Introductory

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.

There are three points to which I wish to direct the attention of the reader in this introductory chapter.

1. The first is the fact, too apt to be overlooked by eager controversialists, that all error, especially all effective and therefore dangerous error, is partial truth. The human mind was formed for truth, and so constituted that only truth can exert permanent influence upon it. But the truth revealed in the Scriptures is so many-sided in its aspects, and o vast in its relations, and our habits of thought because of sin are so one-sided and narrow, that as a general fact, the mind of any Church in any single age fails to take in practically and sharply more than one side of a truth at a time, while other aspects and relations are either denied or neglected. A habit of un duly exalting any subordinate view of the truth at the expense of that which is more important, or of overlook ing, on the other hand, some secondary aspect of it altogether, is certain after a time to lead to a reactionary tendency, in which that which has been too much exalted shall be brought low, and that which has been abased shall be exalted. This principle is abundantly illustrated throughout the entire history of theological speculationas in the ever-repeated oscillations between the extremes of Sabellianism and Tritheism as to the Trinity, of Eutychianism and Nestorianism as to the Person of Christ, and in the history of speculations on the doctrine of Redemption. Every prominent heresy as to the nature of the Atonement, as the reader will find carefully acknowledged and defined in the following work, embraces and emphasizes on its positive side an important truth. The power, and hence the danger, of the heresy resides in that fact. But on the other hand, it is a heresy, and hence an evil to be resisted unto death, because it either puts a subordinate principle into the place of that which is central and fundamental, or because it puts one side of the truth for the whole, denying or ignoring all besides the fractional truth presented. It is plainly the policy as well as the duty of the defenders of the whole truth, not only to acknowledge the truth held on the side of their opponents, but to vindicate the rights of the perfect system as a whole, by demonstrating the true position and relation of the partial truth admitted in the larger system of truth denied. By these means we double the defences of orthodoxy, by bringing into contribution all that is true, and therefore all that is of force, in the apologies of error.

2. The second point is, that systems of divinity and definite views of doctrine are not a matter of choice, but of absolute necessity to the Church, as long as the Bible is read with interest. This unquestionable necessity arises from the logical constitution of the human mind to which the Christian revelation has been addressed, and from the self-consistent reason of that infinite mind from which the revelation has originated. That all truth is one in God and in man is an invincible axiom. The man who intelligently denies this is ripe for atheism. The human mind — that of the individual and that of every community — ever strives to introduce unity into the whole mass of its knowledge. God’s plans, purposes, administrations — whether through nature or from above nature, and his revelations, whether history or prophecy, whether doctrine, precept or promise — must all constitute one system, and hence, all their parts must sustain a consistent relation to one another. They cannot be conceived of truly unless they are conceived of as they are being accurately defined, and understood in their mutual relations.

At present there are two absurdly inconsistent attacks, originating in rationalistic sources, directed against that system of truth which the Christian Church has dis cerned in the inspired Scriptures. The first attack is made upon the plea that everything contained in a supernatural revelation — being a part of a great self-contained system of truth — must be forthwith explained and set forth, in all its relations, in the light of the human reason. Some, arguing from analogy, and others appealing to their own elementary intuitions and feelings, determine a priori what God can do and say, and therefore what God does do and say, thus using the materials of revelation in subordination to the law- giving power of reason. The whole class of errorists with whom we have to do, draw their doctrine in the first instance from rational principles, and they appeal to Scripture only to show that it may be quoted n at least apparent conformity with what has been previously discovered and proved on other grounds. The second attack appears in the form of a protest against definite views of doctrine, and covers its real denial of the fundamental articles of the Christian faith under vague generalities. Coleridge, in his Aids to Reflection,* denies that the Scriptures reveal anything to us of “the efficient cause and condition of redemption,” except the bare fact that Christ has achieved it, and affirms that all that is revealed to us concerns the “effects of redemption in and for the redeemed” them selves. Hence a large class of theologians in England, and a smaller but growing one in America, are continually pleading for the bare implicit recognition of the Atonement as a fact, and protesting against all theories of the Atonement whatsoever; that is, against all definite views upon the subject.”)”

This is at once very absurd and very dangerous, and none the less dangerous because of its absurdity. The present, above all other periods of human history, is intolerant c f all vague, undetermined and loosely-held views. Sharp, clearly-defined logic and earnest faith will hold the field at the last. Besides, these very men necessarily violate their own principle, showing that

* Aphorisms on Spiritual Religion Indeed, Comment on Aphorism 19.

f See Tracts for Priests and People, Tract TIL, The Atonement as a Fact and as a Theory. By the Rev. Francis Garden, Sub-dean of Her Majesty’s Chapel Royal.

practically it serves only as a cover und«*r which their hostility to the truth is disguised. It is plain enough that Coleridge held and taught, under all the cloud of his mysterious language, the old, meagre and oft-discarded Moral Theory of the Atonement. The Rev. Sub-dean Garden, in the Tracts for Priests and People, makes it very plain that while his professed object is to maintain the Atonement as a fact, while all human theories as to its nature are alike rejected, his real interest in the matter is to reject the principle which has been always professed by the Church in all its branches, that the direct and central design and effect of Christ’s death was to propitiate the principle of justice in the divine nature. The same is true in degree also in the advocates of the Governmental theory. Its positions are possible only when vaguely and generally stated. When a strict account is asked as to what is meant by “a substitute for a penalty,” or as to the connection between the non-penal sufferings of an innocent person and the forgiveness of the unpunished sins of the guilty subjects of divine government, no answer is made, and we venture to assert that upon their “heory no answer is possible.

In answer to both of these pleas of Rationalism, we affirm that Christian doctrine has its ground in the inspired Scriptures alone. These contain the system of divine truth as a whole, as well as all the separate elements of that system. The true system of Redemption is in the Scriptures, inseparable from the facts, just as the true theory of astronomy has been from the creation with the stars in the sky, whether mankind read them aright or not. The theologian, like the astronomer, is nothing- more than the interpreter, who ob&erves the facts, who gradually reads the system in the facts, and who teaches to others precisely what he has read in the book, neither more nor less. We believe that what is called the Satisfaction theory of the Atonement is as certainly and as demonstrably taught in the Scriptures as it is in any or in all the creeds of the Reformed Churches. The teachings of the Holy Scriptures, with respect to the precise nature of the Atonement, when brought together, are, as I show at the close of Chapter XII., as definite as any statement which can possibly be constructed in the use of human speech. Let us reverently remember the awful woe which the Holy Ghost denounces upon him who either “shall add anything unto” or “shall take away” aught from that which God has revealed in the Scriptures. Rev. xxii. 18, 19. It is certainly as impious, and perhaps more foolish, to refuse to see clearly what God has revealed clearly, as it is to attempt to understand in detail great undefined facts which God has seen fit to leave upon the verge of our horizon. We hear of some dapper preachers who claim that the age has outgrown doctrine. They have advanced around the circle to the place from which they started, and hope they are ready again to enter the kingdom of heaven like little children, as far as ignorance is concerned. Let it be remembered that systematic theology has its essence simply in clear thinking and clear speaking on the subject of that religion which is revealed in the Scriptures. A man can outgrow systematic theology, therefore, either by ceasing to be clear-headed, or by ceasing to be religious, and in no other way. I suppose some escapr in their haste by both ways at once.

3. In the third place, as to the conditions of the argument, I have to make three preliminary remarks.

(1.) I insist that, as the Gospel is wholly a matter of divine revelation, the answer to the question, What did Christ do on earth in order to reconcile us to God? be sought exclusively in a full and fair induction from all the Scriptures teach upon the subject. From a survey of all the matter revealed on the subject, what, in th<j judgment of a mind unprejudiced by theories, did the sacred writers intend us to believe? The result of such an examination, unmodified by philosophy or secular analogies, is alone, we insist, the true doctrine of the redemptive work of Christ.

(2.) Reasonable objections against the evidences by which a doctrine is established have force, and should be duly considered. But rational objections to any principle fairly established by the language of Scripture have no force whatever, unless they amount to a palpable contradiction to other principles certainly known. And whenever this can be shown, the reasonable inference is, not that the teachings of Scripture are to be modified in conformity thereto, but that the Scriptures themselves are to be rejected as false. Nothing is more senseless than the attempt to modify the results of the inspiration of Jehovah in conformity with human reason.

(3.) The force of the argument in behalf of this or any other doctrine does not lie in special words or passages, nor in the several arguments regarded separately. These are like the sticks of the bundle which the boy in the fable broke one by one with ease. The overwhelming dem mstration lies in the fact that all Scripture, both of the Old and New Testaments, when naturally interpreted, is as if the doctrine was true. The number and variety of converging lines are absolutely inconsistent with doubt as to the meaning intended. Our opponents are in the habit of demanding that we should show that each text in detail not only may, but absolutely must, teach the doctrine we hold, and none other. In these tactics they have been greatly excelled by the more consistent Socinians, who, by a like process, have satisfied themselves that Christ’s proper divinity is not taught in Scripture.

I propose, then,

First. To state the Church doctrine on this subject, defining all the points involved, and the terms used in the definitions.

Second. To present a summary of the several departments of the scriptural evidence by which the doctrine is established.

Third. To prove that the true Church has always, from the days of the apostles to the present, in all its branches, been in essential agreement as to the essential elements of the doctrine, as taught at large in the confessions of the Reformed and Lutheran Churches.

Fourth. To state and answer the principal objections made to the doctrine.

Fifth. To state, compare and expose the fallacy of the several erroneous views held in opposition to the truth.

Sixth. To state and prove the common doctrine of the Reformed Churches as to the design of the Atonement pvith respect to its objects.