idea of an objective Atonement was invented in order to satisfy the exigencies of rigid theories concerning the Divine justice. In these days the great theologians of the Church have an evil name. It is imagined that in their speculations on the character of God, and on His relations to mankind, they forgot that He has revealed Himself as our Father, and that Love is the life and glory of all His moral perfections. Theology—this seems to be a common opinion-was merciless in its judgment of human nature, exaggerated the evil of sin, and refused to recognize its palliations. It ascribed to God its own gloomy and uncompassionate spirit, and conceived of Him as filled with fierce anger against the human race. Then it became necessary to discover some means of allaying His wrath, and therefore the Death of Christ was represented as the ground on which the sins of the world are forgiven. Or, the formalities and harsh severities of human law were attributed to the Divine government of the universe, and the transfer of the sins of the world to Christ was a clumsy invention, in order to make it appear that the penalties of the law are inflicted, although the sins of the guilty are remitted. Arguments in support of the idea of an objective Atonement, drawn from the teaching of Christ and of His Apostles, are regarded as mere special pleading, intended to sustain a dogma which has been constructed to satisfy the artificial necessities of cumbrous and unspiritual theological systems. All this is precisely the reverse of the truth. Theologians did not invent the Idea of an objective Atone ment in order to complete the symmetry of their theological theories. They have invented theory after theory, in order to find a place for the Idea. That the Death of Christ is the ground on which sin is remitted has been one of their chief difficulties. To explain it, they have been driven to the most monstrous and incredible speculations. Had they been able to deny it, their work would have been infinitely simplified. The Idea is not the creation of dogmatic theology, nor does it depend upon dogmatic theology for its hold on the heart and faith of the Church. In the age immediately succeeding that of the Apostles, the Christian Church appears to have felt no curiosity about the manner in which the Death of Christ accomplishes human redemption; or, rather, the forms in which the great truth had been represented by the Apostles themselves were still sufficiently fresh and unworn to satisfy the practical necessities of the Christian life. Converts from heathenism as well as converts from Judaism were familiar with the ceremonial of sacrifice, and it was sufficient for them to know that the Death of Christ was a sacrifice for their sins. Slaves were constantly bought and sold and ransomed; and when they were told that Christ gave His life a ransom for them, they had a very vivid apprehension of the greatness of the deliverance they owed to Him. The Fact that Christ died for us, and died for our sins, was an article of faith, but they had no Theory about it. I Clement exhorts the Corinthians to "reverence the Lord Jesus Christ, whose blood was given for us;" 1 he reminds them that "On account of the love He bore us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God; His flesh for our flesh, and His soul for our souls." 2 Rahab, who for some inexplicable reason is selected, both by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews and oy St. James, as an illustrious example of faith, reappears, and the scarlet cord which she was to hang in her window is made the symbol and prophecy of our deliverance from destruction by the blood of Christ: "Thus they made it manifest that redemption should flow through the blood of the Lord, to all them that believe and hope in God.” 3 That Rahab's scarlet cord should have been used as a type of the blood of Christ, is a very striking proof of the powerful hold which the idea of redemption through Christ's Death must have had upon the mind of Clement; if indeed this fanciful and even grotesque allusion originated with him, and was not one of the "commonplaces" of Christian thought in his time. Polycarp greatly rejoiced that the faith of the Philippians was still strong, and was bringing forth fruit to "our Lord Jesus Christ, who for our sins suffered even unte death." + He reminds them that their "hope" and "the earnest of [their] righteousness" is "Jesus Christ, 1 1 Epistle, c. xxi. 2 Ibid. c. xlix. 3 Ibid c. xii, "Who bore our sins in His own body on the tree, who did not sin, neither was guile found in His mouth, but endured all things for us, that we might live in Him." He charges them also to imitate the fidelity and patience of Ignatius, and Zosimus, and Rufus, and of others among themselves who had been martyred for the faith; and of St. Paul, and of the rest of the Apostles, for they "have not run in vain ;" and they "Are [now] in their due place in the presence of the Lord, with whom also they suffered. For they loved not this present world, but Him who died for us, and for our sakes was raised again by God from the dead." 2 In the epistle ascribed to Barnabas, but which could hardly have been written by him, there is language of the same kind. Once, indeed, he advances a step in the speculative direction, for he says:— "If therefore the Son of God, who is Lord [of all things], and who will judge the living and the dead, suffered, that His stroke might give us life, let us believe that the Son of God could not have suffered except for our sakes.” 3 What life and force remained in the apostolic conception of the Death of Christ, after the Apostles had passed away but before the age of speculation began, may be seen in the noble passage often quoted from the Epistle to Diognetus: "When our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and love-how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity 2 Ibid. c. ix. I against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us -He himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the Holy One for transgressors, the Blameless One for the wicked, the Righteous One for the unrighteous, the Incorruptible One for the corruptible, the Immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other One was it possible that we, the wicked and the ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation ! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single Righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors." I But it was impossible for the simplicity of the apostolic tradition to continue unaffected much longer by the rising intellectual activity of the Church. At the close of the second century, and the beginning of the third, the attempt was made by Irenæus in the West, and by Origen in the East, to give some reply to the questions which were necessarily raised by the language in which the Church had been taught to speak of the Death of Christ, and by the faith which that language expressed. It is no part of my intention to sketch, even in outline, the wayward and perplexed movements of speculative thought which then began, and which, at the end of sixteen hundred years, have not yet arrived at any satisfactory conclusion. What I am anxious to illustrate is the fact which is often forgotten, but which is equally certain and obvious, that the Church did not come to believe in the objective value of the Death of 1 Epistle to Diognetus, chap. ix. The translation of this passage, and of the preceding passages from the Apostolic Fathers, is that given in vol. i. of the Ante-Nicene Library, published by Messrs. Clark, of Edinburgh, and edited by Dr. ALEXANDER ROBERTS and Dr. JAMES DONALDSON. |