while on the part of God, as conditioning and mediating His forgiveness of sins, we have ex- hibited the entire life of Christ upon earth, con- ceived of as embracing severally its individual features (Acts v. 31; Rom. iv. 25; viii. 34); but more espe<'ially His death as a ransom for our sins (Matt. xx. 28; xxvi. 28), as a vicarious sacrifiee (I. Pet. i. 19; II. Cor. v. 21), by which we are redeemed from the bondage of sin (I. Tim. ii. 6; Gal. iii. 13; II. Pet. i. 3), and obtain for- giveness (Rom. v. 19; I. Cor. xv. 3; I. .John i. 7) and eternal life and peace with God (John X. 11; Col. i. 20). Christ is therefore the medi- ator between God and man (I. Tim. ii. 5), hav- ing made peace through the blood of His cross (Col. i. 20) ; the propitiation for our sins (I. .John ii. 2; iv. 10); and our high-priest who offers Himself a sacrifice to reconcile us with God (Heb. ii. 17; v. 1; ix. 28).
In accordance with this full and explicit teaching of the Scriptures we find that the suf- ferings and death of Christ were ever regarded as of primary and essential importance in His work of redemption. The earliest fathers do not carry us much beyond the very words of Scripture. The doctrine is taught by them without inquiry into its speculative impli- cations. The occasion for a systematic treat- ment of the doctrine had not yet arisen. "On this head there has been a twofold mistake — sometimes the existing beginnings of many later elaborated dogmas have been overlooked ; or, on the other hand, it has been attempted to point out with literal distinctness Church doc- trines as if already developed." The early Church Fathers dwell with a sort of inspired devotion upon those facts of the Gospel which represent Christ as the sacrifice for our sins, as the ransom paid for our redemption, as our deliverer from the power of Satan, as the re- storer to mankind of whatever was lost by the fall of Adam ; but they were not concerned with the speculative aspects of the doctrine and natu- rally did not attempt to explicate them. An elaborated system of theology is not to be looked for at this early stage of the Church's ex- istence.
The narrow limits of this article will not allow us to specify the many ways in which the sufferings and death of Christ were regarded in relation to the atonement for sin. During the first four centuries there appeared no cer- tainty of opinion as to whether they were a ransom-price paid to God or to the devil. The latter supposition is the more prevalent, and is shared in by t)rigen and Saint Augustine. Greg- ory of Xyssa (died 394) explains this opinion by saying that the devil consented to receive Jesus as a ransom, because he regarded Him as more than an equivalent for all those under his power; but that, notwithstanding his subtlety, he was outwitted, for, owing to the humiliation in which Christ was veiled, he did not fully recognize Him as the Son of God, and conseqiently was himself deceived. But having consented to receive Him as a ransom for mankind, he was righteously deprived of his dominion over man, while he could not retain .Jesus when he discfnered Him to be the Holy One of God, being horrified and tormented by His holiness. Athanasius (died 373) with characteristic vigor controverted this notion, and maintained that the ransom was paid to God. He argued that as God had tlireatened to punish transgres- sors with death, He could but execute His threat. But then it was not becoming the char- acter of God to alloAV His purpose in the crea- tion of man to be frustrated by an imposition practiced upon Him by the devil. The only e.xpedient, therefore, which remained for his deliverance from death was the incarnation and sacrifice of the Logos in his stead, by which the justice and veracity of God would be main- tained, man delivered, the law fulfilled, and the power of the devil broken. Gregory Nazianzen, although he accounts for the deception of the devil much as Gregory of Nj'ssa had done, yet in another place distinctly repudiates the supposi- tion that Christ paid the devil. Saint .Jolin of Damascus siuns up all results of theological speculation in the East, and he utterly sets aside Origen's notion.
Saint Anselm's famous treatise (Cur Deus Homo) marks a new epoch in the treatment of the doctrine, and the discussion of it within the Church has continued ever since within the lines which he has laid down. The Piedniontese Arch- bishop of Canterbui-y lived before Bernard and Peter Lombard, who, however, did not follow him, because the new position which he occupied did not become immediately the accepted one. His view did, however, prevail in substance, and became dominant in the Scholastic pe- riod, supplanting Origen's entirely. The fol- lowing is, in all essential respects, his state- ment of the doctrine : The creature owes to God, as the Great Sovereign, perfect obedience. When he refuses this, he substantially denies the sovereignty of God and impairs the divine honor. His sin cannot be overlooked withoiit making God the God of injustice and disorder. Hence there must be a satisfaction th.at shall repair the wrong done. The punishment of man would effect this; but it would also destroy man. If another could be found who should be able, by the infinity of his nature, to satisfy for infinite guilt, and by being himself man to take the place of man, such a one might satisfy for him. The God-man fulfills these conditions. By His death, as an act to which He was not Himself bound. He satisfies for man, and re- ceives as a reward the forgiveness of those whom He wills to save. Anselm's view did not find its way into immediate favor. Origen's opinion had struck deep root in the Western Church; Saint Augustine had adopted it, and was followed by Saint Leo. Although coming after Anselm, Bernard and Peter Lombard, the Master of the Sentences, accepted the tenet of Origen. But by the time of the later School- men Anselm's view was generally received. Subsequent to the time of Anselm, and prior to the Reformation, there are two views of the atonement which divide the opinions of this period — the one regarding the peculiar manner in which it was accomplished as absolutely necessary, and deriving its efficiency from its objective nature; the other supposing a sub- jective connection between the sufferings of Jesus and the price of redemption, because this was best fitted to effect the moral transforma- tion of men. According to Anselm, the satis- faction rendered by Clirist was greater than the guilt for which He atoned; and it needed to be greater ; for the payment of the debt due to God gave men no claim to the favor of God.
