should do what was best. Hilary followed much in the same track, teaching that the necessity of an Atonement must be sought not in the nature of the Redeemer, but in the wants of the redeemed; in this respect moving away from the line marked out by his Greek predecessor. But Hilary's statement occurs in his de Trinitate (xiii.), indicating that the theology of the Cross grew out of the theology of the Incarnation, and, in both directions, the limits of human thought were undiscerned, and it was not seen that the clear light of Revelation is encircled by a cloud of mystery; and that in striving to be wise above what is written, men entangle themselves in a network of words without wisdom. Thus far, speculations existed as to the necessity of the Atonement: we advert now to theories touching the mode of its operation. Hilary on the necessity of the Atonement. Theories as to the operation Atonement. The victory of Christ over Satan is a fact full of unspeakable relief to souls vexed with the evil of the one's temptations. Such inspiring words as, that He has taken out of the way the handwriting which was against us, "nailing it to His cross, and having spoiled principalities and powers, made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it,"1—sound like trumpet calls from heaven, cheering us in this world's great battlefield. Well might early Christians connect St. Paul's words with the doctrine of Atonement. Calvary they 1 Col. ii. 14. Gregory of Nyssa. saw was the spot, where the Captain of salvation won the day; and as they pondered the mighty marvel, they thought of the devil's defeat as a main step in Christ's conquering path. The idea of some seems to have been, that the enemy took the Saviour to be, as man was, a mere creature, and that by crucifixion the purpose of His coming would be defeated; to his dismay, he found that through the very cross, He accomplished His design. Some notion of this kind glimmers confusedly in the writings of Irenæus and Origen. At a later The view of period, Gregory of Nyssa argued that men by sin came under the devil's dominion, and that Jesus offered Himself as a ransom; that the crafty spirit assented to the plan, and then found himself unable to retain his captive. Ambrose, and Gregory the Great, chose the same line; but Gregory Nazianzen scouted the idea, and says, Ambrose and Gregory the Great. Gregory Anselm's doctrine that the ransom was paid to God. "It is a shame to think the robber should be paid for his robbery." 1 Anselm opens a new chapter in the history, and he connects the Atonement with the Incarnation in his famous book entitled Cur Deus Homo. He could not admit the idea of a ransom being paid to Satan. It was paid to God. Sin denied the Divine due, robbed the Divine Sovereign. This was intolerable; consequently, man could not be Orat. xlv. necessity of to Divine saved unless Divine claims were satisfied. Those The claims could be met, in connection with human satisfaction redemption, only by another-by the Incarnate claims. Son of God. This great metaphysical divine accepted with all simplicity the fact of an Atonement, showing its indispensable necessity and working out his elaborate argument with care. The satisfier of long violated claims, he said, The qualifimust be perfect God and perfect man; of Adam's posterity through a virgin birth; in Himself innocent of sin and free from death; having life in His own hands, offering it as a satisfaction for human iniquities.1 Abelard contended that God's mercy is free to forgive on man's repentance. There is no need of any satisfaction; the death of Jesus is meant to produce repentance. This philosopher failed to see difficulties in the way of man's salvation, which, under one form or another, had struck preceding divines, who wisely looked below the surface. cations satisfier. Abelard reneed of pudiates the satisfaction. Aquinas follows Anselm, combining the idea of Aquinas. satisfaction to justice with the redemption of man, and pointing out that deliverance from Satan is a consequence of this satisfaction, inasmuch as the righteous Governor can now consistently save the captive from the thraldom he had incurred. Aquinas strives to untwist the old net which had entangled so many fingers; and he makes some 1 Lib. II. 6, 14. The distinction sufficiency and the efficiency of the Atonement. important contributions to the theology of the between the Atonement. According to this schoolman, its sufficiency and its efficiency are to be distinguished; for its intrinsic merit is infinite, but its actual application is limited. Also he said, that whilst Christ secured by His satisfaction the forgiveness of sin, He by His Divine merit earned for believers eternal life. Further, that the Lord's obedience is both active and passive; and that the secret of salvation is a mystical union between the Saviour and the saved.1 Christ's obedience active and passive. Duns Scotus denied the doctrine of Anselm. Duns Scotus, another schoolman, denied the doctrine of Anselm. He could not admit that the Atonement is the only possible method of redemption. God might have accepted some other substitute, or dispensed with one altogether. The fundamental principle of Duns Scotus is this: "An offering to God is worth what He accepts it for, and no more.' "2 The principle is a legal one, derived from the pandects of Justinian, and bears the name of acceptilatio, i.e., an acquittance based upon a creditor's favourable agreement with a person in debt to him. It may startle modern readers to find expounders of the doctrine of Redemption resorting to a code of Roman law for something like a parallel to the gracious provision of the Gospel. 1 Summa Tertia pars Quest. xxii., xlvi.-xlix. 2 Dist. xx., Lib. iii., In Sent. Lombardi. Quæst. 1. It may be said of some disputants in that and in later ages, that they, like Israelites, "went down to the Philistines to sharpen every man his share and his coulter." 1 Many of the controversies at the Reformation involved conclusions touching the Redemptive work of our Lord, but it was chiefly in an inferential way. The main stress of argument on both sides related to the method by which the blessings of that gracious provision are to be secured, whether by simple faith or through the operation of sacraments. in his insisted on of the Saviour's work. Calvin, in his Institutes, enters somewhat at Calvin, large upon this important theme. He insisted, Institutes after Anselm, upon the necessity of the Saviour's the necessity work, and distinctly expresses it as an act of selfsacrifice. We could not escape, he said, the judgment of God, if Christ had not suffered Himself to be condemned before a mortal man, a wicked heathen. Christ then Himself took the sinner's place, appeared as his Substitute, and endured death on account of our sin. He represented the transgressor, and the burden wherewith we are oppressed was laid upon Him. Calvin goes on to say, He performed a perfect expiation, gave his soul an oblation for sin, so that the filth of our trans gressions might be purged away :— 11 Sam. xiii. 20. |