Sect. 166Possibility and Congruency of RedemptionPossibility and Congruency of Redemption

I. The restoration of fallen man is called, in the language of Scripture, Salvation and Redemption: salvation from death through the restitution of grace which is the root of life; redemption from the captivity of sin and death under Satan, through the restitution of the freedom of the sons of God. Such salvation and redemption mean something more than mere remission of sin: they include the restoration of the sinner to supernatural friendship with God. As man, by his own power, is unable to raise himself to the supernatural state, it follows that his salvation is entirely the work of God (Council of Trent, sess. vi. c. 1).

II. Though man is unworthy of Redemption, yet his unworthiness is not so great as that of the fallen angels, because his natural receptivity for grace has not been impaired to the same degree as theirs. The very perfection of their nature increased the enormity of their sins: they did not repent, they turned away from God in open rebellion, and were guilty, each of them, of a personal sin. Man, on the contrary, felt ashamed of his sin; and even now he has as great a desire for Redemption as he has an inclination for new sins, and his guilt is personal only in Adam.

III. Man, then, being less unworthy of Redemption than the fallen angels, it was fitting that the Divine mercy should redeem him in preference to them. So much more was this the case, as the Lord of the Universe owed it to His honour and glory, not to allow the whole species of creatures which are in a unique manner His image and likeness to miss the end for which He created them. Had the whole human race remained unredeemed, Satan could have boasted of the conquest of the best part of creation, and set up a kingdom, not over stray individuals, but over a distinct portion of God’s creatures. It was the Divine anger against the infernal tyrant, and the Divine mercy for his victims, that combined to make Redemption “fitting.” We say fitting, not necessary. The gratuitousness of grace and the manifold testimony of Scripture are opposed to all notion of necessity arising from any duty on the part of God towards the sinner, or from any restriction of His right to leave the sinner unredeemed. The congruency of Redemption arising from what God owes to Himself is neither restrictive of His freedom, nor does it support the assertion that the present fallen race ought to have been redeemed: for God might have attained the same object by creating a new human race.

IV. As a matter of fact, Redemption was accomplished by the Incarnation of God the Son, and by no other means (Acts 4:12). But, speaking absolutely, it was possible for God to redeem mankind otherwise: for His infinite wisdom, power, and goodness, cannot be restricted to the choice of any one means to His ends. When the Fathers speak of the Incarnation as the sole means of Redemption, what they mean is that, as a matter of fact, it is the only means, and that it is the only one by which God obtains full satisfaction, without renouncing any of His rights on the sinner. His justice does not prevent God from pardoning the sinner without claiming any satisfaction. The Divine Justice has a twofold object: the safeguarding of the Divine right injured by the sinner, and the safeguarding of the moral order. If the sinner by repentance acknowledges the Divine right, and is willing to comply with all its claims as far as in him lies, God certainly is not “bound” to exact more, though He is entitled to more, viz. to full reparation. The moral order is sufficiently safeguarded against the sinner’s contempt, if God, when forgiving the sin, does not also remit all the penalties due to it. The preservation of the moral order certainly does not require that no sin be forgiven except on full satisfaction; for this object is attained rather by the pain felt by the sinner than by the objective value of the punishment. It is still more evident that God, out of pure mercy, can give the sinner the means necessary to penance, and in the case of original sin, remit it out of pure grace without penance.

V. In the hypothesis that God claimed complete satisfaction for the injury done to Him by sin, the Incarnation of a Divine Person was necessary.

1. Grievous sin, being contempt of the infinite God, inflicts an injury objectively infinite (see Book. IV., §§ 155, 156), the full reparation for which requires the rendering to God of an honour of infinite value. But only a person of infinite dignity, and therefore of Divine nature, can render such an honour.

2. Mortal sin, by destroying the supernatural sanctity of the living temple of God, inflicts on God an external injury which is, in its way, likewise infinite, and which, in our hypothesis, requires full reparation. Now, injury is repaired either by full restoration or by adequate compensation. But, considering the supernatural character and nature of sanctity, compensation for its destruction by adequate meritorious satisfaction, or restoration of it by proper intrinsic power, can only be accomplished by an agent of Divine dignity and power.

3. If the Redemption has to be as universal as sin and its attendant evils, it must counterbalance original sin, considered as sin of the whole human race, and all other actual sins, and also the loss of original integrity; that is to say, it must be infinite in extension or equivalent to all possible sins of all possible children of Adam; hence, again, the principle of Redemption must possess infinite power and dignity.

VI. If the Incarnation is only necessary in the hypothesis of God claiming full satisfaction, the ground for its actually taking place must be sought not in that hypothetical necessity, but rather in its congruency or appropriateness as means to that end. The Incarnation attains the object of Redemption not only adequately but superabundantly (Rom. 5:17), and therein consists its appropriateness. The superabundance of Redemption by the Incarnation is manifest: to God it gives the greatest glory, as most perfect manifestation of His wisdom, mercy, and justice combined; to man it offers the means of obtaining the most complete remission of sin and restoration of lost grace, and at the same time, it exercises on him the most effective “pedagogic” influence, by giving him in Christ a perfect teacher in word and deed (cf. Thomassin, l. i.). Again, the superabundance of Redemption through the Incarnation appears in this, that it not only restores, but completes and perfects the original order, and thus founds a new and higher order. The union with God, as established by the Incarnation, is higher and more intimate than that of the original state; the dignity of mankind is raised; grace, instead of being a simple free gift, is acquired by the merits of the new Adam, and settled on mankind as a permanent possession; and worship is raised to infinite value and dignity.

However appropriate a means of Redemption the Incarnation may be, God would not have adopted it but for the exaltedness of the ends to which it leads. Remission of sins alone, or the moral education of natural man, would certainly not be objects proportionate to such a means. The real object of that Divine abasement is the elevation of man to Divine life; the supernatural and infinite glory which God wishes to obtain through the supernatural glorification of the creature is alone sufficient to account for the Incarnation. “Christ became man that we might be made gods (Αὐτὸς ἐνηνθρώπησεν ἵνα ἡμεῖς θεοποιηθῶμεν)” (St. Athanasius, De Incarn., n. 54). And it accounts so completely for this, that even in the hypothesis of the original order not having been disturbed by sin, the Incarnation would still be justified as its complement and final perfection. It would even be justified if the God-Man were not the means of bringing mankind so near to God, for in Himself He is of such perfection that in Him God is infinitely more pleased than in all the rest of Creation.

VII. Although human reason may comprehend the appropriateness of Redemption through the Incarnation of a Divine Person, yet human reason, left to itself, could neither suspect nor expect its realization. It is the freest act of Divine Love and the greatest wonder of Divine Power and Wisdom, and therefore the mystery “unsearchable … which hath been hidden from eternity in God” (Eph. 3:8–12). It can only be shown negatively that, as presented to our acceptance in Revelation, the great mystery contains no evident contradictions.