Reconciliatio Poenitentium is the act by which offenders of the Church are restored to ecclesi- astical rights and privileges. See Penitents.
Reconciliation (usually some form of "E3, to cover sin, KaraXXayjj) is making those friends again who were at variance, or restoring to favor those hav- ing fallen under displeasure. Thus the Scriptures de- Bcribe the disobedient world as having been at enmity with God, but "reconciled" to him by the death of his Sen. The expressions "reconciliation" and "making peace" necessarily suppose a previous state of hostility between God and man. which is reciprocal. This is Sometimes called enmity, a term, as it respects God, rather unfortunate, since enmity is almost tixed in our language to signify a malignant and revengeful feeling. ( if t his. t he oppugners of the doctrine of the atonement have availed themselves to argue that as there can be id such affection in the divine nature, therefore recon- ciliation in Scripture docs not mean the reconciliation of God to man. but of man to God, whose enmity the example and teaching of Christ, they tell us. are very effectual to subdue. It is, indeed, a sad and humbling truth, and one which the Socinians, in their discussions on the natural innocence of man, are not willine,- to ad- mit, thai by the infection of sin "the carnal mind is en- mity to God;" that human nature is malignantly hostile to God and to the control of his law. But this is far from expressing the whole of that relation of man in which, in Scripture, he is said to be at enmity with God, and so to need a reconciliation— the making of peace between God and him. That relation is a legal one, as thai of a sovereign, in his judicial capacity, and a crim- inal who has violated his laws and risen up against his authority, and who is therefore treated as an enemy. I he word ;;\-*o<i<; is used in this passive sense, both in the Greek writers and in the New Test, So. in Horn. xi, 28, the Jews, rejected and punished lor refusing the Gospel, are said by the apostle, "as concerning the Cos- pel." to he ••cue inies for your sake-," treated and ac- counted Such : '• hut. as touching the (lection, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes." In the same epistle
(v. 10) the term is used precisely in the same sense, and that with reference to the reconciliation by Christ : •• for if. when we were enemies, we were reconciled to Cod by the death of his Soil." i.e. when we were ob- jects of the divine judicial displeasure, accounted as en- emies, and liable to he capitally treated a- such. En- mity, in the sense of malignity and the sentiment of hatred. is .el, led to this relation in the case of man , hut it is 0" pan of the relation itself, it is rather a case of it, as ii i- one ol the actings of a corrupt nature which
render man obnoxious to the displeasure of Cod and the penally of his law. and place him in the conditio;) of an enemy. It is this judicial variance anil opposition l.e-
'■ i and man which is referred to iii the term
reconciliation, and in the phrase "making peace." in the \ew Test.; and the hostility is therefore, in its
own nature, mutual.
lint that there is no truth in the notion that recon-
ciliation means no more than our laying aside our en- mity to God may also lie shown from several express passages, The first is the passage we have above cited:
•• For if. when we were enemies, we were reconciled to Cod" (Rom. v. Hii. Here the act of reconciling is as- cribed to God, and not to us; hut if this reconciliation consisted in the lay ing-aside ot our own enmity, the act would he our- alone. And. further, that it could not be the laying-aside of our enmity i- char from the text, which speak- of reconciliation while we were yet ene- mies. The reconciliation spoken of here is not. as Soci- nus and his followers have said, our conversion. For that the apostle is speaking of a benefit obtained for us previous to our conversion appears evident from the opposite members of the two sentences — "much more. being justified, we shall he saved from wrath through
him;" "much more, being reconciled, we shall he saved by his life." The apostle argues from the greater to the less. If God were bo benign to us before our con- version, what may we not expect from him now we are converted? To reconcile here cannot mean to convert, for the apostle evidently speaks of something greatly remarkable in the act of Christ. But to convert sin- ners is nothing remarkable, since none but sinners can be ever converted; whereas it was a rare and singular thing for Christ to die for sinners, and to reconcile sin- ners to God by his death, when then' have been but very t\:w good men who have died for their friends. In the next place, conversion is referred more properly to bis glorious life than to bis shameful death; but this reconciliation is attributed to his death a- contradistin- guished from his glorious life, as is evident from the an- tithesis contained in the two verses. Besides, it is from the latter benefit that we learn the nature of the former. The latter, which belongs only to the converted, i onsists of the peace of God and salvation from wrath (Rom. V, 9, 10). This the apostle afterwards calls receiving the reconciliation. And what is it to receive the reconcili- ation but to receive the remission of sins'? (Acts x, 43). To receive conversion is a mode of speaking entirely unknown. If, then, to receive the reconciliation is to receive the remission of sins, and in effect to he deliv- ered Irom wrath or punishment, to be reconciled must have a corresponding signification.