The Atonement

In the fall of 1866 the senior Editor of the “Presbyterian Banner,” of Pittsburg, asked the author of this book to write a series of articles on the Atonement. The reason assigned was that our views of the great central doctrines of the gospel were frequently misrepresented by many outside of our own communion, and that for the instruction of our own people a re statement of the venerable faith of t7ie Reformed Churches was now very much needed in a form specifically adapted to the circumstances of the present generation. Being in full sympathy with the reasons given, I wrote the articles, which appeared before the public last winter Those articles furnish about one fourth part of the present volume, which is now sent forth as the best contribution within my power to the vindication of the ancient faith of the Presbyterian Church.

While jealously guarding the essential principles of the Oalvinistic system, I have designed to repel with all my might alike all those positive heresies which attack it openly, and with even greater solicitude that latitudinarian indifference to exact conceptions and careful statements of doctrine which tends secretly, yet not less certainly, to destroy the truth, and which in the present

age is our chief source of danger. T would pray and labour that in gaining breadth we may not lose height, and in gaining peace and love we may not lose purity and truth. With all the very obvious imperfections of the offering, I trust that the condescend ing Saviour will graciously accept it, and render it an instrument of blessing to his Church, to its ministry, and to those hopeful candidates for its service to whose education my life is devoted. ALLEGHENY CITY, PA,, October, 7, 1867.

The doctrine of the Atonement is evidently the central and principal element of the doctrine of Justification, which Luther truly affirmed to be the article of a standing or a falling Church. The truth of this aphorism is obvious, both because this truth concerns the foundation upon which our relations to God as our heavenly Father, and consequently all our present life and our future hopes, depend, and also because our conception of this central principle necessarily determines our conception of all the other elements of the entire system of revealed truth; such as the moral attributes of God, the nature of his Moral Government, of Law, Sin and Penalty, the Person of the God-man, the Person and Office of the Holy Spirit, the Office of Faith, and hence the entire character of our religious experience.

In contradiction of the assertion of Bushnell, and the vague impression of many others, that no consistent view as to the nature of Christ’s redemptive work has characterized the faith of the Church in all ages, I expect to show in the following chapters that, although the Church did not attain to a definite and complete scientific statement of the Doctrine of Redemption before the period of the Socinian controversy in the early part of the seventeenth century, it is nevertheless a fact that the whole Church, in its historical divisions from the apostolic age, and each branch of it in exact proportion to its general orthodoxy, has held essentially but one opinion on this subject. On the subject of the nature and objective reference of the redemptive work of Christ there was no controversy between the Reformers and the Church of Rome. All the great national churches of both the Lutheran and Reformed families, and all the authoritative Church creeds, are here, at the very heart of the gospel, at one. Even all evangelical Arminians, such as Arminius himself, John Wesley, and Richard Watson, by a happy sacrifice of logic, are on this vital question at one with Calvinists, and opposed to the more consistent Pelagianizing Arminians.

On the other hand, the lesson of history is none the less clear, that Rationalism, in all its forms and degrees, tends to pervert the testimony of Scripture as to the nature of Redemption, and that erroneous views on this subject are invariably connected, as cause or effect, with erroneous views on every other main principle of the gospel. Thus Socinian views as to the Person of Christ have always been accompanied with corresponding views as to the nature of his w prk. The same is true precisely of high Arianism, and again of the semi-pantheistic

Monism of Schleiermacher and the American Mercersberg theology. Arminianism is distinguished by its •vxmliar soteriology, corresponding accurately to its anthropology. Calvinistic advocates of general redemption, whether of the French, English, or American schools, have always been constrained to modify to a corresponding extent the common doctrine of all the Reformers and of all the Church creeds, as to the nature of Redemption and of Justification. The Pelagianizing speculations of the New England theologians — as to the nature of sin and of virtue, the extent of man’s moral ruin in the fall, the necessity and nature of Effectual Calling and Regeneration — have in all their varying phases been accompanied with corresponding theories of the Atonement, so called. And every passing school of German Rationalists, old or new, and the neoplatonizing Rationalists of the Broad Church school in England and America, are characterized by the uniformity of purpose with which in various methods they seek to make void the teaching of Scripture on this vital theme.

Thus history puts it beyond question that a tendency to deny, or even to abate or to modify, the full truth on this subject, is always symptomatic of a tendency toward a total disintegration of the system of revealed truth. And all the indications of the present time also warn us that the whole Church is just now, in a pre-eminent degree, exposed to this very influence from many directions. From the recent amazing advancement of the physical sciences, and the corresponding development of the practical arts, and the wide extension of the secular interests and activities of the masses of mankind, and doubtless from many other causes unknown, the spirit of modern philosophy, whether intuitional or sensational, is beyond precedent naturalistic — that is, disposed to deny the supernatural as impossible, or to ignore it as unknowable. The subtle spirit of this mode of thought penetrates every sphere of mental activity, is diffused through every species of literature, and is far more influential over the speculations of even truly religious minds than many are aware of. It is constantly, by an unfelt pressure, tending to lead the theologian away from the simplicity of the gospel. This is manifested in many essays at a rational explanation of the mysteries of revelation in conformity with the principles of natural reason and the analogies of human experiences. Doctrines are first formed to satisfy rational views of what they ought to be, and then a reference is made to the Bible to elicit inspired confirmation of truths otherwise derived.

The two great doctrines just at present most generally brought into question, and which have suffered most at the hands of Rationalistic criticism, are those concerning the nature and extent of Biblical Inspiration, and the nature of the redemptive work of Christ. These naturally stand or fall together. For if the inspiration of the Scriptures is plenary, then the Church doctrine as to the nature of Redemption remains impregnable. But if the authority of the Scriptures may be abated, the way is open, of course, in due proportion, to theories of Redemption adjusted to the “finer feelings,” the “moral intuitions,” and the administrative experiences of mankind. Thus we have in Broad Church literature — so widely circulated in the writings of Jowett, Maurice, Stanley, Dr. John Young of Edinburgh, and the sermons of Robertson, and the late elaborate treatise on “Vicarious Sacrifice,” of Bushnell, and else vli ere — a republication in new forms of that which is in essence nothing else than the old Socinian heresy on the Atonement. A prominent Methodist minister, the Rev. Dr. Steele, as quoted by the Watchman and Reflector, declares, concerning that great evangelical denomination, that the old view that Christ died to satisfy the justice of God is undoubtedly disappearing among them, and that the “moral influence/7 or Socinian view, is generally taking its place. And it is notorious that the hybrid Governmental Atonement theory — orthodox in whatever it affirms and Socinian in all it denies — has for years been th^3 accepted doctrine of what is called the New England theology, and of a large class of theologians in England.

Keep reading