The history of this doctrine is commonly divided into three pe- riods, the Patristic ; the Scholastic ; and the time of the Reforma- tion and from that event to the present day. The method which the writers on this subject have usually adopted, is to pass in re- view in chronological order the distinguished theologians living during these several periods, and present a general outline of the teaching of each.
The two great objects to be accomplished by the work of Christ are, the removal of the curse under which mankind laboured on account of sin ; and their restoration to the image and fellowship of God. Both these are essential to salvation. We have guilt to be removed, and souls dead in sin to be quickened with a new principle of divine life. Both these objects are provided for in the doctrine of redemption as presented in the Scriptures and held in the Church. In the opposing theories devised by theologians, either one of these objects is ignored or one is unduly subordinated to the other. It was characteristic of the early* Greek church to exalt the latter, while the Latin made the former the more promi- nent. In reviewing the history of the doctrine it will be found that there are five general theories which comprise all the numer- ous forms in which it has been held.
§ 1. The Orthodox View.
The first is that which has been for ages regarded as the ortho- dox doctrine ; in its essential features common to the Latin, Lu- theran, and Reformed churches. This is the doctrine which the writer has endeavoured to exhibit and vindicate in the preceding pages. According to this doctrine the work of Christ is a real sat- isfaction, of infinite inherent merit, to the vindicatory justice of God ; so that He saves his people by doing for them, and in their stead, what they were unable to do for themselves, satisfying the demands of the law in their behalf, and bearing its penalty in their stead ; whereby they are reconciled to God, receive the Holy
564 PART ni. Ch. IX. — theories or THE ATONEMENT.
Gliost, and are made partakers of the life of Christ to their present sanctification and eternal salvation.
This doctrine provides for both the great objects above men- tioned. It shows how the curse of the law is removed by Christ's being made a curse for us ; and how in virtue of this reconciliation with God we become, through the Spirit, partakers of the life of Christ. He is made unto us not only righteousness, but sanctifica- tion. We are cleansed by his blood from guilt, and renewed by his Spirit after the image of God. Having died in Him, we live in Him. Participation of his deatli secures participation of his life.
§ 2. Doctrine of some of the Fathers.
The second theory is that which prevailed extensively among the fathers. It was intended only as a solution of the question how Christ delivers us from the power of Satan. It contemplated neither the removal of guilt nor the restoration of divine life ; but simply our deliverance fi'om the power of Satan. It was founded on those passages of Scriptures which repi'esent man since the fall as in bondage to the prince of darkness. The object of redemption was to deliver mankind from this bondage. This could only be done by in some way overcoming Satan and destroying his right or power to hold men as his slaves. This Christ has effected, and thus becomes the Redeemer of men. This general theory is pre- sented in three different forms. The first appeals to the old prin- ciple of the rights of war, according to which the conquered be- came the slaves ©f the conqueror. Satan conquered Adam, and thus became the rightful owner of him and his posterity. Hence he is called the god and prince of this world. To deliver men from this dreadful bondage, Christ offered Himself as a ransom to Satan. Satan accepted the offer, and renounced his riglit to retain mankind as his slaves. Christ, however, broke the bonds of Satan, whose power was founded upon the sinfulness of his subjects. Christ being divine, and without sin, could not be held subject to his power. In answer to the question. How Satan could accept Christ as the ransom for men, if he knew Him to be a divine per- son? it was said tliat he did not know Him to be divine, because his divinity was veiled by his humanity. And then in answer to the question, How he could accept of Him as a ransom, if he re- garded Him as merely a man ? it is said that he saw that Christ was unspeakably superior to other men, and perhaps one of the higher order of angels, whom he might hope securely to retain. The second form of this theory does not regard Christ as a ransom