A MUCH-DISCUSSED BOOK

New Zealand Tablet, 27 August 1908, Page 11

A MUCH-DISCUSSED BOOK

DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT

STAtJBIViENT OF THE CATHOLIC POSITION (By the Rev. James M. Liston, Holy Cross College, Mosgiel.) During the past few weeks a:book, written by a Presbyterian clergyman (the Rev. J. Gibson Smith, of Wellington), appeared criticising some aspects of the doctrine of the . Atonement or Satisfying- for sin by the death of Christ. Though the criticisms are mainly directed against the views of Protestant -theologians; and only indirectly against those of Catholic theologians — indeed, the. writer does not -. seem to be acquainted with the latters' works,— yet it may be ..useful to. give a summary, of Catholic teaching and to make some reply to his remarks. - - - I,— THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE. „ Catholics hold , as matters of faith that man was -originally endowed with a supernatural destiny and with corresponding graces ; that man lost both the one- and the other by the Fall ; that God, in mercy, sent His promised Saviour, who; Son of, God as He was, died on the Cross for our sins, and thus,, repairing fallen man, recovered for ,him_ his title to divine adoption -.and restored him to his primitive supernatural destiny. - To this,serie<ji of divine acts, which, beginning and ending in -love, tends- to the restoration of fallen human nature, we give the general name of Redemption. But Catholic Theology, resting on Scripture and Tradition, seeks to penetrate still further into the mystery, tries to explain the manner in which this Redemption was accomplished. The sum of its conclusions is known as the doctrine of- ' Redemption by the Satisfaction of Jesus Christ.' This conclusion, though never formally defined, yet forms an essential part of the universal doctrine of the Church, The Council of Trent supposes its truth : ' Jesus Christ, » . -, by His most holy Passion on the wood of the Cross, merited justification for us and satisfied for us to God the Father ' (Sess. vi., c. vii.V The following decree was presented to the Fathers of the Vatican Council (1870), and, though it was not actually incorporated into the definitions of that Council, it yet shows the mind of Catholic Theologians : ' If anyone does not confess that the very Word of God, suffering and dying in the flesh which He assumed, coulcTnot satisfy or did not truly and properly satisfy, let him be anathema ' (Collectio Lacensis, vii., 566). FULLER EXPLANATION OF THE DOCTRINE. . . God, as the Creator,- has a perfect right to expect fronv His creatures absolute submission, perfect obedience to His will; as Justice and Holiness," He must necessarily have all things subordinate to Himself, must keep to the 'order of ' things' '—in a word, must preserve what we call His honor. , Now,, rational creatures, alone among God"s creatures*" have the power of refusing • this obedience and thus . of introducing disorder into the world. They exercise this power when they sin. Sin is therefore a rebellion* against God's honor, because it isan inordinate act, a disorder, a violation of the moral law df" which God is -the author and-^guardian." '" - '■■-''. Then it may be asked : When man sins, can , he not .by. his own powers restore' the disorder his sin- has introduced,, and • thus" make # reparation-. -to the wounded Honor of God? Plainly, the answer must^be. in the negative, for at best the act- of re^ pentance has only, a- human' and therefore a finite value, whereas T. 1 sin committed "against - God has abou£ it 3.. certain infinitude'-. (S; Thomas, Summa, 3a,, q. i., 2, ad. aum). 'To strike against universal, order in. its least manifestation is a wrong; to- strike against those .greater ordinances on which "the universe is" hinged ta-a greater wrong; and to strike against the Absolute, the Eternal, the First and Last, . without Whom is nothing, from WhonT are all things, .Whose claims are- utter worship," unrestricted homage, unreserved love— this is surely a wrong which', if it fall short of infinitude, only does so by the impotence of the arm that strikes, not by the moderation . of the" consummation

aimed at .' (Hedtey, Oi\r Divine Saviour, p. 50). 'It is infinre, because "its' tendency,' aim and object' is -'the' destruction of Ihc Infinite * ' (ibid^ „p. 50). . Oh 'the one we" measure " tho reparation by the dignity .of the- person who offers it ;- on th« other we '' \- * ' " -"*"• ' " •/ • - > Measure the Offence : •" "'" ; •"' -' by the dignity the position, the greatness of the person who is offended. If the dignity of the one is on a level with the dignity of the other, the> satisfaction offered is said to be adequate or perfect ; if the dignity of the'.offencLer falls below that of the offended, the satisfaction offered is imperfect ; while if there is an infinite distance separating the:two k - there^can- be- no question of -satisfaction. This 1 is .precisely the. .'case .between- man ; and God. "* As a man may,- if -he please, throw- himself over a prect- / pice, but cannot. climb its=scarped face ;back -.again,, so man can - turn from his God, and place the- span af ■ un measurable • wrong between God- and himself : .but : " build .as he . may, ,-and climb as "he may, he cannot- touch' again: the serene heights, from which- he fell •- (H«dley, ibid.-, p. .51):-" ■Thus^man-can-introd'.ic-e disorder into the- world by sin, r but cannot repair -it by- his own powers. * ' » - „ ■ '- -. .-' »-;-.-' ' . > ■ - : ~ ,-.- ■« In that state, therefore, man would remain, were -it not for the mercy and- love of God. -.God is".: ■• -. • • : , ': ' ". •"-'" - *lir No- Way- Bound to ' Redeem Man; ■- " If He does "so,' it is out of pure love: • "Some of the Fathers, especially ""St. Athanasius, do" speak' as if "God were "obliged hi some way "or other to restore man 'to'" a" divine life" of Immortality and incorruptibility; but their expressions' need not' be 'urged, and tfiey' also frequently speak of God's mercy 5 " in "this connection. Saint Anselm, among the Schoolmen; weiit further, : and spoke of an absolute necessity under • which'"G"od'iay of seeing that mankind, as" a whole, attained' the end -for^hich" it* was' created ; but his opinion' ha 9 remained peculiar. The consensus' of "Fathers and'lat'er Catholic theologians has beeV air th6 L other way ;~whHi the express't'estimony of St. Paul makes'ltHe matter certain : T Goo 1;'1 ;' Who is rich in mercy, for His exceeding charity wherewith .-He loved us, even when we were dead' in' sins, hath quickened us together in Christ ' (Ephes./ii.; 4)." " r '" '* ' '"** '-' Nor, even on the" supposition that' "God wished to redeem' th<> Jiuman race, fallen by sin of its ' head, " was He bound to bYiftg il about by a redeeming act on . the "part of His Sdn. ' Thati', indeed, would mean a perfect reparation an adequate satisfaction; but "God, like. any. other "off ehacd : person, is not' obliged to demand a perfect satisfaction from" the offender; -He couk£-le satisfied with the imperfect satisfaction which a repentant sinner might offer — nay, He could grant His pardon without demanding any satisfaction. - • - - . - As a matter of fact, however, God has exacted the perfect satisfaction -to which He has a^ right ; and here we -have another proof of His love. The acceptance of" an "imperfect reparation would have been a great act of love": the granting of a free pardon, still greater; but the 'determination- to txact" full satisfaction was a supreme act of -love^' for; while it showed "forth His justice and His mercy, it -was" also 1 the" most perfect means "of inspiring us- with a hatred •of istn and "of 'exciting -tn 'us"*-a love of God. * - ~ .-. . - '■> > -'- -"■'-' » •.«"".%• Here, then; is the" "Position*? ''"'" " .*-^'" 1 Man cannot make a full reparation of the' disorder his sin, has brought 'into God's world, cannot "offer" a perfect 'satisfaction to the" wounded 'honor of God. Yet ' God " deniands that full' reparation, 'complete" satisfaction shall be made, and made", too,, not' by an angel/ but -by man'- Hi~iself. Seeming '■'contradiction, which results" in the Incarnation" "of the SorT'of God aiwl -th« Redemption "on the- Cross! *' Then * saiii He .(^hfisj^: ' t fieho!d,\ I am come to do Thy will, O God ' (Heb. x-To)! "fesu&-Sayi6\ir ! • Saviour He could not be if He .were not G6d": Saviour 'of . jnen.. He could not be, were 'He not a man satisfying foreman?,.-. ~2> No other -shall redeem : " (yet) a '-man* shall^ redeem '^' (Ps. xlvfij., 8),, ; f God,': indeed,. 'sd i 0i oV ed the world that He' sent. His Son,' that^ . taking human flesh,- He" might become' the victim of expiation for .our : sins. Christ ' was innocent' and"did not need to make satisfaction' for Himself ; but He' was also man, the real head of

the human race, a.rid thus, joined* with ' every member,. Hjucould stand in our place and 'suffice for 'us even ~fo_ death. ' Men, vwrites St. Chrysostom,- ' ought to' be "punished :' God ha/ not _ punished them.- They ought to perish : He' has given .^iis „Soo in their place' (i Tim. Horn., vii.,'^). A little' later; St.. <Qynl of Alexandria writes in the same strain : ' It is not for. His own sins,, itjs for ours that .He has been .struck. We had disobeyed God : it is we .who should b« punished. .But* this punishment, which was due- to .sinners,- is- fallen upon- Him. God has struck Him, by, reason of., our. sins, Ja order to absolve

us from the punishment' (In Iscuam, liii.). ' Yet it was not a case of punishing— in the sense of involuntary punishment — the innocent for the guilty,' for Our Saviour took this work on Himself freely : 'To destroy the sin of .the world, He" has taken 'it in person upon Himself ' (Ibid). .Such was .the plan which grew . out of the Father's love for men ;,.and ~the Gospel records tell us how the Son, out of love for. men too, looked upon it as a necessary part . of His Messianic work, arid how ' He offered Himself because He willed it' And to. this work of Christ, ' Catholic theologians have given the name of vicarious satisfac- , tion, or expiation; As Victor Hugo says: ' DieUj que l'homme coupable appellait, s'est penclie", Et, voyant l'univers sanglant, mort, desseche", Et songeant, pour lui-meme et pour lvi seul severe, Que pour sauver un monde' il suffit dun Calvaire, II a dit:" Va s mon Fils!" Et son Fils est alle.' But there is Another Aspect of the Theory. . St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and after him St. John Chrysostom (itj. an illustration" which has become classical) insist on the fact that the satisfaction of Christ was infinite in value, -that our redemption has been not only sufficient, but superabundant. They further add the reason : Because it was offered to One, Who though truly man, was yet also truly God. This led scholastic theologians to raise and ■ answer a question which shows us something of the depths of love in this mystery. The question is : If the satisfaction of the Cross is of infinite value, simply because it was offered by One Who is a Divine Person, would not any act or thought of His — say, a simple act of love or adoration — have beeir more than sufficient to satisfy -the Father's justice? And if the answer is, as it must be, in the affirmative, a further question naturally arises : Why then did the Saviour suffer and die? Here is the explanation given by St. Thomas of Aquin : ' Christ wished to free the human race from sins not only by power ' — in that case an act of adoration would have been sufficient — ' but also by justice, and hence He considered not only what value His suffering had from the fact that it was united to Divinity, but also how far His suffering would suffice according to human nature for such a satisfaction ' (Summa Theol., 3a q. 46, a. 6 ad. 6um). That is to say, even for the full satisfaction, which God, out of love for us, does demand, nothing more than a simple act of Christ's will was required — for the least in His case is infinite — but Jesus suffered almost as if He were repairing our fault, not so much by virtue of His Divine Dignity, as by virtue of His human sufferings. Thus, while He satisfies the Divine Justice, He shows us at the same time the extent of His love, proves to vs — for we are mostly moved by something that strikes the senses — the reality of the underlying lover to use the "beautiful words of Cardinal Newman : ' Thy glory sullied, Thy beauty marred, those five wounds welling out • blood, those temples torn and raw, that broken heart, that crushed and livid frame, they teach me more than wert Thou Solomon " in the diadem wherewith his mother crowned him in the day of his hearts- joy " ' (Discourses to Mixed Congregations, p. 304). The satisfaction of justice is one aspect of the Lord's Redemptive work, but the explanation is love the Jove with which God redeems man and the love which He would call out in return. And this is the reason why we were redeemed 'not with corruptible things, with gold or with silver, but with the precious blood as of an immaculate Lamb ' (7. Peter i-» 19)Lastly,. we may now trace the relation existing between the love of the Father for us and The Efficacy of Christ's Sacrifice. The one' is as real as the other. God really loves men— even guilty men— before Christ satisfies; but, according to the plan He has laid down out of love, He is not prepared -" to pardon them until Christ offers iip sacrifice on their behalf, and He does riot -pardon them until they themselves offer up personal acts of love, .which receive an infinite value in Gods-e yes because they are united to the merits of the Saviour. A recent French 'Protestant .writer, Auguste Sabatier, in his book on the Atonement (Eng. Tr., P- "*3-H). puts the matter concisely : ' There are two opposite ' .Ways of understanding this connection : either the death of Christ may be looked upon as the cause of the forgiveness of sins or' else,- by inverting the terms, as the means and the consequence. In the first case, it will be argued that the death of the Innocent' One caused God to forgive' the guilty, because satisfaction was made to Divine justice. In the §econd case, on the "contrary '— (this, we may remark, is precisely the Catholic doctrine on tr-e

point, though Sabatier, ajl, thrptjgh,. his book, . mak.es .the .strange mistake of supposing that it is not)—' forgiveness is- the, result of God's free and sovereign interposition. " It is because. God wills to forgive, and becausje He is £ove", . that JHe- sent His^JSpnJnto the world; thus Christ's, cqmjng, work, arid death, are. ■on.Jx, the means devised in. the-pUuvof.<His Providence "to realise in humanity His work of mercy and salvation.' v ;. . . (To be continued.)