III. The Doctrine of the Atonement in the Period of the Reformation
atonement? Does Abelard give a sufficient explanation of the sufferings and death of Christ? What is the great objection to the view of Duns Scotus? What remains of the merits of Christ in his view? What is the difference between acceptilation and acceptation?
In what respect does the view of Thomas Aquinas mark an advance on that of Anselm?
Literature: Mackintosh, Historic Theories of the Atonement, pp. 117– 148; Mozley, The Doctrine of the Atonement, pp. 125–140; Franks, A History of the Doctrine of the Work of Christ, I, pp. 147–328; Welch,
Anslem and His Work, particularly pp. 172–184; Otten, A Manual of the History of Dogmas, II, pp. 201–213; McGiffert, A History of Christian Thought, II, pp. 185–305; Seeberg, History of Doctrines, II, pp. 66–74, 110–114; 156–160; Loofs, Dogmengeschiedenis, pp. 260–
264; Thomasius, Dogmengeschichte, II, pp. 95–115; Neander, History of Christian Dogmas, II, pp. 514–521, 580–584; Shedd,
History of Christian Doctrines, II, pp. 273–320; Sheldon, History of Christian Doctrines, I, pp. 361–370; Orr, Progress of Dogma, pp.
220–233; Fisher, History of Christian Doctrines, pp. 216–228.
III. The Doctrine of the Atonement in the Period of the Reformation The doctrine of the atonement did not constitute one of the subjects of debate between the Reformers and the Roman Catholic Church.
Both regarded the death of Christ as a satisfaction for sin, and a satisfaction of infinite value. Their differences concerned primarily the subjective application of the work of Christ. Yet there was a difference of emphasis even in connection with the atonement. The Reformers moved along definite lines in fundamental agreement with Anselm, though differing from him in some details, while the Roman Catholic Church reflected the uncertainty and
indeterminateness of the scholastic era, though in the main agreeing with Thomas Aquinas.
1. THE REFORMERS IMPROVING ON THE DOCTRINE OF
ANSELM. There is substantial agreement between the Reformers and Anselm. Both maintain the objective nature of the atonement and both regard it as a necessity. They differed, however, as to the nature of this necessity. Anselm speaks of this as absolute, while some of the Reformers regard it as relative or hypothetical. Speaking of the requirement that the Mediator should be both God and man,
Calvin says: "If the necessity be inquired into (the very question of Anselm), it was not what is commonly termed simple or absolute, but flowed from the divine decree on which the salvation of mankind depended. What was best for us, our most merciful Father determined." Institutes II. 12. 1. They are all agreed, however, that the atonement through the sufferings and death of Christ is most in harmony with divine wisdom and highly appropriate. And it is certainly unfair to say that Calvin, like Duns Scotus, makes the atonement dependent on the arbitrary will of God. He knows of no indeterminate will in God, but only of a will that is determined by the whole complex of His attributes, and duly emphasizes the fact that the atonement in Christ fully satisfies the justice of God.
In several points the doctrine of the atonement, as developed by the Reformers, is superior to its Anselmian form. While Anselm regards sin primarily as an infringement on the honour of God, the Reformers look upon it first of all as transgression of the law of God and therefore as guilt rather than as an insult. And while the former views the atonement in the death of Christ as a superabundant gift to God in vindication of His honour, the latter think of it as a penal sacrifice to satisfy the justice of God. Thus the atonement is lifted out of the sphere of private rights into that of public law.
This means that the Reformers also rejected the Anselmian alternative "satisfaction or punishment", and pointed out that the one does not exclude the other, but that the satisfaction rendered
through the sacrifice of Christ was satisfaction through punishment.
In other words, they stressed the fact that the sufferings of Christ were penal and vicarious.
Again, they went beyond Anselm in distinguishing clearly between active and passive obedience in the mediatorial work of Christ, and in recognizing the former as well as the latter as a part of the atoning work of Christ. The God-man satisfied the demands of the divine justice, not merely by His sufferings and death, but also by obedience to the law in its federal aspect. His atonement consisted not only in making amends for past transgressions, but also in keeping the law as the condition of the covenant of works. As the last Adam He did what the first Adam failed to do.
Finally, they also surpassed Anselm in their conception of the manner in which the merits of Christ were passed on to sinners.
Anselm's view of this had a rather external and commercial aspect.
Aquinas improved on this by stressing the significance of the mystical union as the means of transferring the blessings of salvation to those who stood in living relationship to Jesus Christ. He failed, however, to give due prominence to the receptive activity of faith.
The Reformers shared his opinion respecting the great importance of the mystical union, but in addition directed the attention to that conscious act of man by which he appropriates the righteousness of Christ—the act of faith. They were very careful, however, not to represent faith as the meritorious cause of justification.
2. THE SOCINIAN CONCEPTION OF THE ATONEMENT. A
formidable attack was made on the doctrine of the Reformers by Socinus. He began with an attempt to remove the very foundation on which it was based, namely, the idea of justice in God as understood by Anselm and the Reformers. He denied the presence of any such justice in God "as requires absolutely and inexorably that sin be punished." That perpetual and constant justice by which He is characterized is merely His moral equity and rectitude, by virtue of which there is no depravity or iniquity in any of His works. The
justice which is commonly so called and which is opposed to mercy is not an immanent attribute of God, but only the effect of His will. This also holds for that mercy of God which is opposed to justice. It is not an internal quality in God, but is merely an effect of His free choice.
Such mercy does not prevent Him from punishing anyone; neither does such justice keep Him from pardoning whom He pleases, and that without satisfaction of its claims.
The burden of Socinus' criticism is to the effect that it is inconsistent to combine the grace of God and the merits of Christ as the ground of forgiveness and reconciliation. It is possible to maintain one of two things: either that God forgives freely, or that He forgives for the sake of Christ; but you cannot say both, for they are mutually exclusive. Of the two alternatives he chooses the former, namely, that God forgives freely. He also holds that, since guilt is personal, substitution in penal matters is impossible; and that, even if it were allowable, it cannot be said that Christ bore the exact penalty of the law, since this would mean that He died as many eternal deaths as there are sinners. And yet he did not even suffer one endless death, but only finite pain. Moreover, Socinus maintains that the ideas of satisfaction and imputation are self-contradictory. If Christ rendered complete satisfaction, that settles the matter by setting the world free. It is inconsistent to make the enjoyment of its fruits dependent on divine imputation and on the faith of man.
Socinus never tires of saying that the forgiveness of sins is an act of pure mercy, simply on the basis of repentance and obedience. The only conditions are sorrow for sin and an earnest desire to obey the law. He realized, however, that he had to give some explanation of the unique significance of Jesus, whose saving work was really excluded by his system. He says that Christ saves sinners by revealing to them the way of faith and obedience as the way to eternal life; by giving them an example of true obedience both in his life and in his death and by inspiring them to a similar life; by giving a concrete representation of obedience as the way of life in an obedience unto death followed by the resurrection; and by bestowing
eternal life, by virtue of the power received at the resurrection, on all those that attach themselves to Him in faith. God gave Him this power as a reward for His obedience. This theory establishes no direct connection between the death of Christ and the salvation of sinners. The death of Christ did not atone for our sin, neither did it move God to pardon sin. The forgiveness of sins depends exclusively on the mercy of God. But because Christ received the power to bestow eternal life on believers immediately after His death, Socinus considers it possible to maintain that this death expiated our sins.
The Socinian doctrine is really nothing but a concoction of several heresies condemned by the early Church; a revival of ancient
Pelagianism with its belief in the inherent goodness and spiritual ability of man; of the old Adoptionist doctrine, making Christ as to His human nature a Son of God by adoption; of the Moral Influence theory of the atonement with its emphasis on the exemplary life of Christ; and of the Scotist doctrine of an arbitrary will in God. It found little favor even among those who opposed the penal substitutionary doctrine of the atonement. And this is no wonder in view of the fact that it is thoroughly rationalistic, a mere abstract play of human logic that fails altogether to do justice to the facts revealed in the Word of God and experienced in the lives of the redeemed.
3. THE GROTIAN THEORY OF THE ATONEMENT. This theory really represents a middle course between the doctrine of the Reformers and the Socinian view. Grotius himself evidently did not so consider it, for he entitled his work, Defense of the Catholic Faith
Concerning the Satisfaction of Christ Against Faustus Socinus of Siena. It is the work of an able jurist who, on the basis of Roman law, to which Socinus appealed, points out several flaws in the latter's arguments. At the same time he fails to meet the most important criticism of Socinus on the doctrine of the Reformers, namely, that Christ did not and could not really bear the penalty of the law imposed on sinners. In fact, he himself abandons this idea and broaches a new theory. He maintains that there is no dominant quality of distributive justice in God which demands that the
requirements of the law be met in every particular, and which, in case of transgression, makes full satisfaction by punishment imperative. The law with which the sinner is concerned is not a transcript of the inherent righteousness of God, but a positive law (as opposed to natural law), a product of the divine will, by which God is in no way bound and which He can alter or abrogate as He pleases.
Both the law itself and its penalty can be modified or even abolished altogether by the Ruler of the universe.
While God certainly intended this law to be valid and binding, He reserved the right to relax it, if He should deem this best for some important reason. This is the fundamental idea which Grotius applies in his theory of the atonement. In strict justice the sinner deserved death, even eternal death; but as a matter of fact that sentence is not strictly executed, for believers are free from condemnation. A relaxation takes place: the penalty is dispensed with, and that without strict satisfaction. Grotius indeed speaks of Christ as rendering satisfaction, but this should not be understood in the strict sense of an exact equivalent of the penalty due to man. It is only a nominal equivalent, something which God is pleased to accept as such. "This act of the Father," says Grotius, "so far as it relates to the law is relaxation, but so far as it relates to the criminal is remission." According to the doctrine of the Reformers there is such a relaxation on the part of the Supreme Judge in the adoption of the principle of vicarious substitution, but not in the substitution that is made; this is a real and not a mere nominal equivalent. Grotius extends the principle to both. The sufferings of Christ were only a nominal equivalent for the sufferings due to the human race. Grotius disclaims that his theory is a theory of acceptilation, for this, according to him, denotes an act by which a creditor, without any compensation whatsoever, absolutely remits an indebtedness.
But now the question naturally arises, Why did not God simply abrogate the law, seeing that this was within His power? Why was it necessary at all that Christ should suffer? Why was not the penalty remitted outright? Grotius answers that God as the Ruler of the
universe had to maintain order in His great realm. It would not have been safe for Him to remit sin without revealing in some way the inviolable nature of the law and His holy displeasure against sin.
Says Shedd: "The sufferings and death of the Son of God are an exemplary exhibition of God's hatred of moral evil, in connection with which it is safe and prudent to remit that penalty, which as far as God and the divine attributes are concerned, might have been remitted without it." The necessity of the atonement is therefore based on the interests of the moral government of the universe.
Hence the theory is called the Governmental Theory of the Atonement.
On the one hand the theory of Grotius shows some leanings to the doctrine of the Reformers. It has at least some appearance of teaching an objective atonement, and maintains that the atonement was necessary to safeguard the moral government of the universe, a consideration which occupies a secondary place in the doctrine of the Reformers. On the other hand it also has affinity with the Socinian theory. Both deny that the satisfaction of Christ was required by the nature and attributes of God, and was a full equivalent for the penalty of sin. It is perfectly evident that, according to Grotius, the death of Christ is merely exemplary and not at all retributive, while the Reformers claim that it is both. And finally, on this theory the sufferings of Christ merely serve the purpose of preventing future sins, and do not really atone for past sin.
4. THE ARMINIAN VIEW OF THE ATONEMENT. This took shape after Grotius had published his work, and the two theologians that were most active in its construction were Curcellæus and Limborch.
They did not adopt the Grotian scheme, though they joined him in the attempt to sail in between the Scylla of the Socinians and the Charybdis of the Church doctrine. In line with the Reformers they based the necessity of the atonement on the divine nature rather than on the interests of the moral order, though they failed to carry the idea through with logical consistency.
It is quite characteristic of the Arminian view that it represents the death of Christ as a sacrificial offering, but at the same time maintains that this sacrifice should not be regarded as the payment of a debt, nor as a complete satisfaction of justice. It is rather somewhat of a concomitant or a conditio sine qua non of the forgiveness of sins. In both the Old Testament and the New God sees fit to connect the manifestation of his pardoning grace with the antecedent death of a sacrifice. The sufferings and death of Christ are regarded as penal and judicial, and therefore as of the nature of punishment. This does not mean, however, that He endured what man deserved to endure, but only that by a divine appointment His sacrificial death took the place of a penalty, and as such had the effect of reconciling God to man and procuring the forgiveness of sins. This means that the death of Christ is not regarded as a substituted penalty, which is a strict equivalent (the view of the Reformers), but as a substitution for a penalty, which may be of inferior worth. It is spoken of as a satisfaction of benevolence. On this point the Arminians are quite in agreement with Grotius.
They have several objections to the officially adopted doctrine of the atonement, the most important of which may be stated as follows:
(a) Christ did not endure the full penalty of sin, since He did not suffer eternal death, either in time or in degree. There was no endless suffering in His case, neither was there absolute despair. (b) If Christ completely atoned for sin, there is nothing left for divine grace to accomplish. If justice is satisfied, the remission of sin can no longer be a matter of divine compassion. And (c) if Christ rendered full satisfaction, God has no right to demand faith and obedience, nor to punish the sinner, if he fails to obey, for it is unjust to exact double punishment for one and the same sin.
Moreover, they regard the atonement of Christ as general or universal, which means that he "made an atonement for the sins of mankind in general, and of every individual in particular." God sent
Christ into the world, and Christ offered Himself willingly for the purpose of saving every individual of the human race. But while the
atonement is universal in the divine intention, it is not universally effective, since many are lost. This partial failure is ascribed to the obstinacy of the sinner in refusing the offered atonement and defeating the divine intention. The effective application of the atonement depends ultimately on the sinner's will, which can and does in many cases defeat the very purpose of God.
In opposition to this Arminian error the Synod of Dort took the position that the atonement of Christ, though quite sufficient for the salvation of all men, was nevertheless intended only for those to whom it is effectively applied, in other words, for the elect.
Moreover, it maintained that the effectual application of the atonement does not, ultimately, depend on the sinner's decision, but on the divine determination to exert special grace. By the power of the Holy Spirit the atonement of Christ is made effective in the hearts and lives of all those for whom Christ shed His blood. They are all saved, and they owe their salvation exclusively to the grace of God.
5. THE COMPROMISE OF THE SCHOOL OF SAUMUR. The School of Saumur represents an attempt to tone down the rigorous
Calvinism of the Synod of Dort, and to avoid at the same time the error of Arminianism. This is seen especially in the work of Amyraldus, who boldly taught a hypothetical universalism, which was really a species of universal atonement. God willed by an antecedent decree that all men should be saved on condition of repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. He therefore sent Christ into the world to die for all men. But seeing that, left to themselves, none would repent and believe, He by a subsequent decree elected some as the objects of the saving operation of His grace. These and these only are actually saved.
The outcome proved this to be an untenable position. Of the followers of this school some emphasized the first decree and the universal offer of salvation based on it, with the result that they landed in the Arminian camp; and others stressed the second decree
and the necessity of effectual grace, and thus returned to the Calvinistic position. The views of the School of Saumur were practically shared by Davenant, Calamy, and especially Richard
Baxter, in England. Its peculiar opinions gave occasion for the construction of the Formula Consensus Helvetica by Turretin and Heidegger, in which these views are combatted.
Questions for Further Study: Did the Reformers agree with Anselm on the absolute necessity of the atonement? What was Calvin's view on this point? Are the Reformed theologians of the seventeenth century in agreement with him? Do they base the necessity of the atonement on the honour or on the justice of God? Did the Lutheran and the Reformed theologians agree on the extent of the atonement?
Are they agreed in their view of the active obedience of Christ? What is your criticism of the Socinian system? Did Socinus regard Christ as a priest during His earthly life? In what sense did he regard the death of Christ as a means of redemption? How did Grotius seek to escape the Socinian position? What criticism would you offer on the Governmental Theory? Does the universalism of the Arminians imply that the atonement of Christ is universally efficacious? Why did the Synod of Dort insist on the limited nature of the atonement?
On what grounds did Piscator deny that the active obedience of Christ was part of his satisfaction? Wherein lies the weakness of the Amyraldian position?
Literature: Franks, A History of the Doctrine of the Work of Christ, I, pp. 353–444; II, pp. 1–120; Mackintosh, Historic Theories of the Atonement, pp. 149–187; Mozley, The Doctrine of the Atonement, pp. 141–158; Cunningham, Historical Theology, II, pp. 237–370;
Seeberg, History of Doctrines, cf. Index; Shedd, History of Christian Doctrines, II, pp. 348–386; Sheldon, History of Christian Doctrines,
II, pp. 138–152; Fisher, History of Christian Doctrines, pp. 317–325, 337–346; Orr, Progress of Dogma, pp. 236–239.
IV. The Doctrine of the Atonement After the Reformation 1. THE MARROW CONTROVERSY IN SCOTLAND. An interesting controversy arose in Scotland in the beginning of the eighteenth century. Neonomianism, very prevalent in England in the seventeenth century, also made its appearance in Scotland. The name is due to the fact that it practically changed the Gospel into a new law. According to this view Christ atoned for all men in the sense that He made salvation possible for all, and thus brought them all into a salvable state. He met all the conditions of the covenant of works, and thereby abrogated the old law of that covenant, so that His work can be called our legal righteousness. Having met all the conditions of the covenant of works, He then introduced a new law, the law of the Gospel, which requires faith and conversion. These constitute the evangelical righteousness of the believer which, however imperfect it may be, is the ground of his justification rather than the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. Thus the covenant of grace was changed into a covenant of works. This is simply
Arminianism under a new name.
The Neonomian position was opposed in England by Fisher's Marrow of Modern Divinity, published in 1647. On the appearance of Neonomianism in Scotland this work was re-published in that country under the care of James Hog in 1718, and found ardent admirers in Thomas Boston and the two Erskines. These men, together with Hog, were soon called the Marrow-men, and were in course of time accused of teaching antinomianism (which was not true; they were antineonomians), and also of sponsoring a doctrine of universal atonement and universal pardon. Though this charge did not do them justice, yet it must be said that their desire to establish firmly the warrant of the universal offer of salvation led them to use dubious language, by which they laid themselves open to the charge in question. They heartily endorsed the soundly Calvinistic principle that Christ died, in pursuance of the covenant of redemption, to secure the salvation of the elect. But at the same time they insisted on a general reference of the atonement. They said that, while Christ
did not die for all, that is, to save all, yet He is available for all, was dead for all, if they will but receive Him. The giving love of God made a gift of Christ and of the benefits of redemption to all men, to be claimed on condition of faith. This is the basis for the universal offer of salvation. At the same time only the elect are the objects of God's elective love, and they only secure salvation. Their position was condemned in 1720, and this gave rise to the separation of 1733.
2. SCHLEIERMACHER AND RITSCHL ON THE ATONEMENT
a. Schleiermacher. We meet with a comparatively new line of thought in Schleiermacher. He rejects altogether the doctrine of penal satisfaction. His constructive work on the doctrine of the atonement reveals little resemblance to earlier theories, except when, in dwelling on the sympathetic sufferings of Christ and its effect on men, it recalls the view of Abelard. His main line of thought may be said to echo somewhat the thoughts of those early Church Fathers who stress the incarnation as the great redemptive act of Christ, though they certainly did not share his pantheistic notions. Under the influence of Hegel the idea that the incarnation was the central fact of redemption was rejuvenated; and it was adopted by Schleiermacher, though with a slightly different emphasis.
Schleiermacher regards Christ as the archetypal man, the perfect prototype of humanity, whose uniqueness consisted in the fact that He possessed a perfect and unbroken sense of union with God, and also realized to the full the destiny of man in his character of sinless perfection. He was the second Adam, like the first truly man, but placed in more favorable circumstances and remaining perfect and sinless in obedience. He was the spiritual Head of humanity, capable of animating and sustaining the higher life of all mankind, the perfectly religious man and the fountain of true religion, through living faith in whom others may also become perfectly religious. This transcendant dignity finds its explanation in a peculiar presence of God in Him. He entered into the life of humanity as a new leaven, making those who come in contact with Him receptive for higher
things and communicating to them an inner experience of Godconsciousness similar to His own. His activity is of a creative kind, an inspiring and life-giving influence of spirit upon spirit. His voluntary sufferings and death served to reveal His love to mankind and His devotion to His task, and to intensify the influence which He brings to bear on souls that were previously alienated from God. This view is called the Mystical Theory of the atonement. It is thoroughly subjective and is therefore, strictly speaking, no theory of atonement at all. It takes no account of the guilt of sin, but only seeks to explain how man is delivered from its pollution, which in his theory is really no sin at all. It also fails to explain how the Old Testament saints were saved. b. Ritschl. The influence of Ritschl in modern theology is second only to that of Schleiermacher and is still potent in present day theological thought. Ritschl views Christ as a man who has for us the value of a God and to whom the predicate of Godhead can be ascribed on account of His work. He denies the fact and even the possibility of a vicarious atonement, declares that reconciliation consists exclusively in the sinner's change of attitude to God, and maintains that the work of redemption pertains primarily to a community, and only secondarily to individuals in so far as they become members of the redeemed community and thus share its benefits. Christ wrought redemption, according to him, as the bearer of the perfect and final revelation of God, and as the founder and sustainer of the Christian community—the Kingdom of God. He founded the Christian community by living His life in perfect trust and obedience, and by exhibiting the same qualities when fidelity to His vocation made it necessary for Him to endure sufferings and death. However, this death had no significance as a propitiation for sin. Its value lies in the fact that it is a power which continues to awaken steadfast faith in God's love, a spirit of obedience unto death, and a sense of victory over the world. Yet God pardons sin on the basis of the work of Christ in founding the Kingdom, or for the sake of the Kingdom. In distinction from the Moral Influence Theory, therefore, Ritschl posits an objective ground for the forgiveness of
sin. Sometimes he seems to regard Christ merely as an exemplar, but this is only apparent. He traces the influence of Christ primarily through the collective spirit and life which passes from the Lord to the community which He founded.
3. SOME OF THE MORE RECENT THEORIES OF THE
ATONEMENT. In the English speaking countries we meet with reproductions of most of the typical theories considered in the preceding, though often with variations. The following are the most important. a. The Governmental Theory in New England Theology. The history of New England theology reveals a downward trend in the doctrine of the atonement. At first the penal substitutionary doctrine of the atonement found a congenial soil there. But even as early as 1650
William Pynchon, a prominent layman, attacked the doctrine that Christ suffered the very torments of the lost, and the doctrine of imputation founded on it. He was answered by Norton in 1653.
Bellamy introduced what was afterwards known as the New England doctrine of the atonement, and was in essence simply a reproduction of the Governmental Theory of Grotius. He also denied the limited, and asserted the universal design of the atonement. Hopkins was in agreement with him, and maintained that Christ did not suffer the exact penalty for sin, but something that was substituted for it.
Moreover, it was generally denied that Christ merited anything by His active obedience; only the sufferings of Christ were regarded as having redemptive significance. The Governmental Theory became the dominant view of the atonement in New England theology.
Emmons tried to improve upon it by the introduction of a moral element. He stressed the fact that the government of God is a moral government, actuated by love. And Horace Bushnell went still farther by introducing the Moral Influence Theory. b. Different Types of the Moral Influence Theory
(1) Bushnell. Horace Bushnell rejected both the penal and the governmental theories, but considered the former as superior to the latter, since it does not lose sight of the justice of God. He does not understand how a spectacle revealing God's abhorrence of sin can ever issue in the forgiveness of sin. But he objects to both theories on the score that they are too legal and external and fail to do justice to the ethical element in the atonement. In his Vicarious Sacrifice he rejects the idea that God had to be propitiated, and maintains that the only requirement was that man should be reconciled to God and manifest a new spirit of love and obedience. God Himself went forth in Christ to save man and even suffered in the Son of His love. Christ came to lead man to repentance and thus to reconcile him to God. In order to do this, He had to reveal God to man and to gain a new power over him, by which He could lead him away from sin. So He came on earth and actually entered into the lot of man, suffered from man's opposition and sin, served him in every way, healed his diseases, sympathized with him in his troubles, and thereby revealed
God to him in all His holiness and suffering love. By doing this He broke man's opposition and gained his love. This was the atonement.
Christ is not only man's exemplar, but also a power of righteousness in the life of man.
Later on Bushnell received new light, and then saw that God had to be propitiated. Consequently, in his Forgiveness and Law he retracted the last part of his former publication, and substituted for it the idea of self-propitiation by self-sacrifice. He laid down the principle that neither God nor man can forgive a sinner until he has sought to do him good and has suffered under his repulses. When man contemplates the forgiveness of one who has wronged him, he feels a resentment that hinders him; but he can overcome this resentment by sacrificing something or by suffering for the culprit.
So God by His self-sacrifice overcame His resentment to forgiveness, and thus made objective atonement. Bushnell evidently did not realize that he made God inferior to good men, who often forgive freely and gladly without resorting to such unusual methods.
(2) Frederick Dennison Maurice. Maurice takes his startingpoint in true Alexandrian fashion in Christ as the Logos, and regards Him as the archetype or root of humanity. As such Christ stands in a unique and original relation to the race—an eternal second Adam. In the incarnation He becomes the Mediator between God and man, bringing man into union with God through fellowship with Himself.
He is not a substitute for, but the representative of the human race.
His sufferings and sacrifice are those due to God from the humanity of which He is the Root and Head, and are accepted by God as a perfect satisfaction. Thus in Christ all men are redeemed, irrespective of their faith, and they need only to be brought to the consciousness of this redemption. The basis of this theory is a realistic union of Christ with mankind. It can be called a Moral
Influence Theory in so far as it holds up Christ's offering of obedience as an example for us to follow. Evidently, Maurice's view is also related to that of Schleiermacher.
(3) McLeod Campbell. The theory of Campbell is sometimes described as the theory of vicarious repentance. Campbell examined the doctrine of the atonement as taught by Owen and Edwards and had great respect for this type of theology. Yet he regards their view of the atonement as defective in that it is too legal and does not sufficiently reflect the love of God. In the admission of Edwards that a perfect repentance would have availed as an atonement, if man had only been capable of adequate repentance, he finds a hint of the true theory of the atonement. He maintains that Christ offered to God, on behalf of humanity, the requisite repentance, and by so doing fulfilled the conditions of forgiveness. The work of Christ really consisted in the vicarious confession of sins in behalf of man. The question naturally arises, how the death of Christ is related to this vicarious confession. By His sufferings and death Christ entered sympathetically into the Father's condemnation of sin, brought out the heinousness of sin, and condemned sin; and this was viewed by the Father as a perfect confession of our sins. This condemnation of sin is calculated to produce in man that holiness which God demands in sinful humanity. The great trouble with this theory is that it has no
scriptural basis whatsoever, and that it is hard to conceive of vicarious repentance in a sinless beings. Moreover, it falls short woefully in its conception of the seriousness of sin. c. The Mystical Theory of the Atonement. There is another theory that is popular in some circles, namely, the mystical theory that was first taught by Schleiermacher. Bruce speaks of it in its later development as the "theory of redemption by sample." It is also known as the Irvingian Theory, or the Theory of Gradually
Extirpated Depravity. We conclude our sketch by calling attention to the views of Edward Irving, the great English preacher and contemporary of Thomas Chalmers. According to him Christ assumed human nature as it was in Adam after the fall, that is, human nature with its inborn corruption and predisposition to moral evil. But through the power of the Holy Spirit, or of His divine nature, He was able to keep this corrupt human nature from manifesting itself in any actual or personal sin, gradually purified it through His sufferings, completely extirpating the original depravity by death, and thus reunited it to God. This purifying of human nature in the person of Jesus Christ constitutes His atonement.
Consequently, men are saved, not by any objective propitiation, but by becoming partakers of Christ's new humanity by faith.
Questions for Further Study: How did the Marrow-men expose themselves to the charge of universalism? Is it correct to say that Christ is dead for all men, or is available for all? What type of theory did Schleiermacher advocate? Did he conceive of sin as a reality?
Does a theory of atonement have a logical place in his system? Does the Ritschlian theology do more justice to the doctrine of the atonement? Do these systems do justice to the death of Christ in the work of redemption? Was Jonathan Edwards in any way responsible for the introduction of the Governmental Theory in New England?
What advantage has this theory over the Moral Influence Theories?
Why is it, strictly speaking, incorrect to call the latter theories of atonement? Why are these theories so much more popular than the theory of vicarious atonement? Does the theory of Irving do justice to