treatment of the subject during the eighteenth century, and, as the Parisian Sorbonne was at that time the great theological school of the Church, they shall be taken from the works of its professors.

Tournely, the last of the great writers mentioned. above, 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 satisfaction except that of Christ, we may regard him 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 vindic

* Honoratus Tournely Prælect. Theol. de Incarn. Verbi Divini. Parisiis, 1727.

tive 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 the 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, in itself or assuming 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 vindictive 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 defines, with Tournely, as 'the voluntary rendering of

* Tractatus de Incarn. Verb. Divini. Parisiis, 1750.

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 pertains to the Catholic faith 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 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 influenced 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 Redeemer was in fact beside the mark, as against those who rejected His divine nature. 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 of 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,' as no other would 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 redemption, 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 person, not the nature, of the agent. Under this last head the question is asked, whether the satisfaction of Christ required any agreement on God's part to accept it, or whether He was bound as a matter of justice to do so? The necessity of an agreement is denied by St. Bonaventure, Scotus, and, others (and, as we have seen, by Tournely), but affirmed by Suarez, whose opinion Robbe adopts, considering it clear from Scripture (Heb. x.) that there was in fact such an agreement, and thinking further, that it was requisite, because the offending parties might have been fairly

* Tractatus de Mysterio Verbi Incarnati, auctore J. M. Robbe. Parisiis, 1762.

called on to make satisfaction themselves. Christ was our Head by arrangement (pacto), not, like the first Adam, by nature. He satisfied in strict justice, inasmuch as His satisfaction was adequate and more than adequate, but to accept it for us was a matter not of justice, but of mercy.

And now let us give two examples, from the same century, of the hortatory and devotional rather than scientific treatment of the subject, which for that very reason will be in one sense a surer test of the habitual manner of looking at it. They will be found, like the theological treatises of Petavius and Thomassin, to bear out the remark made in an earlier chapter, that, while the scholastic formula of satisfaction was retained as one method of expressing the mystery of atonement, the idea of sacrifice was that most predominant in Catholic teaching and devotion.

My first illustration shall be taken from a Treatise on the Priesthood and Sacrifice of Jesus Christ, in four books, by Leonard de Massiot, a French Benedictine of the learned Congregation of St. Maur.* The author begins by tracing out the idea and obligation of sacrifice, as the supreme act of homage to God, and as including, since the introduction of sin into the world, an additional character of reparation; and shows how both the interior and exterior sacrifice are most perfectly realized in Christ. The second book deals with the sacrifice and priesthood of Christ, in its unity, perpetuity, and continuation in the Eucharist. The whole mystical Body is offered with Him on the Cross, which is the common altar of all mankind.' In the third

* Traité du Sacerdoce et du Sacrifice de Jésus Christ. Par L. de Massiot. Poitiers, 1708.

U