(Continued from p. 245).
IN the preceding article (p. 242) the necessity of the atonement was touched upon. In this article we proceed to give a brief historical sketch of this important doctrine. Athanasius whose fame as a defender of the true Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ is well known viewed the atonement in connection with the consequences of sin; the atonement was the destruction of death, the wages of sin. This was important so far as it went but according to Dr. Smeaton he stopped short at man’s liberation from the penal consequences of sin but did not refer to the reparation of the divine honour. He thus did not put the necessity of the atonement on its true foundation. Thus he says: “God could have simply spoken, and destroyed the curse without the incarnation at all. But it is necessary to consider what is profitable for men, and not reckon in all things what it was possible for God to do” (Orationes against the Arians). Athanasius also failed in his doctrine of the atonement to give due place to the positive element of vicarious obedience and the position of the Second Adam under the law. “It [Athanasius’ view] acknowledges the curse,” says Dr. Smeaton, “and sees a provision for its removal; but it leaves untouched the positive demand or inflexible claim of the law, which the entrance of sin neither revoked nor modified” (The Apostle’s Doctrine of the Atonement, p. 496). Athanasius’s great contribution to the theology of the Church was the emphasis he laid on the supreme dignity of Christ. This truth exercised a great influence on
the minds of the theologians in their approach to and discussions on the doctrine of the Atonement. The divine dignity of the Lord Jesus it was argued put Him in a position such as a mere man could never occupy thus conferring infinite value on His sacrifice. This truth, though held from the beginning was now brought into prominence. The outstanding theologians of the Church while contributing to the truth by emphasising this aspect and stressing the bearing of the atonement on men as captives under Satan failed to lay emphasis on the divine rights. This failure on the part of such eminent men as Athanasius and Augustine1 to apprehend the demands of divine justice led them to the view that God could have redeemed men from their captivity without an atonement.
It was not until near the end of the eleventh century that the true doctrine on this important subject was clearly stated by Anselm in his great work—Cur Deus Homo?2 In reference to Anselm’s great contribution to Christian theology Dr. Smeaton says: “Anselm goes back to the idea of sin, and sketches a theory of the atonement, of which we may say that it took in all the scattered parts of truth found in the previous discussions, but made an immense advance on them, as it put the atonement in connection with the magnitude of guilt . . . . . . The peculiar distinction belonging to Anselm’s theory, contrasted with all that preceded it, and with most theories that succeeded it to this day, was, that he viewed the atonement with sin as such, and not merely in connection with the consequences. He based his argument on the magnitude and enormity of sin. The infinite
1It is evident from quotations given by Dr. Shedd in his Hist. of Christian Doctrine (II. 258), that Augustine sometimes accepted the doctrine of the necessity of the atonement; and at other times did not.
2This is a small treatise but recognised as one of the great masterpieces of Christian theology. The title is usually translated, Why God became Man? This is more strictly a paraphrase than a translation and does not bring out its true meaning. The book does not deal with the general design of the incarnation or the benefits flowing from it. It deals with the necessity of satisfaction to divine justice if sinners are to be saved. Hence Dr. Smeaton’s translation: Why a God-Man? is preferable. It is not to be forgotten that amidst the gold of Cur Deus Homo? there is some rubbish of pure speculations.
evil of sin is the great thought that at once confronts us at the commencement of the treatise” (Apostles’ Doctrine of the Atonement, pp. 511-12). Starting with the fact of sin which must be expiated, if there is to be salvation for sinners, Anselm undertakes to prove that man could not be saved without such a satisfaction as a God-Man alone could give. The central point of Anselm’s doctrine is that sin is an infinite evil. God is wronged by sin and robbed of His rights and the Holy One owes it to Himself to vindicate His glory. It has been argued against Anselm’s position that man cannot be said either to give or take away from God but as Dr. Smeaton points out that the criticism would have some force if it was God’s essential glory that was in view but it loses its point when it is borne in mind that it is His declarative glory that is referred to. Anselm laid the foundation well and though he did not say much of the application of the atonement by faith no one can deny that this truth underlies what he says. It was reserved for the Reformation age to give full expression to it.
The great awakening of men at the Reformation out of a long slumber set them to study God’s Word and take an interest in its teaching such as they had never known until they came under the quickening power of the Spirit of God. Under the teaching of the divine Spirit awakened sinners were confronted with the awful nature of sin. How could God be just and justify the ungodly was a living question? In Luther we see this living consciousness of guilt gnawing at his heart, bringing him face to face with a holy God, and a broken law. The extent of the claims of that law was overwhelming and the prospect of ever meeting them eternally hopeless so far as creature effort was concerned. “When the law comes,” says Luther, “and accuses thee for not keeping it, point to Christ and say: ‘Yonder is the Man who has fulfilled it, to whom I cling, who fulfilled it, imparted His fulfilment to me; and it must be silent.'” Under Luther’s teaching the Lutheran Church held firmly the absolute necessity of a satisfaction for sin. Luther with his profound views of the evil of sin and the inflexible claims of God’s holy
law repudiated with abhorrence the idea of men being saved by God’s absolute omnipotence without satisfaction being rendered.
When we come to the Reformed Church the same unanimity on the necessity of the atonement is not found among the leading theologians. Calvin in his Institutes (ii. 12,1) and in his Commentary (John xv. 13) speaks of the possibility of redemption in an absolute way. A leaven of this lingered down to the time of the Second Reformation and we find Dr. Twisse, the prolocutor of the Westminster Assembly, and Samuel Rutherford held this view. In giving their support to it viz. that God might, in His sovereignty have pardoned sin without an atonement we see the great danger of emphasising one divine attribute at the expense of another and thus upsetting the balance of divine truth. Twisse and Rutherford* emphasised the divine sovereignty and divine power at the expense of divine justice and erred in overlooking that justice is an attribute which must punish sin either in the transgressor or in a substitute. The rise of Socinianism, however, had a beneficial effect. The tremendous onslaught of the Socinians on the Anselmic doctrine opened the eyes of the Reformed theologians and made them take up a more decided attitude on the doctrine of the necessity of the atonement.
In coming to our own day the doctrine of the necessity of the atonement is, of course, flouted by Modernist theologians. They have no place in their teaching for an atonement at all. The cross is an offence to them and the shedding of blood on Calvary’s cross they cannot away with. It may be safely said, however, that all who have been taught to see, even in measure, the awful enormity of sin and to feel in their conscience the inflexible claims of divine justice will have no difficulty in accepting the foregoing doctrine.
*Dr. Twisse held that the Atonement was only hypothetically necessary. Those interested in this subject will find it treated by a master mind in Dr. Owen’s Dissertation on Divine Justice (Works, x. 481).
In concluding this article it may be necessary to point out that when we speak of the necessity of the atonement it is not meant that God was under necessity to provide an atonement. All the provision of salvation is of free and sovereign grace and God was under no obligation by anything that is in man to provide an atonement. What is really meant is that in the salvation of sinners it was absolutely necessary that there should be salvation before any sinner could be saved.