concerning the words of the Apostle: “I fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ.” **7 He says: “These words, taken literally, could be interpreted in a wrong sense, as meaning that Christ’s passion was not sufficient for our redemption, but that the sufferings of the saints were added as complementary. But this view is heretical, because Christ’s blood is sufficient for the redemption even of many worlds. . . . These words, however, must be understood as meaning that Christ and the Church constitute one mystical person, whose head is Christ, and all the just are the body; any just person is, so to speak, a member of this head... . However, God ordained and predestined how much merit there must be in the whole Church both in the head arid in the members, just as He predestined the number of the elect. Among these merits the sufferings of the holy martyrs are especially included. The merits of Christ, the Head, are infinite; but each saint contributes proportionately his or her share of merits. . . . Thus also all the saints suffer for the Church, which is fortified by their example.” +43

Hence Christ alone is the Redeemer. Nevertheless the Blessed Virgin Mary, as explained in Mariology, can truly be called the coredemptress, though subordinate to Christ. As Pius X said: “The Blessed Virgin Mary was admitted with Christ and by Christ to cooperate in the salvation of the human race, congruously as they say, to merit for us, what Christ condignly merited.” "° Likewise, along

145 Com. in IV Sent., d. 20, a. 1, quaestiuncula ra. See also Cajetan’s Com. in Ep. ad Gal., 120, and his treatise De fide et moribus contra Lutherum, chap. 9, translated by Em. Mersch, S.J., in his “Le corps mystique,” Etude de théol. historique, Il, 275.

we EFFICIENCY OF CHRIST’S PASSION 599 with Him, she satisfied congruously, for Benedict XV says: “As she suffered with her Son in His passion and, so to speak, shared in His death, so she abdicated her maternal rights over her Son for the salvation of men and, as far as it was in her power, sacrificed her Son for the appeasement of divine justice, so that it can properly be said, that along with Christ she redeemed the human race.” 15°

In this sense the Blessed Virgin Mary cooperated in the acquisition of graces that flow from the sacrifice on the cross. The other saints, however, do not cooperate in the acquisition, but in the application of the fruits of the Passion.'®? Finally, since the merits of Christ are infinite and those of the saints are finite, it can be said that the sufferings of the saints add something that is not intensively, but only extensively finite, as when we say that God and the creature do not make more of being than God alone, for after creation there are more beings, but only extensively more of being. Therefore only Christ is absolutely the Redeemer of the human race.

REDEMPTION BY WAY OF EFFICIENCY

State of the question. St. Thomas inquires in this article whether Christ’s passion brought about our salvation by way of efficiency. The query is not concerned with what constitutes the work of redemption, but with what follows from it as a part of the effect to be produced. It does not pertain to the faith as the preceding queries do, but belongs properly to theology.

It concerns not only moral causality, as being the causality of merit awaiting the effect from another, but also efficient and physical causality, which produces the effect. We have already seen 5? that Christ’s soul, inasmuch as it is the instrument united with the Word, had and has instrumental power to produce supernatural effects.'°

181 The Blessed Virgin Mary congruously merited the liberation and the reparation of the human race, whereas the other saints congruously merited the application of this liberation and reparation to this particular person, as St. Monica to St. Augustine. Thus it is said that the Blessed Virgin Mary congruously merited the objective redemption of the human race, not indeed redemption taken in the active sense, for this is a theandric act of Christ the Redeemer, but the effect of this redemption. Christ had a condign right to this effect, and the Blessed Virgin Mary a congruous right to the same. The application of objective redemption to Peter or to Paul is called sub. jective redemption, namely, of this particular man or the other.

Yet there remains a special difficulty for Christ’s passion, which could not be the case with any man; for no corporeal agent acts except by actual contact. Moreover, Christ’s passion is no more, and therefore it cannot operate efficiently; for that which no longer exists, no longer operates physically.

Reply. Yet the answer is that Christ’s passion efficiently causes our salvation, not indeed as principal cause, but as instrumental cause.

Theological proof. Christ’s humanity is the instrument of His Godhead, with which it is united. Therefore, as a consequence of this, all Christ’s actions and sufferings operate instrumentally in virtue of His Godhead for the salvation of men.

Reply to first objection. It explains the words of the Apostle: “The weakness of God is stronger than men.” 154

Reply to second objection. “Christ’s passion although corporeal, has yet a spiritual effect from the Godhead united, and therefore it secures its efficacy by spiritual contact.” Corporeal contact is not required, but virtual or dynamic contact suffices. We find this to be true of several instruments used by man, as in the use of a trumpet to transmit a sound in a certain direction; for this instrument does not actually touch the ears of the hearers. A fortiori, God makes use of similar instruments to produce spiritual effects.

The objection that Christ’s passion no longer is in action, and therefore cannot operate efhciently, is of no value; for it is a question of Christ's humanity, as formerly subject to suffering and now persists in His glorified wounds. Such is the explanation given by the holy doctor.**°

Reply to third objection. It is a recapitulation of this subject about Christ’s sufferings, for it says: “Christ’s passion, according as it is compared with His Godhead, operates in an efficient manner, but so far as it is compared with the will of Christ’s soul it acts in a meritorious manner, considered as being within Christ’s very flesh, it acts by way of satisfaction, inasmuch as we are liberated by it from the debt of punishment; while inasmuch as we are freed from the servitude of guilt, it acts by way of redemption; but so far as we are reconciled with God it acts by way of sacrifice.”