REDEMPTION
680
REDEMPTION
that the Humanity of Christ is finite and that the
quahfication of infinite would make all Clvrist's actions
equal and place each of them on the same level with
His sublime surrender in the Garden and on Calvary.
However the word and the idea passed into current
theology and were even ofhcially adopted by Clement
VI (Extravag. Com. Unigenitus, V, ix, 2), the reason
given by the latter, "propter unionem ad Verbum",
being the identical one adduced by the Fathers.
If it is true that, according to the axiom "actiones sunt suppositorum", the value of actions is measured by the dignity of the person who performs them and whose expression and coefficient they are, then the theandric operations must be styled and are infinite because they proceed from an infinite person. Scotus's theory wherein the infinite intrinsic worth of the theandric operations is replaced by the extrinsic ac- ceptation of God, is not altogether proof against the charge of Nestorianism levelled at it by Catholics like Schwane and Rationalists like Harnack. His arguments proceed from a double confusion between the person and the nature, between the agent and the objective conditions of the act. The Sacred Human- ity of Christ is, no doubt, the immediate principle of Christ's satisfactions and merits, but that principle (principiiwi quo) being subordinate to the Person of the Word {principium quod), borrows from it the ultimate and fixed value, in the present case infinite, of the actions it performs. On the other hand, there is in Christ's actions, as in our own, a double aspect, the personal and the objective: in the first aspect only are they uniform and equal while, viewed objectively, they must needs vary with the nature, circumstances, and finality of the act.
From the adequacy and even superabundance of Redemption as viewed in Christ our Head, it might be inferred that there is neither need nor use of per- sonal effort on our part towards the performance of satisfactory works or the acquisition of merits. But the inference would be fallacious. The law of co- operation, which obtains all through the providential order, governs this matter particularly. It is only through, and in the measm-e of, our co-operation that we appropriate to ourselves the satisfactions and merits of Clirist. When Luther, after denying human liberty on which all good works rest, was driven to the makeshift of "fiducial faith" as the sole means of appropriating the fruits of Redemption, he not only fell short of, but also ran counter to, the plain teach- ing of the New Testament calUng upon us to deny ourselves and carry our cross (Matt., xvi, 24), to walk in the footsteps of the Crucified (I Pet.,ii,21), to suffer with Christ in order to be glorified with Him (Rom., viii, 17), in a word to fill up those things that are wanting to the sufferings of Christ (Col., i, 24). Far from detracting from the perfection of Redemption, our daily efforts toward the imitation of Christ are the test of its efficacy and the fruits of its fecundity. "All our glory", says the Council of Trent, "is in Christ in whom we live, and merit, and satisfy, doing worthy fruits of penance which from Him derive their virtue, by Him are presented to the Father, and through Him find acceptance with God" (Sess. XIV, c. viii).
IV. Unii'ersaliiy of RedempHon. — Whether the ef- fects of Redemption reached out to the angelic world or to the earthly paradise is a disputed point among theologians. When the question is limited to fallen man it has a clear answer in such passages as I John, ii, 2; I Tim., ii, 4, iv, 10; II Cor., v, 15; etc., all bearing out the Redeemer's intention to include in His sa\ang work the universality of men without exception. Some apparently restrictive texts like Matt., xx, 28, xxvi, 28; Rom., v, 15; Heb., ix, 28, where the words "many" (Mulli), "more" (plures), are used in reference to the extent of Redemption, should be interpreted in the sense of the Greek phrase >^ iroXXur, which means
the generality of men. or by way of comparison, not
between a portion of mankind included in, and another
left out of. Redemption, but between Adam and
Christ. In the determination of the many problems
that arose from time to time in this difficult matter,
the Church was guided by the principle laid down in the
Synod of Quierzy [Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 319 (282)]
and the Council of Trent [Sess. VI, c. iii, Denzinger-
Bannwart, n. 795 (677)1 wherein a sharp line is drawn
between the power of Redemption and its actual ap-
plication in particular cases. The universal power has
been maintained against the Predestinarians and
Calvinists who Umited Redemption to the predesti-
nated (cf. the councils named above), and against the
Jansenists who restricted it to the faithful or those
who actually come to faith [prop. 4 and 5, condemned
by Alexander VIII, in Denzinger-Bannwart, 1294-5
(1161-2)] and the latter's contention that it is a Semi-
pelagian error to say that Christ died for all men has
been declared heretical [Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1096
(970)].
The opinion of Vasquez and a few theologians, who placed children dying without baptism outside the pale of Redemption, is commonly rejected in CathoUc schools. In such cases no tangible effects of Redemp- tion can be shown, but this is no reason for pronounc- ing them outside the redeeming ^-irtue of Christ. They are not excluded by any Biblical text. Vasquez appeals to I Tim., ii, 3-6, to the effect that those children, not ha\'ing any means or even po.ssibility to come to the knowledge of the truth, do not seem to be included in the saving will of God. If applied to infants at all, the text would exclude likewise those who, as a matter of fact, receive baptism. It is not likely that Redemption would seek adults laden with personal sins and omit infants labouring under origi- nal sin only. Far better say with St. Augustine: " Numquid parvuli homines non sunt, ut non pertineat ad eos quod dictum est: wit omnes salvos fieri?" (Contra Julianum, IV, xlii).
With regard to the de facto application of Redemp- tion in particular cases, it is subject to many condi- tions, the principal being human hberty and the general laws which govern the world both natural and supernatural. The Universalists' contention that all should finally be saved lest Redemption be a failure is not only unsupported b}% but also opposed to, the New Dispensation which, far from suppressing the general laws of the natural order, places in the way of salvation many indispensable conditions or laws of a freely estabhshed supernatural order. Neither shotdd we be moved by the reproaches of failiu-e often flung at Redemption on the plea that, after nineteen centuries of Christianity, a comparatively small por- tion of mankind has heard the voice of the Good Shepherd (John, x, 16) and a still smaller fraction has entered the true fold. It was not within God's plan to illumine the world with the light of the Incarnate Word at once, since he waited thousands of years to send the Desired of the Nations. The laws of prog- ress which obtain everywhere else govern also the Kingdom of God. We have no criterion whereby we can tell with certainty the success or failure of Re- demption, and the mysterious influence of the Re- deemer may reach farther than we think in the present as it certainly h;is a retroactive effect upon the past. There can be no other meaning to the very compre- hensive terms of Revelation. The graces accorded by God to the countless generations preceding the Christian era, whether Jews or Pagans, were, by an- ticipation, the graces of Redemption. There is little sense in the trite dilemma that Redemption could benefit neither those who were aheady saved nor those who were forever lost, for the just of the Old Law owed their salvation to the anticipated merits of the coming Messias and the damned lost their souls because they spurned the graces of illumination and
