|
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,[1868] or when Moses
is said to have been sent as redeemer,[1869] 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 way
the subordination of revealed truths will be made manifest. It is thus
that sacred theology proves from revealed principles conclusions
otherwise revealed, and gives us a certain and indeed most fruitful
understanding of these truths.[1870]
It is presupposed that a meritorious action becomes strictly
satisfactory when it is of an afflictive nature and is offered in
reparation for the offense. Wherefore St. Thomas proposes the
argument in the following manner, saying: "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 the greatness
of the grief endured, as stated above.[1871] And therefore
Christ's passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant
atonement for the sins of the human race."[1872]
St. Thomas here soars above the purely juridical consideration of the
offense to most sublime spiritual things, namely, to the infinite
value of the theandric act of charity in Christ the Redeemer. What
he affirms with such prudent judgment most beautifully expresses the
very essence of the mystery of redemption, namely, the infinite value
of Christ's theandric act of love in meriting and satisfying. This
satisfaction must be meritorious, and we shall immediately remark in
the next article that it is also a most sublime sacrifice. This
sacrifice pleases God more than all the sins and crimes of men and
devils included displease Him, because Christ's love in the order of
good transcends the enormity of malice in the sins and the magnitude of
the offense.
If the objection is raised, however, that nobody can be contrite and
confess for another, and therefore neither satisfy for another, St.
Thomas replies in his answer to the first objection: "The head and
the members are as one mystic person; and therefore Christ's
satisfaction belongs to all the faithful as being His members. Also,
so far 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."[1873] 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.[1874]
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.[1875]
Solution Of Objections
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."[1876]
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."[1877] "Mercy and truth have met each other; justice
and peace have kissed."[1878] 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."[1879]
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.[1880]
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
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."[1881] 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."[1882] 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.[1883]
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,[1884]
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"[1885] 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.
|
|
