REDEMPTION
678
REDEMPTION
elevation of man to a supernatural state and his down-
fall from it through sin; and inasmuch as sin calls
down the ^VTath of God and produces man's servitude
under evil and Satan, Redemption has reference to
both God and man. On God's part, it is the accepta-
tion of satisfactory amends whereby the Divine
honour is repaired and the Divine wrath appeased.
On man's part, it is both a deliverance from the
slavery of sin and a restoration to the former Divine
adoption, and this includes the whole process of
supernatural life from the first reconciliation to the
final salvation. That double result, namely God's
satisfaction and man's restoration, is brought about
by Christ's vicarious office working through satisfac-
tory and meritorious actions performed in our behalf.
I. Need of Redemption. — When Christ came, there were throughout the world a deep consciousness of moral depravation and a vague longing for a restorer, pointing to a universally felt need of rehabilitation (see Le Camus, "Life of Christ", I, i). From that subjective sense of need we should not, however, hastily conclude to the objective necessity of Redemp- tion. If, as is commonly held against the Traditional- ist School, the low moral condition of mankind under paganism or even under the Jewish Law is, in it- self, apart from revelation, no proof positive of the existence of original sin, still less does it necessitate Redemption. Working on the data of Re^•elation concerning both original sin and Redemption, some Greek Fathers, hke St. Athanasius (De incarna- tione, in P. G., XXV, 105), St. C\Til of Alexandria (Contra Juhanum, in P. G., LXXV, 92.5), and St. John Damascene (De fide orthodoxa, in P. G., XCIV, 983), so emphasized the fitness of Redemption as a remedy for original sin as almost to make it apjiear the sole and necessary means of rehabilitation. Their sayings, though qualified by the oft-repeated state- ment that Redemption is a voluntary work of mercy, probably induced St. Anselm (Cur Deus homo, I) to pronounce it necessary in the hy])othesis of original sin. That view is now commonly rejected, as God was by no means bound to rehabilitate fallen mankind. Even m the event of God decreeing, out of his own free volition, the rehabilitation of man, theologians point out other means besides Redemption, v. g. Di^dne condonation pure and simple on the sole con- dition of man's repentance, or, if some measure of satisfaction was requii'ed, the mediation of an exalted yet created interagent. In one hj^pothesis only is Redemption, as described above, deemed absolutely necessary and that is if God should demand an ade- quate compensation for the sin of mankind. The juridical axiom "honor est in honorante, injuria in injuriato" (honour is measured by the dignity of him who gives it, offence by the dignity of him who re- ceives it) shows that mortal sin bears in a way an infinite malice and that nothing short of a person pos- sessing infinite worth is capable of making full amends for it. True, it has been suggested that such a person might be an angel hypostaticaUy united to God, but, whatever be the merits of this notion in the abstract, St. Paul practically disposes of it with the remark that "both he that sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified, are all of one" (Heb., ii, 11), thus pointing to the God-Man as the real Redeemer.
II. Mode nf Redemption . — The real Redeemer is Jesus Christ, who, according to the Xicene creed," for us men and for our salvation descended from Heaven; and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary and be- came man. He was also crucified for us, suffered under Pontius Pilate and was buried". The energetic words of the Greek Icxt (Denzinger-Bannwart^, n. 86 (47)1, it>a.v0puTritaaina, vaBI>vTa,\Hnn{ to incarnation and sacri- fice as the grouiidwiiik of Redemption. Incarnation, or the jxTsonal union of the luunan nature with the Second Person of tlie Blessed Trinity, is the necessary basis of Redemption because this, in order to be
efficacious, must include as attributions of the one
Redeemer both the humiliation of man, without which
there would be no satisfaction, and the dignity of
God, without which the satisfaction would not be
adequate. "For an adequate satisfaction", says St.
Thomas, "it is necessary that the act of him who
satisfies should possess an infinite value and proceed
from one who is both God and Man" (III, Q. 1, a. 2, ad
2"™). Sacrifice, which always carries with it the idea
of suffering and immolation (see Lagrange, "Religions
semitiques", 244), is the complement and full expres-
sion of Incarnation. Although one single theandric
operation, owing to its infinite worth, would have
sufficed for Redemption, yet it pleased the Father to
demand and the Redeemer to offer His labours, pas-
sion, and death (John, x, 17-18). St. Thomas (HI,
Q. xlvi, a. 6, ad 6"=") remarks that Christ, wishing to
Hberate man not only by way of power but also by
way of justice, sought both the high degree of power
which flows from His Godhead and the maximum of
suffering which, according to the human standard,
would be considered sufficient satisfaction. It is in
this double light of incarnation and sacrifice that we
should always \aew the two concrete factors of Re-
demption, namely, the satisfaction and the merits of
Christ.
A. Satisfaction of Christ. — Satisfaction, or the pay- ment of a debt in full, means, in the moral order, an acceptable reparation of honour offered to the person offended and, of course, implies a penal and painful work. It is the unmistakable teaching of Revelation that Christ offered to His heavenly Father His labours, sufferings, and death as an atonement for our sins. The classical passage of Isaias (lii-liii), the Messianic character of which is recognized by both Rabbinical interpreters and New Testament WTiters (see Con- damin, "Le Uvre d'Isaie", Paris, 1905), graphically describes the servant of Jahveh, that is, the Messias, Himself innocent yet chastized by God, because He took our iniquities upon Himself, His self-oblation becoming our peace and the sacrifice of His life a pay- ment for our transgressions. The Son of Man pro- poses Himself as a model of self-sacrificing love be- cause He "is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many" {\iTpov avTl TToXXu^) (Matt., xx, 28; Mark, x, 45). A similar declaration is repeated on the eve of the Pas- sion at the Last Supper; "Drink j'e all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins" (Matt., xxvi, 27, 28). In view of this and of the verv explicit as- sertion of St. Peter (I Pet., i, 11) and St. John (I John. ii, 2) the Modernists are not justified in contending that "the dogma of Christ's expiatory death is not evangelic but Pauline" (prop, xxxviii condemned by the Holy Office in the Decree "Lamentabili", 3 July, 1907). Twice (I Cor., xi, 23; xv, 3) St. Paul disclaims the authorship of the dogma. He is, however, of all the New Testament WTiters, the best exjjounder of it. The redeeming sacrifice of Jesus is the theme and burden of the whole Epistle to the Hebrews, and in the other Epistles, which the most exacting critics regard as surely Pauline, there is all but a set theory. The main passage is Rom., iii, 23 sq. : " 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, Wliom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins." Other texts, like Eph., ii, lO; Col., i, 20; and Gal., iii, 13, repeat and empliasiz<' the same teaching.
The early lalluTs. engrossed :us they were by the problems of Christologv, have added biit little to the soteriology of the Go.spel and St. Paul. It is not true, however, to say with Ritschl ("Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Versohnung", Bonn, 1889), Harnack ("Precis de I'histoire des dogmes",
