Notes

Some of my readers will, I trust, pursue this great subject much farther. In the hope that they will do so, I will refer to a few books which in various ways will contribute to the interest and profitableness of their studies. My general advice would be to read everything upon the question, but especially read the Bible itself. Do not go to the Bible with a doctrine of the Atonement, but for one; and do not go to uninspired writers as if they were infallible, but to get such help as they may be able to give in the understanding of holy mysteries. Whoever reads with care the following books will have a tolerably clear idea of the doctrine of the Atonement as understood by the Fathers and expounded by modern English theologians.

THE CATHOLIC DocTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT: An
Historical Inquiry into its Development in the
Church. By Henry NurcoMsBe Oxenuam, M.A.

The book opens with a careful discussion of the principle of theological developments. The essay is “designed to trace through the patristic, scholastic, and later periods of theology the Catholic doctrine on the Atonement of the Son of God, comparing it also with the principal Reformed systems, to some of which the author ventures to think that the antipathy felt by many not irreligious minds towards the whole idea of Atonement is in great measure due.” Throughout his book Mr. Oxenham has aimed at “strict fidelity of statement in recording the belief, whether of individuals or communities: references are In every case given to the writers or formularies under review, and their meaning is expressed, as far as possible, in their own words.” The book is most helpful as bringing into view the whole course of opinion upon the doctrine of the Atonement, from the first century down to our own times. Here we listen to Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp; passing into the second century, we hear Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Claudian Apollinaris; and in the third century we have, of course, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Cyprian. In summing up the main points of teaching on Christ’s work of Redemption to be gathered from the patristic literature of the first three centuries, Mr. Oxenham says (p.112): “There is no trace, as we have seen, of the notions of vicarious satisfaction, in the sense of our sins being imputed to Christ and His obedience imputed to us, which some of the Reformers made the very essence of Christianity; or, again, of the kindred notion, that God was angry with His Son for our sakes, and inflicted on Him the punishment due to us; nor is Isaiah’s prophecy interpreted in this sense, as afterwards by Luther; on the contrary, there is much which expressly negatives this line of thought. There is no mention of the justice of God, in the forensic sense of the word; the Incarnation is invariably and exclusively ascribed to His love; the term satisfaction does not occur in this connection at all, and where Christ is said to suffer for us, d7rép (not avti) is the word always used. It is not the payment of a debt, as in St. Anselm’s ‘ Cur Deus Homo, but the restoration of our fallen nature, that is prominent in the minds of these writers, as the main object of the Incarnation, They always speak, with Scripture, of our being reconciled to God, not of God being reconciled to us. On the other hand, they are far removed from the modern Socinian or Rationalistic view, which sees in the death of Christ only an attestation ot His teaching, or an exalted model of heroic virtue, or a practical evidence of the love of God. They ascribe, with one voice, a real and most vital efficacy to the ‘ Sacrifice’ of Calvary in restoring us to life and immortality, but without attempting any precise explanation of how the result is brought about.” The next chapter is devoted to the Later Fathers and Scotus Erigena. Having set forth the case in this view, the author proceeds (p. 147): “And now we are in a position to answer the question which may perhaps have occurred to the reader, as to why we find so little of definite theory on the Atonement among the Fathers, while one view very prevalent then has since completely passed away, and a great writer even says it is a matter on which we need not have any theory at all. Was their faith in Christ uncertain, or were they ashamed of the foolishness of the cross? The answer is not far to seek. To them, as to the Church in all ages, it was not the Atonement but the Incarnation which was the centre of Christian faith as of Christian life; the Jncarnatus was the key-note of their creed. The difference between their way of looking at the matter and that which came in with the

Reformation may be shortly decided as follows. By the Reformers the incarnation and earthly life of Christ is regarded only, or chiefly, as the necessary introduction to His atoning death; while the Fathers see in His death, not an isolated act, or even an isolated sacrifice, but the natural consummation of that one great act of self-devotion whose unbroken energy stretched from the Conception to the Cross.

The Blood that flowed on Calvary was indeed the price of redemption, but it could not be thought of apart from the Redeemer’s life; it was not so much the blood as the will of Him who shed it, that was the real oblation; His work of mediation was summed up but not exhausted in the act of dying; He was anointed for His priesthood in Mary’s womb; He is still a Priest in Heaven. In all the stages of that life, as in the closing sacrifice, the believer was to be associated, I might almost say identified, with his Lord; ‘on the cross was celebrated the oblation of our common humanity, as the faithful unite the oblation of themselves with the abiding sacrifice of the altar.”

In discussing the theories of the Reformation period, Mr. Oxenham gives an analysis of the theory of Grotius, which has so long determined one direction of orthodox thinking. He says: “Grotius begins by laying down the Catholic opinion, that God, wishing to benefit mankind, but being hindered by their sins, which deserved punishment, determined that Christ should pay the penalty for our sins, by willingly enduring the bitterest torments and a bloody death, in order that without prejudice to the exhibition of Dwine justice (salud divine justitiedemonstratione) we might through faith be delivered from — the penalty of eternal death. The reader will take note, that the words I have italicised contain the gist of the whole theory. In the first chapter, adopting the Aristotelian division of causes, the author lays down as the efficient cause of satisfaction, first God the Father who gave His Son, and secondly Christ who gave Himself for us. The material cause consists in the sufferings of Christ, both of soul and body, especially of soul, preceding death, and still more in His actual death. The formal cause is the payment of the penalty for our sins, which are expressly said to be imputed to Christ.” Mr. Oxenham adds: “In his zeal against Socinianism, he has reproduced some of

Notes. B57

the worst features of the Lutheran and Calvinistic systems, which helped to create it. The idea of justification, as a mere remission of punishment, the shocking notion of a literal imputation of our sins to Christ, with its immoral correlative of an imputation of His holiness to us, reappears at least in words.”

Mr. Oxenham’s book is of great value for purposes of reference, and as saving much time by presenting an historical view of the doctrine of the Atonement within a comparatively small compass.

Tue DOCTRINE OF HOLY SCRIPTURE RESPECTING THE ATONE-MENT. By Tuomas J. CRAwForD, D.D.

This is a very different book, being an original and independent examination of the Scripture testimony to the sacrificial work of Christ. In his Preface, Dr. Crawford gives the key of his work: “Whether as regards the truths which the Atonement embodies, the principles on which it rests, or the ends to which it is conducive, we have no reliable means of information beyond what God has given us in His Word.... Accordingly, I have chosen the inductive in preference to the ordinary dogmatic method of discussing this subject, believing the former to be not only the more satisfactory to an intelligent inquirer, but at the same time the more consistent with that reverence which is due to the oracles of God.” Closely adhering to his plan, Professor Crawford presents all the passages in the New Testament which speak of Christ (1) as “dying for sinners,’ (2) “dying for our sins,” (8) “bearing our sins,’ (4) as “made sin,” and “made a curse for us,” (5) “remission of sins,” and “deliverance from wrath;” he also gives all the passages which ascribe to the death of Christ (1) justification, and (2) redemption; the passages

R which speak of Christ (1) reconciling us to God, and (2) as a propitiation for sin; and passages which connect the sufferings of Christ with His intercession, and represent His mediation as procuring the Holy Spirit, and as obtaining for us eternal life. Having collated the Scripture testimony, Dr. Crawford states the result of his induction thus: (1) Christ is a Saviour; (2) the sufferings of Christ were sacrificial and vicarious; (3) Christ by His obedience to death reconciles us to God; (4) Christ is our Redeemer, and His death our ransom; (5) our sins were imputed to Christ; (6) the sufferings of Christ were penal in their character; (7) the Atonement originated in the love of God; (8) the Atonement secures sanctification as well as pardon; (9) the mediatorial work of Christ is complete and of unfailing efficiency; and (10) the benefits of the Atonement are freely offered to all who will receive them. In confirmation of his induction and argument as based upon the New Testament, Professor Crawford turns to the evidence of the Old Testament respecting the Atonement. In this division he discusses (1) the prophecies of the Old Testament respecting the sufferings of Christ, (2) the Levitical sacrifices, in their Divine institution and piacular character; and then proceeds to review the non-expiatory theories of Blair, Hofmann, Keil, and Young; and having done so he recurs to the Levitical sacrifices to show (1) the extent of their atoning efficacy, and (2) their typical reference to Christ. Having established what he believes to be a true view of the case, Dr. Crawford turns, with much ability and patience, to a review of various theories ‘respecting the sufferings of Christ which have been proposed as substitutes for the Catholic Doctrine of the Atonement; such as, (1) Martyrdom, (2) Subserviency to the resurrection of Christ, (3) Example, (4) Manifestation of the Divine character, (5) Manifestation of the love of God, (6) Arian or “Middle theory,” (7) Realistic theory as held by Maurice and Alford, (8) Self-sacrifice, (9) Theory of Robertson, Young, and Bushnell, and (10) Rectorial or governmental theory. Dr. Crawford, commenting upon those theories, makes four remarks : —

(1) Almost all the theories contain a portion of truth, though by no means the whole truth, as set forth in Holy Scripture, with reference to the subject in question; (2) The portion of truth which they contain has, to some extent, been unhappily neglected or overlooked by defenders of the Catholic doctrine; (3) Whatever truth may be contained in them is not in the least degree inconsistent with the Catholic doctrine, but may be maintained to the fullest extent along with it; (4) Whatever truth there may be in any of the theories to which we have been referring, is incapable of being’ maintained, either on reasonable or on Scriptural grounds, apart from the Catholic doctrine of the Atonement.

The concluding part of Dr. Crawford’s book is devoted to a review of objections to the Scriptural doctrine of the Atonement: (1) Alleged silence or reserve of Christ Himself respecting the Atonement; (2) Allegation that the Atonement is unnecessary; (3) That the Atonement derogates from the perfection of God; (4) That the Atonement is incredible because mysterious; (5) That the Atonement is injurious in its practical tendency.

There is perhaps no book in the English language which more fairly attempts to deal with the argument in all its vast circumference than Dr. Crawford’s. Whether the enlightened author had the highest qualifications for the treatment of such a theme may be doubted even by those who most admire his truly able and useful book. His reading was large, and his scholarship was worthy of his high position in the University of Edinburgh, but he seems to be wanting in that peculiar power which, whilst it reverently honours the Jeter, is unable to see beyond it, or to travel with holy and prayerful boldness the road which it indicates. He is often like a man who is content with the index finger without passing along the road, or up the hill, which it points out. No man can adequately discuss the doctrine of the Atonement who is not profoundly and characteristically pathetic in his deepest nature; not that his pathos need be verbally expressed in an argumentative treatise, but it may be felt, and its throbs will now and again make themselves known even in difficult criticism and high speculation. No merely able man can adequately discuss any gospel doctrine. With the heart man believeth, and with the heart man must expound. It would seem to be in this direction that Dr. Crawford is wanting, if im any. His love of justice, his consequent noble candour, his veneration, his industry, his information, will always entitle him to an honourable place in the most solemn of all controversies.

“Tue Lire anD Licut or Men.” An Essay by
JOHN YounGc, LL.D.

This book should be read along with Dr. Crawford’s. They simply take opposite views and move towards opposite conclusions. Dr. Young writes as a man who has undergone what to himself at least is a happy process of emancipation from old phraseologies and inadequate dogmas. “The favourite theological phraseology of an earlier period, and with it the scholastic, systematic treatment of religious truth, have grown distasteful, are now often unintelligible, and certainly are quite unappreciated. Men of free and wide cultivation, and of liberal and generous tendencies, with no disrespect to the existing sectional distributions of Christianity, have learned to generalise, or rather to universalise, the principles and the spirit of the New Testament.” “But the evangelical creed is not a thing to be named without deep respect, whether for its intrinsic character, or for the purposes it has served as a spiritual influence on the nations of Europe, and as a large educator of the popular mind.”

It is in this spirit that Dr. Young has written his book. From beginning to end it is without harshness and wilful misjudgment. It is earnest, even resolute and vehement on its own side, but never infallible and damnatory. Dr. Young is just homself in this book, not intelligent only and well instructed in grammar and history, but holy, gentle, melodious, and right beautiful and modest in soul. Dr. Young is the clearest English exponent of the Moral Theory of the Atonement. If any of my readers ask, What is the Moral Theory as distinguished from the Expiatory Theory? my instant answer is, Read Dr. Young’s “Life and Light of Men.” I cannot accept Dr. Young’s conclusions, but then Dr. Young cannot accept mine, and he is older, wiser, and better immensely than I am. So he may be right! Dr. Young views everything through the medium of love, hope, and great sympathy. He cannot damn. He is righteous, but he weeps when he condemns, and when the culprit turns off to go, Dr. Young says, “Come back and begin again!” It is very Christ-like, most woman-like, and lovely as the spirit of heaven. And yet Dr. Young can turn the logical wheel and torture an opponent skilfully. He can be severe for the space of one moment, but he is the tenderer for the strain. So the Doctor rejects the old orthodox Atonement, and makes it all Jove. God loves you and sent Jesus to tell you so, and to prove it, to die in proof of it, and to show you that all is right at home if you will only go back again and be contrite and believing. And this notion he elaborates with wonderful acuteness and spiritual power. My own

262 The Prwesthood of Chrost.

belief is, that all that is true in this theory is perfectly consistent with the view I have endeavoured to uphold. It is the blossom of fruit of which the expiatory doctrine is the root. Much heathenism has undoubtedly been imported into that theory; horrible and even blasphemous heathenism which ought to be cast out of the Church as a lie and a crime against God. But apart from all such spiritual outrage there is in the expiatory theory of the Atonement a strength, a moral completeness and grandeur, a foundation, not to be had in any other theory of the work of Christ, As I have already pointed out, so I hold still, if there was one thing more than another which the Jew did not require it was to be told that God loved him, that God was merciful and forgiving, and that repentance would secure pardon. No New Testament was needed for this. But the Jew did need to see the meaning of type and symbol, and to be taught above all things that Christ should suffer, and that without shedding of blood there was no remission of sin,

Dr. MACLEOD CAMPBELL’S WORK ON THE NATURE OF
THE ATONEMENT

Is undoubtedly marked by great ability. Dr. Campbell began as a member and minister of one of the most orthodox Churches in Christendom, but gradually drew away from some of its theological positions, and finally ceased to occupy its pulpits. His work is a spiritual biography in fact though not in form, and is on that account intensely interesting to students of psychology. Dr. John Young has the following note: “In a work of great beauty and truth, and the fruit of much spiritual experience, Mr. Campbell adheres to the central idea of the scholastic atonement. He fancies that in Christ’s awful sense of human sin, and His vicarious repentance on account of it, God found that satisfaction which His justice demanded, and on the ground of which He could righteously forgive. With great respect, I am unable to look on this as any other than a beautiful and pious illusion, but an illusion, a mere illusion.” To my own mind, Dr. Campbell’s book is heavily written and decidedly too laboured, both in thought and style, ever to impress the popular mind. It has, however, arrested and repaid the attention of many studious readers,

THE ATONEMENT. By R. W. Date, M.A.

This book consists of ten lectures, partly academical but mainly popular in style. In explaining his method, the author says: “In illustrating the testimony of our Lord Jesus Christ and of His apostles to the fact of the Atonement, my intention is simply to show that the Death of Christ is conceived and described as being the objective ground on which we receive the remission of sins. The premature attempt to construct a theory of the Atonement on the basis of those descriptions of the Death of Christ which represent it as a Ransom for us, or as a Propitiation for the sins of the world, or on phrases in which Christ is described as dying for us, or dying for our sins, has been the mischievous cause of most of the erroneous Theories by which the glory of the Fact has been obscured.” The first six lectures may be described as intensely Scriptural, and the remaining four as argumentative and speculative; and the distinction is so marked as almost to divide the book into two wholly different parts. The first six lectures are, from my point, simply invincible. Whoever wishes to see the whole testimony of the New Testament set forth with great care, with peculiar picturesqueness of language,

264 The Priesthood of Chrast.

and fervent energy, will find all he needs in these lectures. As literary compositions they are simply charming, and as specimens of patient investigation into the proper meaning of words and arguments they are eminently satisfactory. The reader feels that he is under the guidance of a thinker whose one object is to discover and glorify the truth, and he is soon brought to know that very acute and earnest reasoning can be conducted in a brilliant and fascinating style of display and expression. It gives me the most unfeigned pleasure to point out the Lecture on the Testimony of St. Paul as one of the most powerful and convincing papers I ever perused.

The seventh lecture is intended to confirm the preceding argument. The remaining lectures are upon The Remission of Sins, The relation of our Lord Jesus Christ to the Eternal Laws of Righteousness, and The relation of our Lord Jesus Christ to the Human Race. The general outline of the relation of the Death of Christ to the Remission of Sins, Mr. Dale attempts to state in the following propositions: —

1. The Death of Christ is the objective ground on which the sins of men are remitted, because it was an act of submission to the righteous authority of the Law by which the human race was condemned — a submission by One from whom on various grounds the act of submission derived transcendent moral significance, and because in consequence of the relation between Him and us. His life being our own — His submission is the expression of ours and carries ours with it. He was not our Representative in a sense which would imply that because He submitted to the just authority by which the penalties of sin are inflicted we are released from the obligations of submission. The sufferings, indeed, were His, that they might not: be ours; He endured them, that we might escape from them. But the moral act of Christ in submitting to those sufferings, while it remains for ever alone in its unique and awful grandeur, involves a similar moral act on the part of all who have “access” to God through Him.

A real submission to the righteousness of God in condemning us was necessary before the penalties of sin could be remitted. This submission was made by Christ; it was made for us, on our behalf, in our name. But we have a part init. In a real and not merely a technical sense the act is ours. It is ours because through our relation to Him it has made possible to us, though in an inferior form, a similar consent to the righteousness of the penalties which we have deserved. It is ours, for it is the transcendent expression and act of that eternal life in which we live, and which is perpetually revealed in our own character and history.

2. The Death of Christ is the objective ground on which the sins of men are remitted, because it rendered possible the retention or the recovery of our original and ideal relation to God through Christ which sin had dissolved, and the loss of which was the supreme penalty of transgression.

3. The Death of Christ is the objective ground on which the sins of men are remitted, because it involved the actual destruction of sin in all those who through faith recover their union with Him.

4. The Death of Christ is the objective ground on which the sins of men are remitted, because in His submission to the awful penalty of sin, in order to preserve or to restore our relations to the Father through Him, there was a revelation of the righteousness of God, which must otherwise have been revealed in the infliction of the penalties of sin on the human race. He endured the penalty instead of inflicting it.

Mr. Dale’s book cannot fail to do vital good. Its high spirituality, its tenderness of tone, its absolute candour in the treatment of opposing arguments, its sacred fire, all conspire to make it a book of superlative worth. I have no doubt whatever that Mr. Dale will ultimately modify some of his concluding propositions, and that he will see more beauty in the Moral Theory than is visible to him just now, but even that change will not detract from the value of his lectures. When I credit Mr. Dale with tenderness of tone, I do not intend to represent him as pathetic; in fact, there seems to be a distinct want of pathos in Mr. Dale: he is tender when he is, so to speak, bound down by the argument, so that he can account for his tears and defend them; but he is not overcome by his feelings and made to look at arguments through them. Then, too, his tenderness of tone comes partly from a certain semi-mystic element which now and again affects his thinking. He is fond of colour. A sunset would make him quiet. He responds to magnificence, and hence is very fond of “splendour,” “gorgeousness,” “purple clory,” “glowing anthems,” and “cherubim.” He has high veneration, and a quick ear for voices that come up from eternity beginning in thunder and ending in whispers that are mysterious. These things make him intellectually tender now and again, but the prevailing tone of his mind is argumentative, aggressive, and energetic. So sure am I of the principle that to understand a man’s doctrine you must understand the man himself, that I think it always worth while to form some opinion of the debater as well as of his argument. If you could hear Dr. Young and Mr. Dale on the same platform, you would see at once how they come to represent opposing theories of the Atonement. The individuality of each at once explains his conception and exposition of doctrine.

Dr. BUSHNELL’S books on the Atonement demand a careful reading. They represent with extraordinary ability the Moral view of the work of Christ. Dr. Bushnell brings to his work an enthusiasm almost unique. He began at what is understood to be the orthodox point; gradually he detached himself from it; finally he made himself the representative in America of the Moral view of the Atonement. Dr. Bushnell has never been afraid to correct himself, even at the expense of his temporary public humiliation; he publishes and withdraws, he declares and then modifies his views; he publishes a book and recalls half of it, and replaces that half by another. All his writing is vivid, incisive, and powerful. Now and then I cannot even guess his meaning, but generally he writes with a diamond, and makes you see what he is driving at as probably you never saw the same truth before.

LIFE IN Carist. By EDWARD WHITE.

This is a study of the Scripture Doctrine on the Nature of Man, the Objection of the Divine Incarnation, and the Conditions of Human Immortality. Mr. White’s book is by no means wholly upon the doctrine of the Atonement, though every argument seems to bear either directly or not very remotely upon it. Perhaps it is the most remarkable work that has been produced upon any theological topic by any school of thought for many years past. In my Judgment it is decidedly so. The book would have been more telling upon general readers if its contents had been more happily distributed, and if attention had not been chafed by continual reference to things of no immediate moment. Let me earnestly advise my readers to give this work a thorough perusal, if they would know what can be done in the way of Biblical exposition by a mind of great compass and remarkable critical acuteness.

There are many other books upon the Atonement in the English language, and many incidental discussions of the great theme. Maurice, Robertson, Stanley, Brooke, and others have contributed to its elucidation, and by the very variety and even antagonism of their labours it has been shown again and again that no one Theory of the Atonement can represent every aspect of the world-wide work of the Son of God.