ATONEMENT
51S
ATONEMENT
substituting Satan for the Demiurge. But Dorncr shows clearly that [rcnams, with entire knowledge of Gnosticism, repelled all its ideas, and that Baur's charge rests upon a misinterpretation of a passage (tidv.ffcer. v. 1, 1) in which, although the Satanic idea is prominent, it is far removed from Gnosticism (Dor- ner, Person of Christ, i, 463; see also Shedd^Hist. of Doctrines, ii, 213). Baur's theory that the founda- tions of the doctrine of vicarious satisfaction were laid in the notion that it was the claims of Satan, and not of God, that were satisfied, falls to the ground ; for '• if this theory can he found in any of the fathers, it is in Irenseus" (Shedd, 1. c). Nevertheless, it is true (though not in the Gnostic spirit) that Irenseus repre- sents the sufferings of Christ as made necessary by the hold of Satan on man, and ia order to a rightful de- liverance from that bondage. Tertullian (A.D. 200) uses the word satisfactio, but not with reference to the vicarious sufferings of Christ, yet in several of his writings he assumes the efficacious work of Christ's sufferings for salvation. In the Alexandrian fathers we find, as might be expected, the Gnostic influence more obvious, and the idea of ransom paid to the devil comes out full}' in Origen (A.D. 230). Yet it is going quite too far to say that Origen does not recognise the vicarious 'suffering of Christ; so (Horn. 24 en Num- bers) he saj's that " the entrance of sin into the world made a propitiation necessary, and there can be no propitiation without a sacrificial offering." Dr. Shedd finds the general doctrine of the Alexandrian school inconsistent with vicarious atonement, and interprets the special passages which imply it accordingly; but in this lie differs from Thomasius (Origenes, Niirnb. 1837) and Thomson (Bawpion Lectun s). Origen doubt- less held the vicarious atonement, though it was mixed up with speculations as to the value of the blood cf the martyrs, and debased by his fanciful views of the relation of Christ's work to the devil. This was carried to a greater extent by later fathers, e. g. Gregory of Nj'ssa (A.D. 370), who says in substance that the devil was cheated in the transaction by a just retaliation for his deception of men: "Men have come under the dominion of the devil by sin. Jesus offered himself to the devil as the ransom for which he should release all others. The crafty devil as- si nted, I ecaue ■ he cared mere for the one Jesus, who was so much superior to him, than for all the rest. But, notwithstanding his craft, he was deceived, since he could not retain Jesus in his power. It was, as it were, a deception on the part of God («— an] tic ten rpi'iTTvv riva), that Jesus veiled his divine nature, which the devil would have feared, by means of his humanity, and thus deceived the devil by the appear- ance of'flesh" (Graf. Catech. 22-2G). Athanasius (A.D. 370), on the other hand, not onfy maintained the expiation of Christ, but rejected the fanciful Satan theorj i //. fncarn. Virbi, vi, et al.). Cyril of Jerusa- lem (A.D. 350) (Catech. xii, § 83) enters more deeply into this doctrine, developing a theory to show why it sary that Jesus should die for man. Similar re expressed by Eusebius of Csesarea, Grego- ry of Nazianzen, Cyril of Alexandria, and Chrysostom ler, Dogmengeschickte, p. 383). Several of 'I; i fathers also maintain that Christ, by his death, did more than would have been necessary for the re- ■i of men. They undertook to show that Christ alone was able to achieve redemption, and discussed the qualities which were necessary for his redemptive character. The e di cus iont are especially met with in tli" writings against the Arians and the Ncstorians. Augustine ( \.l>. C98) was occupied more, in all Ids controversies, with anthropology than with poteriolo-
gy, but the vici rioui al ment is clearly taught or
implied in his D< /'•"•,/. Meritls, i. 56, and in other places; bul l> ■ called those <!■ Its. (stulli) who main- tained that God could provide no other means of re- demption (2)i \gom Christ, c.lf). Gregory the Great
(A.D. 590) taught the doctrine with groat clearness, and approached the scientific precision of a later age (Moralia, xvii, 46). Little is to be added to these statements up to the time of Anselm. Enough has been said to show that, although the earlier view may have been incomplete and mingled with error, it is wrong to assert, as Baur and his English followers (Jowett, Garden, etc.) do, that the " doctrine of substi- tution is not in the fathers, and laj' dormant till the voice of Anselm woke it; or that Anselm was the in- ventor of the doctrine." (Ccmp. Brit, and For. Ex. Review, Jan. 1861, p. 48.)
2. The Scholastic Period. — Nevertheless, Anselm (f 1100) undoubtedly gave the doctrine a more scien- tific form by giving the central position to the idea of satisfaction to the divine justice {Cur Dtus hemof transl. in Bibliofheca Sacra, vols, xi, xii). Nicholas of Methone (11th or 12th cent. ?), in the Greek Church, developed the necessity of vicarious satisfaction from the nature of God and his relations to man, but it is not certain that he had not seen Anselm's writings. Anselm's view is, in substance, as follows : "The in- finite guilt which man had contracted by the dishonor of his sin against the infinitely great God could be atoned fcr by no mere creature; only the God-man Christ Jesus could render to God the infinite satisfac- tion required. God only can satisfy himself. The human nature of Christ enables him to incur, the in- finity of his divine nature to pay this debt. But it was incumbent upon Christ as a man to order his life according to the law of God ; the obedience of his life, therefore, was not able to render satisfaction for our guilt. But, although he was under obligation to live in obedience to the law, as the Holy One he was under no obligation to die. Seeing, then, that he neverthe- less voluntarily surrendered his infinitely precious life to the honor of God, a recompense frcm God became his due, and his recompense consists in the forgive- ness of the sins of his brethren" (Chambers, Eneycl. s. v. ; Neander, Hist, of Dogmas, Bohn's eel. ii, 517). An- selm rejects entirely the claims of Satan, and places the necessity of atonement entirely in the justice of God. His theory is defective with regard to the ap- propriation of the merits of Christ by the believer; tut, on the whole, it. is substantially that in which the Christian Church has rested from that time forward. His doetrine was opposed by Abelard, who treated the atonement, in its relation to the love of God, and not to his justice, giving it moral rather than legal sig- nificance. Peter Lombard seems confusedly to blend Abelard's views and Anselm's. Thomas Aquinas de- veloped Anselm's theory, and brought out also the superabundant merit of his death, while he does not clearly affirm the absolute necessity of the death of Christ (Hagenbach, Hist, of Doctrines, § 181). See Aquinas. Bernard of Clairvaux, in opposition to Abelard, 1 rought up again the idea of the claims of Satan. Duns Scotus, in opposition to Anselm, denied the necessity of Christ's death, and denied also that the satisfaction rendered was an equivalent for the claims of justice, holding that God accepted Christ's sacrifice as sufficient. See AccErTii.ATio. On the -u hole, the scholastic period left two streams of thought closcfy allied, yet with an element of difference afterward fully developed, viz. the Anselmic, of the satisfaction of divine justice, absolutely considered; and that of Aquinas, that this satisfaction was relative, and also superabundant. The Romish doctrine of supereroga- tion and indulgence doul tless grew out of this.