A MUCH-DISCUSSED BOOK DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT

New Zealand Tablet, 3 September 1908, Page 10

A MUCH-DISCUSSED BOOK DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT

STATEMENT OF THE CATHOLIC POSITION

(By the Rev. James M. L'iston, Holy Cross College, - Mosgiel.) . • With the Catholic theory-of Expiation before us, we".may -. proceed rto examine the book recently published by the- Rev. / Mr. Gibson .Smith, of Wellington^ But first let us state his' _ position. He" assumes the truth of what St. Paul says : ' Christ. died for our sins according to the Scriptures',(l. Cor.,"xv., 3). ' The specific object,' he writes, ' that Jesus had in view in ; giving Himself up "to the 'death of the Cross,, was to secure for "all who should believe in Him the remission of sins. Without * that deatlvthere could be no' divine forgiveness for. sinful men ' * (p. 19). ;But-clearly"this is no more than a simple statement of ■ " the connection that exists between the death' of Christ and - the salvation of- men;'and we"" naturally look for a further the connection- that exists between the death of Christ and spiritual life for men. It is* here that the Rev. Mr." Smith's difficulties commence, as the following passage will shoxV'fc'— ' When we turn- to the Christian theologians (1) whose duty .it is to unfold • the Scriptural message, to clear away from it the excrescences that may have * gathered round, .it . . .v. v ; when we ask these theologians whether they have agreed upon "a full and satisfying explanation of the problem, " How does Jesus by His death on the Cross secure spiritual life "for all , believers?" we do not find them able to answer with a clear and convincing . affirmative. , They - are by no means agreed -amongst themselves as to the explanation required. Many of "them have rejected as being no longer valid, important elements of the explanation offered in bygone days, but none of them have • been able, so far, to offer in their turn an explanation which'has commended itself to the Christian.people generally. Many hay--' clung to the old explanation and striven to free it from all' un.warranted accretions, but.--.none have succeeded in so freeing it as to win for their revised version the- acceptance of the mass of- those who have once rejected it' (p. 15). Naturally, 'these erroneous methods of describing the Saviour's work * give rise^o doubts and perplexities with which ,' the thoughtful Christian layman,' who believes in the Saviourhood of Christ, has to struggle (Preface). I ' It is for such Christian people that this book is written. .It is a book which takes for granted that the^ great Christian ,message is true which assumes that all believers do owe their spiritual life to 'the death of Jesus Christ, but which tries to rshow wherein the explanations given of this great truth in trie ;past are seriously defective, and endeavors to set the problem 'in a clearer and fuller light —more accordant with the teaching jof Scripture —more satisfying »to the reason and- conscience of •.man, and therefore more capable of commending the everlasting truth of the Cross, to earnest and "humble" truth-seekers of the '.twentieth century ' (p 18). In the second chapter of his book, .Jie .makes, out what he "considers to be a- prima facie case against the theory "known as, the 'Expiatory Theory,' or of Vicarious Satisfaction.' "it is here that he comes into conflict with Catholic teaching, ( and I shall now proceed tc'answer his criticism on this point. L- After telling us that the ' Expiatory Theory 'is the explanation which begins by affirming -that Christ- died ' to satisfy divine justice, 1 he goes on to remark (2) :—: — .' Before the explanation can be regarded as complete it has to be sho^n (1.) that a satisfaction of divine justice was required as an indispensable preliminary to divine forgiveness.' (ii.) It " "has further to be shown how Jesus in dying came under the sweep-of divine justice, (iii.) It has then to be demonstrated how - that which Jesus endured in His death so met the requirements of ' divine justice as to make the forgiveness of sins possible to believers ' (p. 20). ' " " * • . Clearly, it is the first condition which is at the root of his difficulties. On. p. 21, he further expjains: ' Now when it has been said that Christ died to satisfy divine justice, it has usually been in the narrower sense of the word that the "expression has been used' —i.e., in sense of retributive justice.

The main idea has. been that the sufferings /of Christ on the Cross were required, and were "accepted by God (according to . some principle which has been variously explained) in lieu of the penalties due „to_ sinful -men. The contention has been that it was because, and only because, ' Christ on the Cross endured sufferings which were in some way equivalent to, or at least a sufficient- substitute for, the. penalties which God-would-other-wise have been compelled 'to inflict upon sinful men, "that God was enabled to grant,' and was justified in granting, forgiveness to those sinful men who became believers in Christ.' • Now, if this were the correct description of the Theory of Expiation, I think I could understand its ' being challenged as -being by no means the satisfying, convincing, or explanation of the Cross which it has for so long professed to be.' This may be the form in which the theory has been put forward by Protestant theologians/ but it is certainly not the form given to it by ' ,

Representative Catholic Theologians.

In the Catholic theory,- it has n.ot to be shown that^' a satisfaction of divine justice was, required as an indispensable pteliminary to divine forgiveness^' with. Catholic theologians the contention has not been ' that it was because, and only because,' Christ endured sufferings which were in some way equivalent to, or at least a sufficient substitute for, the penalties which" otherwise would have been compelled to inflict upon sinful -men,- that God was enabled, to grant, and was justified in granting, forgiveness." Catholic teaching holds that, in the present disposition of things, God does, as a matter of fact, grant His pardon, on accounjt of the sufferings which Christ endured — or, to speak more correctly, • on account of the love with which our Saviour bore His sufferings ; but it adds that God was in no, way bound to make such a disposition of things ; it holds most firmly that Qod could' , forgive sin, if Christ • offered up but a single act of His will — ' nay, He could forgive sin, without requiring any satisfaction at all.. His honor was at stake; but seeing that. His honor is/ connected with the necessary subordination of things — with what we call ' the order of things '—and is not something that affects • • His inner being, what was to prevent Him from sacrificing" the rights of His honor and granting a simple pardon? God's love for men is eternal ; it is the cause of the Redeeming Sacrifice of Christ. 'We know that God has loved us, and that not only before His Son died for us, but also before the creation of the world, as the Apostle himself testifies who tells us : "He has chosen^us before the creation of the world." For the rest, the Son has not been handed over, as it were, unwillingly by an ' unpitying Father, since it is said of Him, " He' has loved me" and delivered Himself for me" (S. Augustine, De Trin, I.,'xiii., x., 14). And even more explicitly, (Father Faber wrote some, forty years ago : ' It was no necessity which drove- God to the redemption of the world by the Precious Blood of Christ. He • might have redeemed it. in unnumbered, other ways. There is no limit to His power, tno-j exhaustion to. His wisdom. '« /. '. ' The shedding of His Blood' was part of the' freedom of ( His Love, h; It was, in some mysterious reality, the way of redemption most ' worthy of His Blessed Majesty, and also the way most likely to provoke the love of men ' (Precious Blood, pi 25). With regard to the other two conditions which the Rev. Mr. Smith lays down as " necessary for^ a complete exposition of the Expiatory Theory, the following quotation from St. Thomas Aquinas will make them clear (Summa Theologica,- 3a, q. 47, a 3);-' ' ' Christ suffered voluntarily out of obedience to the Father. Hence God the Father handed over Christ to suffering in three ways : in one way because by His eternal will He. preordained the Passion of Christ for the deliverance of the human race. . .. . Secondly, in as much as He inspired Christ with the will to suffer for us Thirdly, by not protecting Hirii from suffering, but exposing Him to His persecutors.'Thus ' Christ, ih dying, came under the sweep of divine - justice,' because God, out of love for us, determined that His justice should be satisfied by Christ's death, and not by ' un- . numbered other ways ' that He might also have chosen, and also because Christ Himself freely accepted this death. - ' He was offered because He willed/it.' Thus again, ' Christ, in dying, ' met the requirements of* Divine Justice, and obtained "men's - 'forgiveness,' because, on the one hand," His free sacrifice was ' infinite in value, and because, on the other hand, God wished - to bring about the Redemption in that way, and in no other. The Catholic form of the ' Theory of Expiation.' is, then, in no way .' necessary ' in the sense spoken of by the • Rev. -Mr. ' "Smith, and we might justly dismiss his subsequent criticism on this head alone. But it may prove useful to

v. Consider His Objections in Detail. These^ objections are formulatecl on Scriptural 'grounds (pp. 2 3-33)» and issue in ' what Seems to be~ a'. strong weighty indictment of the Expiatory Theory of theXrqss.,. J,'\ '." it,* adds he, 'the expiatory theory 'claims to be able td explain some portions 'of_ the Scriptures, it is also clear that/there/are .pthor large and important tracts of Scripture to which' it seems to stand in direct opposition' (p. 32, 33). ' *" "~ ' - • •- w First Objection.—' If,' ' says the Rev. . Mr /Smith, . 'on „trte Cross, God's retributive justice was satisfied,' then/either, it . was wholly satisfied, or it was. not. If it was not wholly 'satis- ' . fied, then "Christ failed to perform' what ' (according to the Hypo/ theis) was the very essence of" His saving' w'orki, ,tf_] it . was ■ wholly satisfied, then where'was the room for : a coming ' Judgment?" Why should "that in God which had, once for alf/'tjepn/, wholly satisfied need to be' satisfied 'again"'?"' (p. 24)'. -"" '"' "' .' ' Answer. — The objection totally misconceives the, -meaning of , the word ' satisfaction/ /''"Christ did satisfy "God's justice wholly, because His death/ biefng^ oftered/up by a Divine Person/ .was :an act of infinite^ .value. /~T Where,/then,' asks the Rev.' Mr."!. Smith, 'was < here" room for , a coming judgment?'" Because.-' ' the Passion of Christ was not to be the "substitute for oW- , personal obedience, . but the source of it ' (Oxenham, .Catholic Doctrine of Atonement, p. 105). God_in His love,, and Christ by His death initiated bur salvation, but its execution,, requires V our personal co-operation./ If nien.ob'ey Gckl's .commands, thegn Christ's satisfaction — and,, here is", its value-^-san§tifiQS-their acts, transforms them, .arid makes them' acceptable Jn/the/ eyes of God. If they do not obey ,/then" there is ample" room / . for a coming Judgment to give a striking and public revelation. of the 'good and evil men have done, to allow God!s-- retributive^' ■ justice to punish those who refused to co-operate.- Ample room/ too, because if Christ is truly Master, then ' every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus, Christ -is in the glpry of Godthe Father' (Philip', ii., 11)": /Men may hot remairi^neutral p_r •vacillating tq'the end of the "chapter ._ Ample room, again,,, tlia£ 'men may see the "history of the world and may recognise that it is ' God -Who from the centre of eternity develops "the. order of the ages ' (Bossuet). ' Ample room, that men may make a public reparation to the Crucified King. Second Objection. — Scripture describes the crucifixion * as. a terrible and appaling crime.' Then (i.) - r lf the-£ross was needed as an expiation for sins, what is to expiate the crime, of the Cross?' (p. ' 25) ; (ii.) ' How can a deed involving such criroi- , .nality be construed into a satisfaction of "divine Retributive " (justice?' (p. 26). Answer to (v). — S. Anselm (Cur Deus Homo, ii M 15) lays--jdown an important consideration which will help' towards a" solution of~.this difficulty. He- writes :—: — ' The , Apostle .solves -this -, question, f-saying : • " If they had . known," they -would never have tru'eified, the. Lord., of Glory," (1.. Cor.,- ii.-, 8). For so greatly do sin done knowingly and sin .done' through ignorance differ, that the'eVil which, were it" knowta/ ' they could never 1 do on account of its excessive greatness;' is Venial • [i.e., -venia dignum, - worthy of pardon] --.-because it-'W.as-,. done unknowingly. For no one, could ey'er wish, at -least ,-kno.wingly, to put God to death: and therefore thps.e./wrK> .killed/. Him in/ ignorance did not fall into /that' infinite sin, with"^ which no other sins can be compared.' - - ; • >. -.._.. ... A little later he adds- that ' no one, could knowingly cpjcnmJt;. such a sin/ This, we understand, would be^ not because of any. want of malice, but because of .- „-..,:*-'

The , Very" Nature -of the Grime.,

For if a man knew- that it was the -Son "'of God whom" he ■ wished to put to death, he would also-know 1 that' -Jesus,-' as God; -'- could not die;' while as man He could 'die only- on- -accouh't of-* 1 -' some supreme good — and to 'this the sinner's" malice' would'- be"' unwilling to contribute. Thus, "the very ' ignorance of sinful "*■ men, while lessening 'their sin, made the Passion and ' Death of' Christ possible.' ' ----- . • ..-..- ,• y Furthermore, taking their sin as "it was, with all its fearf jT ■ guilt, 1 what was to preyenf the death of 'Christ from being" an~ : ? expiation for" it? "Surely, -no one can^ call ~- in "question- the • answer given to this objection' by" Sy Thomas some- six ■ hundred' years ago : ' The love of Christ suffering was- greater' than- the" malice of those crucifying Him- (Summa TheoL, 3a," q. 48, 32, ad2um). Sin, as far as ■ the- sinner is concerned, is -not really infinite in malice, though its tendency is the destruction . of the I Infinite ; while our Saviour's sacrifice is, by reason ."of His - JDivine Person, actually infinite in value. • • ' * Answer to (n>)- — In, the first 1 place, we jmust not forget that it was the free act of Christ, and. not the act- of His persecutors,

that satisfied Divine Justice. Secondly, the ' handing over ' cf Christ to the Jews and Romans was not, on the part of God, an ordering of their crime, any more than the giving of free will to man makes God responsible for the sins of men. It was a simple permission, granted on: account of the end of Redemption. And this is perfectly clear— the Rev. Mr. Smith admits it (p. 25) — from the words of our dying Saviour : 'My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?' Third Objection. — The Father and Son are One. But if the ' Expiatory Theory ' be consistently developed, • then ' this" unity seems to be broken in order to assign to the Father the real character and action of the stern . . . Judge, and to the Son the real character and experience of the condemned sinner ' (p. 26). - - - - Answer. — It is - . ' Certainly Unscriptural to represent the Father, in this work of Redemption, as a*n angry Judge ; and Catholic theologians, so far from considering this idea to be an essential part of the theory, expressly reject it, for (as we have seen) they consider the Redemption, on God'spart, to be a work of love. ' - Fourth Objection. — Sacred Scripture speaks of the forgive- . ness bestqwed on believers as a result of redemptive work of Christ, as a genuine gift of God's grace. But how can this be true,., if what the ' Expiatory Theory ' asserts, is true — viz., that it was God's ..justfee which was satisfied by Christ's death? Where is there room for forgiveness? -Is not this to rob God's forgiveness of all the characteristics of a' true forgiveness? Is not this practically to affirm that God is incapable of showing real mercy at all? (p. 27, 28). Answer. — There were many ways open to God, of bringing back sinners. One of these was forgiveness, pure and simple. But, according to the Expiatory Theory, He has — and that freely — attached a condition to __the granting of that forgiveness. Now, our point is that the pardon granted thus conditionally is a real pardon, 'a genuine gift of G_od's free grace.' That becomes clear, when we remember that ' God -was not bound to pardon men at all ; why, then, if He does determine to pardon, but only conditionally, should that pardon cease to be a real pardon? Again, if God can pardon without fulfilment of any condition, why should the imposing of a condition make it less a pardon? In a word, the objection seems to Rest on a False Supposition. It certainly does not touch the Catholic -form of the Expiatory Theory, which asserts .that God conceived the plan of redemption by the Death of Christ, 'not. out of necessity, but* out of love. He pardons, but wishes to subordinate His pardon to the merits of Christ, and that is true forgiveness, even though it is conditional. Fifth Objection. — '/The " satisfaction to justice " theory of the Cross seems to have involved in its very essence, lying at its very foundation, a mistrust of' the holiness of God's mercy.' It represents God, * as passing beyond the realm of mercy altogether, and, by a kind of tour de force, the safeguards of His mercy from out of the realm of retributive justice ' (p. 29. 30). Answer. — This objection, like the last, Does Not Affect the Catholic '"Theory of Satisfaction to Justice.' On that theory, so far. from there being any displacing of Mercy by -Justice, it is precisely Gold's Mercy, joined with His Infinite Wisdom, which leads to the demand for 'satisfaction by justice.' What else did St. Paul . mean when he wrote :-' ' I live in the faith of the Son of God, Who loved me and gave- Himself for me?' (Gal., ii., 20). What else, St. John when he wrote of the ' Prince .of the kings of the earth, "who hath loved us and washed us from our sins in His own Blood?' (Apoc, i., 5). God, in His wisdom, said that it was better that man should make satisfaction, and -not receive a simple pardon ; still better that the satisfaction should be a full one — and this meant the Incarnation and Death of His Son. The reason of this plan is not far to seek. 'It is a. Divine plan, but the plan of a dear friend to save one whom He loves even too well. . . The saving of our souls is a work He does with His own hands. It is not a ministry that He directs, not a message that He sends, not an alms that He throws to us; it is a rite, a" ceremonyj a grand and solemn pageant, in which He Himself is the chief and foremost figure.' Then,' ' the human figure of Jesus Christ, with all its moving surroundings, first intensifies Divine Love (in us), > and then preserves it in its" intensity ' (Hedley,, Our Divine Saviour, ppr 60, 62). And this is chiefly what God wishes to accomplish

by the Death of- Christ. ' ' Mercy and Truth have met each other : Justice and Peace have kissed ' (Ps. 84). [A typographical error occurred in the - first instalment of this article. in our last issue. The fifteenth line from the bottom of the second column should read: '-brother shall redeem,'- and not, as printed, ' other shall redeem.'] . . v