II. The Doctrine of the Atonement from Anselm to the Reformation
Dogmengeschichte, I, pp. 379–395; Shedd, History of Christian Doctrine, II, pp. 203–272; Sheldon, History of Christian Doctrine, I, pp. 115–125, 251–258; Orr, Progress of Dogma, pp. 209–220;
Histories of Harnack, Seeberg, Loofs, Neander, Fisher, cf. Indices.
II. The Doctrine of the Atonement from Anselm to the Reformation The theological discussions in the five centuries between Gregory the Great and Anselm were of such a nature that they did not contribute much to the development of the doctrine of the atonement. With Anselm the systematic study of the doctrine of the atonement began.
He opens a new era in the history of this doctrine.
1. THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT IN ANSELM. Anselm of Canterbury made the first attempt at a harmonious and consistent representation of the doctrine of atonement. His Cur Deus Homo is an epoch-making book, a masterpiece of theological learning, in which the author combines metaphysical depth with clearness of presentation. The opening portion of the work testifies to the fact that at the time of its writing many minds were occupied with the question of the nature and necessity of the atonement. It also indicates that the problem of the atonement was generally approached from the Christological side as a question respecting the necessity of the incarnation. Several questions were raised at the time, such as the following: Could not God have saved man by a mere act of His omnipotence, just as easily as He could create the world?
Could not He, the merciful God, simply have pardoned the sin of man, without demanding satisfaction? And if a mediator was necessary, why did He choose His only-begotten Son for the work of mediation, and not some other rational being? Once the incarnation was admitted, it was felt that it could only find its explanation in some stupendous exigency. This question respecting the incarnation explains the title of Anselm's work.
The Alpha and Omega of the position of Anselm is the absolute necessity of the atonement for the redemption of man. He deliberately rejects as unsatisfactory the Recapitulation Theory, the Ransom-to-Satan Theory, and the idea that the death of Christ was merely a manifestation of the love of God to man, since these do not explain the necessity of the atonement adequately. In his opinion the absolute necessity of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ must be grounded in an immanent and necessary attribute of the divine nature. He finds the ultimate ground for it in the honour of God.
The exact position of Anselm can be understood only in the light of his conception of sin and satisfaction. As a creature of God man was under obligation to subject his will absolutely and entirely to the divine will, and when he refused this in a spirit of revolution, he dishonoured God and thus contracted a debt. God was robbed of His honour and this must be restored in some way. His mercy could not simply overlook sin, for this would be an irregularity and an injustice. There were two and only two ways in which the divine honour could be vindicated, namely by punishment or by satisfaction. God did not pursue the way of punishment, since this would have spelled ruin for the human race and would have defeated
His very purpose. He chose the way of satisfaction, which included two things: (a) that man should now render to God the willing obedience which he owed Him; and (b) that he should make amends for the insult to God's honour by paying something over and above the actual debt. But since even the smallest sin, as committed against an infinite God, outweighs the whole world and all that is not God, and the amends must be proportionate, it follows that these are beyond the power of man. A gift—and Anselm looks upon satisfaction as a gift rather than as a punishment—surpassing all that is not God can only be God. God only could make true reparation, and His mercy prompted Him to make it through the gift of His Son.
It was not sufficient that the one rendering satisfaction should be God; He had to be man as well, one of the human race that contracted the debt of sin, but a man without sin, who was not
himself burdened with debt. Only the God-man could satisfy these requirements and thus do justice to the honour of God.
It was necessary for the God-man to render the obedience which man failed to render to God. But this was not sufficient to maintain the honour of God, for in doing this He did nothing more than. His duty as man, and this could not constitute merit on His part.
However, as a sinless being He was not under obligation to suffer and die. This was entirely voluntary on His part, and by submitting to bitter sufferings and a shameful death in the faithful discharge of His duty to His Father, He brought infinite glory to God. This was a work of supererogation, which could accrue to the benefit of mankind, and which more than counterbalanced the demerits of sin.
Justice required that such a free gift should be rewarded. But there is nothing which the Father can give the Son, for He needs nothing.
Therefore the reward accrues to the benefit of man and assumes the form of the forgiveness of sins and of future blessedness for all those who live according to the commandments of the Gospel.
The theory of Anselm marks an important advance in the development of the doctrine of the atonement. Its real value lies in the fact that it establishes the objective character of the atonement and bases its necessity on the immutable nature of God, which makes it impossible that He should permit the violation of His honour to go unpunished. It is defective, however, as compared with the later penal substitutionary doctrine, in several points: (a) It erroneously represents punishment and satisfaction as alternatives from which God Could choose. (b) It has no place for the idea that in His suffering Christ endured the penalty of sin, since it regards the sufferings of Christ as a voluntary tribute to the honour of God, a superfluous merit which served to compensate for the demerits of others. This is really the Roman Catholic idea of penance applied to the work of Christ. (c) It is inconsistent in so far as it starts out with the principle of "private law" or custom, according to which the injured party may demand whatever satisfaction he sees fit, and then, in order to establish the absolute necessity of the atonement
passes over to the standpoint of public law. (d) It is one-sided in basing redemption exclusively on the death of Christ, and denying the atoning significance of His life. And (e) it represents the application of the merits of Christ to the sinner as a merely external transaction. There is no hint of the mystical union of Christ and believers.
2. ABELARD'S THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. Abelard's theory has little in common with that of Anselm, except the denial that a price was paid to Satan. The death of Christ is not regarded as a ransom, not even as a ransom offered to God. Abelard rejects the Anselmian view that God was reconciled by the death of His Son.
God could not take such pleasure in the death of His only-begotten Son as to make it the ground for the forgiveness of sins. Moreover, no such ground was needed, since God is love and is quite ready to forgive irrespective of any satisfaction. All He requires is penitance in the sinner; and He is ready and even eager to pardon the penitent. At the same time it may be said that we are justified and reconciled to God by the blood of Christ. Christ revealed the love of God by assuming our nature and by persevering as our teacher and example even unto death. This great love calls for and awakens a responsive love in the heart, of the sinner, and this is the ground for the forgiveness of sins Luke 7:47. The newly awakened love redeems us by liberating us from the power of sin and by leading us into the liberty of the sons of God, so that we obey God freely from the motive of love. Thus the forgiveness of sins is the direct result of the love kindled in our hearts, and only indirectly the fruit of the death of Christ.
This theory brought Abelard into difficulty in connection with the common doctrine of the forgiveness of sins through baptism. If the love that is kindled in our hearts by the death of Christ justifies us, why is baptism still necessary unto salvation? To this question
Abelard replies that, unless baptism or martyrdom follows the kindling of this love, it must be concluded that perseverance has been lacking. This means that the remission of sins does not really
take place until baptism is administered, even though love was kindled before. Particularly in the case of children Abelard had to admit that the remission of sin was independent of the love kindled in the heart. Loofs correctly remarks that Abelard's new view could not be maintained without more changes than he was prepared to make. It is probably due to this fact that he sometimes speaks of Christ as having borne our sins, and of His death as a sacrifice for sin.
In distinction from Anselm's doctrine of the atonement, this theory of Abelard is thoroughly subjective. It is sadly lacking in that moral depth and inner coherence that is so characteristic of Anselm's view.
We have in it a typical representation of what is today called the Moral, or Moral Influence Theory of the atonement. It proceeds on the false principle that love is the central and all-controlling attribute in God, and ignores the demands of His justice and holiness.
Moreover, it furnishes no adequate reason for the sufferings of Christ. If God could have forgiven sins without demanding satisfaction, why did He give up His Son to bitter sufferings and a shameful death? Was this not a very dubious revelation of love, seeing that He could have awakened the sinner's love in many other ways? This theory robs the sufferings of Christ of their redemptive significance and reduces Him to a mere moral teacher, who influences men by His teachings and by His example.
3. REACTION TO ABELARD IN BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX.
Bernard of Clairvaux criticized Abelard's theory, but did not present one of his own. Neither did he accept the view of Anselm … He took
Abelard to task especially for his rationalistic interpretation of Christianity, and maintained that the example of Christ makes us saints just as little as the example of Adam made us sinners. He was quite willing to admit the greatness and importance of the example of the love of Christ, but only as founded in His redemptive work. In fact, it may be said that he had this in common with Abelard, that he stressed the love of Christ manifested in His human life and passion;
but he saw in this not merely a revelation of the love of God, but the saving manifestation of Christ's own divinity.
This idea of Bernard may be regarded as the Western counterpart of the doctrine of Irenæus and Athanasius, that the incarnation was the transforming entrance of God into humanity. It should be observed, however, that he did not emphasize the physical result of the incarnation, as bringing life and immortality, but its psychological effect, as inspiring a patience and love similar to that of Christ. At the same time he did not rest satisfied with this purely subjective idea, but firmly believed in an objective redemption as the basis for the subjective. The Father did not require the death of His Son, but accepted it as an oblation: and now it serves to redeem us from sin, death, and the devil, and to reconcile us to God.
4. SYNCRETISTIC VIEWS OF THE ATONEMENT. In such
Schoolmen as Peter the Lombard, Bonaventura, and Thomas Aquinas, we find traces of the influence of both Anselm and Abelard.
They adopt elements from both, but do not succeed in combining them into an inner unity. a. Peter the Lombard and Bonaventura. Peter the Lombard. takes his startingpoint in the merits of Christ. By His pious life Christ merited for Himself freedom from suffering and glorification, and when he entered into sufferings, and death, He did it voluntarily, not for Himself but for sinners. He thereby merited for them redemption from sin, punishment, and the devil, and admittance to paradise. Up to this point the train of thought is Anselmian. But when the question is asked, how the death of Christ effects this deliverance, the answer is that it reveals to us the love of God. By so great a pledge of love to us, we are moved and prompted to love God, and are thus released from sin and made righteous. And when we are free from sin, we are also free from the devil. b. Bonaventura. According to Bonaventura it was the required satisfaction that made the incarnation necessary. A simple creature
was not able to make satisfaction for the whole human race, and it was not proper that a creature of another race should be taken for that purpose. Hence it was necessary that the person rendering satisfaction should be both God and man. This satisfaction was rendered by the merits of Christ, which He won by acting and suffering. To make satisfaction is to pay the honour that is due to God, and this is done by the sufferings of Christ as the most appropriate means for placating God. Thus the righeousness as well as the mercy of God is displayed. With this Anselmian idea, however, the Abelardian is combined, that the passion of Christ was also the most fitting means, since it was best suited to arouse in man a responsive love to God. By developing the thought of Christ's relation to the Church as that of the Head to the members of the body,
Bonaventura explains far better than Anselm had done, how the blessings of Christ are transferred to believers. c. Thomas Aquinas. The greatest of the Schoolmen was Thomas
Aquinas. He absorbed the thoughts of his predecessors more completely than any other mediæval theologian. In view of this it is not surprising that we find in him traces of both the Anselmic and Abelardian views, and that there is no unity in his representation of the work of Christ.
There is a representation that reminds us of both Irenæus and Abelard. The fulness of all grace dwells in the human nature of Christ. and because He is now the Head of the human race, His perfection and virtue overflow to the members of the body in so far as they are willing to belong to the head. Christ as the new man is the principle and the leaven of the new humanity. The work of redemption is thus considered from the point of view that makes
Christ the teacher and pattern of the human race by His teachings, acts, and sufferings. These sufferings reveal more particularly the love of God and awaken a responsive love in the hearts of men.
However, there is also a more Anselmic line of thought, and this is generally followed in the Roman Catholic Church. Aquinas maintains
that redemption was not absolutely necessary, since God might have permitted mankind to perish in its sins; yet he regards it as most fitting in view of all the attributes of God. Again, he is of the opinion that God could have redeemed man without demanding any adequate satisfaction. He admits that a human judge could not simply overlook a violation of the law, but asserts that God could do this in the case of sinful humanity, since He is Himself the source of justice and was also the injured party in the case under consideration. He Himself determined by an act of His will what was right in this case, and could very well have remitted sin without satisfaction, since this would have wronged no one. God chose to demand satisfaction, however, and this made the incarnation of the Son of God necessary, because a mere man could not atone for sin committed against an infinite God.
The merits of Christ extended throughout the whole time of His earthly existence, so that every action of His life contributed to the atonement of man's sin. And this was really all that was necessary to render to God condign satisfaction. The passion and death of Christ were, strictly speaking, not needed. There were special reasons of congruity, however, why God wanted full redemption to be wrought by the passion and death of Christ, namely, that this was in keeping with both His mercy and justice, and at the same time ensured the greatest possible effect. The death of Christ reveals the great love of God, sets man an example of obedience, humility, constancy, and so on; it not only delivers from sin, but also merits justifying grace and eternal bliss, and offers a strong motive for refraining from sin.
The passion of Christ effects the salvation of sinners in four different ways: (a) by meriting the blessings of salvation, which are passed on to sinners; (b) as a superabundant satisfaction well-pleasing to God, the benefits of which are communicated to the faithful in virtue of the mystical union; (c) as a voluntary sacrifice with which God was delighted; and (d) by redeeming sinners from slavery and punishment. Though man was reduced to spiritual slavery by the devil, the latter had no rightful claims, and therefore did not receive
the ransom. The superabundant satisfaction of Christ does not save man, however, apart from baptism and penance; and the reason for this lies in the necessary "configuration" of the members to the Head in the mystical body of Jesus Christ.
While these views of Thomas Aquinas reveal considerable similarity with those of Anselm, they are in some respects inferior and in others superior to them. They are inferior, since they do not manifest the same logical coherence and fail to ground the necessity of the atonement in the divine nature, making, it dependent simply on the will of God, which might have chosen another way and might even have dispensed with satisfaction altogether. This element of arbitrariness readily became a bridge to the acceptilation theory of Duns Scotus. They are superior, however, in their approach to the idea of penal satisfaction, that is, of satisfaction through punishment; in their greater emphasis on the merits of Christ, in which the later distinction between the active and passive obedience of Christ is anticipated; and in the introduction of the idea of the mystical union to account for the transmission of the merits of Christ to believers.
5. DUNS SCOTUS ON THE ATONEMENT. While Aquinas represents the Dominican theology, which is the official theology of the Church of Rome, Duns Scotus may be regarded as the founder of the Franciscan theology. His work is primarily critical and negative.
He wrote no Summa like Aquinas, but incorporated his views on the atoning work of Christ in his Commentaries on the Sentences of Lombardus. We may proceed on the assumption that he shares the views of Lombardus where he does not correct them. In this way it is possible to obtain a somewhat more positive construction of his view of the atonement than would otherwise be available. He differs in some important points from his predecessors.
He makes the atonement itself, the character it assumes, and the effect which it has, depend altogether on the arbitrary will of God. He asserts that there was no inherent necessity for rendering
satisfaction. This was necessary only because God willed it; but it was not necessary that He should will it; this was altogether a contingent act of God. Furthermore, he holds that, even if the necessity of satisfaction were granted, it would not follow that it had to assume the exact form which it actually took. It was not necessary that the one rendering it should be God, or should be greater than the whole creation. One pious act of Adam might have served to atone for his first sin. Again, he does not consider it capable of proof that satisfaction had to be rendered by a man. God might have accepted the deed of an angel as a sufficient atonement. It all depended on the arbitrary will of God.
However, God foreordained from eternity the passion of Christ as the means for the salvation of the predestinated. This passion has a peculiar value and a special efficacy only because it was foreordained as the means of salvation, and because God was willing to accept it as effectual. Duns denies the infinite value of the merits of Christ, because they were merits of the human nature, which is after all finite. By an act of His will, however, God determined to accept them as sufficient. A merit that is not at all commensurate with the debt owed is willingly accepted by God. This theory is generally called the Acceptilation Theory, but according to Mackintosh (Historic
Theories of the Atonement, p. 110 f.) should really be called the Acceptation Theory of the atonement.
Questions for Further Study: Does the Roman Catholic Church follow Anselm in maintaining the absolute necessity of the atonement? How do you account for it that Anselm represents the honour rather than the penal justice of God as demanding satisfaction? What was his conception of sin? Where did he get the idea that sin must be followed by either punishment or satisfaction?
How can it be accounted for that he centers his thought of merit exclusively on the death of Christ? Why is his theory sometimes called the "Commercial Theory"? In what sense did Abelard regard the atonement as necessary? Why is his theory called subjective? Is it proper to speak of the so-called subjective theories as theories of