« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
on this theory the Fall was not simply permitted but predestined by God, and that “humanity was sacrificed for Christ, not Christ for humanity.” Arnauld, however, by no means contented himself with objecting to this part of his opponent's system. He appealed to the authority of Aquinas—which is of course on his side—against the Scotist idea of the Incarnation as independent of the Fall; and, with less prudence, asserted in reliance on Thomassin--what is unquestionably incorrect—that the Fathers are unanimous in making the decree of the Incarnation depend on the prevision of sin. It was not to be expected that theologians, whose characteristic principle it was to grudge the universality of redemption, should appreciate what must have appeared to them the very superfluous charity of assuming a nature which did not need to be redeemed. And Arnauld, highly as we may and must respect him as a man and a writer, was, unhappily, deeply imbued with the theological idiosyncracies of his school. He seems on some points to have had the better of his antagonist, whose antipathy to the Jansenistic scheme of predestination did not preserve him from starting another theory, on the relations of grace to the human Soul of Christ, equally arbitrary and in its results equally objectionable. But, on the whole, we may fairly consider Malebranche as representing in this dispute the patristic and Catholic tradition, while
Some account of the controversy may be found in Sainte Beuve's Port Royal (Paris, 1859), tom. v. ch. 6. The author seems, strang nough, to imagine that Malebranche first invented the idea of the Incarnation being predestined independently of the purpose of redemption.
the great champion of Jansenism, like the Lutherans and Calvinists before him, adopts the narrower system which had found favour with some of the Schoolmen, and which till of late has generally prevailed in the more orthodox Protestant theology.
Tournely, the last of the great writers mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, lived in the last century. He was a vigorous, not to say bitter, controversialist. On the doctrines of grace he was vehemently opposed to Thomist opinions, but he adopts the Thomist view of the atonement in its extremest form, treating the question throughout, like Grotius, in reference to the Socinians. Indeed he candidly informs us, that out of the many opinions debated among Catholic divines he has chosen that which appeared to him best adapted “for repressing Socinian impiety.” With the great multitude of theologians, he denies any antecedent necessity for the Incarnation, either in itself or assuming the creation or the fall of man. But on the hypothesis of the restoration of fallen man, while admitting in words that by the extraordinary power of God we might have been saved without condign satisfaction, he yet insists that by the ordinary power of God this was impossible; and the ordinary power is explained to mean the laws of Divine justice, which are part of the Divine Nature. And, as he also agrees with the Thomists that there could be no condign satis action except that of Christ, we may regard him
· Honoratus Tournely, Prælect. Theol. de Incarn. Verbi Divini. Parisiis,
as accepting practically the Anselmic view of an absolute necessity for the Incarnation, assuming the restoration of fallen man. He maintains, with Grotius, that the punishment of Christ was strictly and literally substituted for ours, and that He endured the vindictive justice of God in our place, though not, as Lutherans inferred, the torments of the damned. It follows of course that it was not a matter of mercy, but of strict justice, on God's part to accept the satisfaction offered for us, and that He could not do otherwise. Under the term satisfaction, Tournely comprehends the payment of a debt, the appeasing of Divine wrath, and the expiation of the liabilities of sin.
Le Grand, a disciple and continuator of Tournely, follows on the whole his master's teaching, and, like him, directs his argument mainly against the Socinians. But in simplicity of method, moderation of tone, and absence of controversial asperity, his Treatise on the Incarnation contrasts very favourably with Tournely's Prælections, and in some important points their conclusions are different. Moreover, Le Grand is always very careful, which Tournely is not, to distinguish between his own opinions and the doctrine of the Church. He not only rejects any absolute necessity for the Incarnation, either antecedently or after the Fall, but adds that fallen man might have been otherwise restored, though there could not have been any other condign satisfaction, nor could God have otherwise “expressed His vindic
I Tractatus de Incarn. Verb, Divini. Parisiis, 1750.
tive justice;" but then it was not necessary to express it, for, while it gives Him the right to punish sin, it only binds Him not to pardon the sinner without true repentance. The Incarnation was therefore, as the Fathers had taught, not the only but the fittest method of redemption. Le Grand accepts the Thomist view of its motive as the most probable; satisfaction he de. fines, with Tournely, as “the voluntary rendering of equivalent honour and reverence out of what is one's own, and not otherwise owed, to compensate an injury done to another;" adding, that all these conditions were fulfilled in the satisfaction of Christ, which was not only equivalent but superabundant and such as God was bound in strict justice to accept. But he is careful to explain that all which the Catholic faith requires us to hold is, that it was such as God could fittingly accept for the sins of men. Le Grand admits pointedly, what Grotius had almost seemed inclined to deny, that the grounds assigned by Socinians for the death of Christ are true and valid, as far as they go, though inadequate; and he answers their objection about the innocent suffering for the guilty, not altogether satisfactorily, but in a very different manner from the ingenious special pleading of the great jurist. While insisting on the fact, as ascertained from Scripture, that it was not God's will to remit sin without atonement, he confesses that his explanations of it are little more than conjectural, and that there are causes of the mystery which in this life we cannot hope to discover. It is probable that both these writers were largely in.
fluenced in their particular way of looking at the question--clearly Tournely was by the exigencies of the Socinian controversy, as was also the case with some English divines such as Stillingfleet. Yet any dispute about the office and work of the Reedemer was in fact beside the mark in dealing with those who rejected His Divinity. The root of the difference lay deeper.
One later specimen shall be adduced, also from a professor of the Sorbonne, of the theological treatment of the subject. Robbe, the author of a Treatise on the Mystery of the Incarnate Word, after successively repudiating Wicliffe's notion of an absolute à priori necessity for the Incarnation, Raymund Lully's of a necessity assuming the Fall, and that of the Calvinists (borrowed from St. Anselm) of a necessity assuming the restoration of fallen man, decides, against Scotus, that it was necessary for condign satisfaction, because no other could be equivalent or ex alias indebitis. He adds, against the Socinians, that it was a true and proper satisfaction. Nor was it only sufficient but superabundant. Any act of Christ, or any single drop of His Blood, would have been sufficient for our re. demption, from the dignity of His Person, but not efficient unless He had so designed it. The sacrifice was really offered ad alterum, because offered to the whole Trinity. The author further argues, against Vasquez, Medina, and others, that it was ex propriis and ex alias indebitis, because acts belong to the per
Tractatus de Mysterio Verbi Incarnati, auctore J. M. Robbe. Parisiis, 1762.