-- 1. Confusion in the Orthodox Statement.

The subject of this chapter is the Orthodox doctrine of the work of Christ, and especially of the atonement.

No doctrine of Orthodoxy is more difficult to state to the satisfaction of the Orthodox than this. The reason is, that there is no doctrine concerning which the Orthodox differ so much among themselves. There is no difficulty in stating the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity; for this is the same, or nearly the same, in the symbols of all the Orthodox sects.

The Roman Catholic doctrine of the Trinity is essentially the same with that of the Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, and Episcopal Churches. But not so with the doctrine of Christ's reconciling and atoning work. This has taken every form in past history, and is altogether unsettled at the present time. Usually, many views are mingled together in modern Orthodoxy; and while all Orthodox teachers use the same language, speaking of the death of Christ as "atonement," "expiation," "vicarious sacrifice,"

"sin-offering," "subst.i.tution," "satisfaction," yet they connect with these words very different ideas. Such is the testimony of an eminent Orthodox divine, who speaks thus:-

"There is a general concurrence in the words _vicarious_, _expiation_, _offering_, _subst.i.tute_, and the like, but no agreement as to the manner in which they are to get their meaning. Sometimes the a.n.a.logy of criminal law is taken; and then our sins are spoken of as being transferred to Christ, or he as having accepted them to bear their penalty. Sometimes the civil or commercial law furnishes the a.n.a.logy; and then, our sins being taken as a debt, Christ offers himself as a ransom for us. Or the a.n.a.logy of the ceremonial law is accepted; and then Christ is set forth as a propitiatory or expiatory offering to obtain remission of sins for us.

Regarding Christ as suffering for us in one or another of these Scripture forms or figures taken as the literal dogmatic truth, we have as many distinct theories. Then, again, different as these figures are from each other, they will yet be used interchangeably, all in the sense of one or another of them. And then, again, to double the confusion yet once more, we have two sets of representations produced under each, accordingly as Christ is conceived to offer himself to Jehovah's justice, or as Jehovah is conceived himself to prepare the offering out of his own mercy.

"On the whole, I know of no definite and fixed point on which the Orthodox view, so called, may be said to hang, unless it be this, viz., that Christ suffers evil as evil, or in direct and simple subst.i.tution for evil that was to be suffered by us; so that G.o.d accepts one evil in place of the other, and, being satisfied in this manner, is able to justify or pardon.

"As to the measure of this evil, there are different opinions. Calvin maintained the truly horrible doctrine, that Christ descended into h.e.l.l when crucified, and suffered the pains of the d.a.m.ned for three days. A very great number of the Christian teachers, even at this day, maintain that Christ suffered exactly as much pain as all the redeemed would have suffered under the penalties of eternal justice. But this penal view of Christ's death has been gradually giving way, till now, under its most modern, most mitigated, and least objectionable form, he is only said to have suffered under a law of _expression_.

"Thus G.o.d would have expressed a certain abhorrence of sin by the punishment of the world. Christ now suffers only as much pain as will express the same amount of abhorrence. And considering the dignity of the Sufferer, and his relations to the Father, there was no need of suffering the same, or even any proximate amount of pain, to make an expression of abhorrence to sin, that is, of justice, equal to that produced by the literal punishment of the race. Still, it will be seen to be a part of this more mitigated view, that Christ suffers evil as evil; which evil suffered is accepted as a compensative expression of G.o.d's indignation against sin. Accordingly, in the agony of Gethsemane, and when the Saviour exclaims in his pa.s.sion, 'My G.o.d, my G.o.d, why hast thou forsaken me?' it will be taken for literal truth, that the frown of G.o.d, or divine justice, rested on his soul.

"It will probably be right, then, to distribute the views of those who are accepted now as Orthodox teachers, into two cla.s.ses-one who consider the death of Christ as availing by what it _is_; the other, by force of what it _expresses_; the former holding it as a literal subst.i.tution of evil endured for evil that was to be endured; the latter holding it as an expression of abhorrence to sin, made, through the suffering of one, in place of the same expression that was to be made by the suffering of many.

"As regards the former cla.s.s of representations, we may say, comprehensively, that they are capable, one and all, of no light in which they do not even offend some right moral sentiment of our being. Indeed, they raise up moral objections with such marvellous fecundity, that we can hardly state them as fast as they occur to us."(19)

-- 2. Great Importance attributed to this Doctrine.

But, notwithstanding the fact that there is such confusion in the minds of the Orthodox about this doctrine, there is, nevertheless, no doctrine the belief in which is regarded as so important. With respect to other doctrines,-the Trinity, for example,-dogmatic Christianity declares our salvation to depend upon our belief of it; but in regard to the atonement, it goes farther, and makes our salvation depend on using the phraseology of the doctrine. Other doctrines will save us, on the condition of believing them; this, on the condition of using the language. If a man shall lead a life of purity and goodness, but expresses doubts concerning this doctrine, his Orthodox friends will have scarcely any hope of his salvation; but if the most depraved criminal, after a life steeped in wickedness, shall merely say on his death-bed, that he hopes "to be saved by the atoning blood of Christ," he is thought immediately to be on the fair way to heaven. No matter how good a man is, if he does not accept the Orthodox language on this point, his friends _fear_ for him: no matter how bad he is, if he does accept it, they _hope_ for him. There is a sort of magical power attributed to the very words. They are almost supposed to act like a talisman or a charm.

Now, while we reject all such superst.i.tious views of the power of mere words, while we reject all false meaning and all no meaning, it is proper to think that there may be some substantial truth in these Orthodox opinions concerning the atonement. Let us endeavor to find what this vital truth really is, and why this doctrine is so dear to the heart of Orthodoxy.

-- 3. Stress laid on the Death of Jesus in the Scripture.

Consider the stress laid on the sufferings of Jesus in the New Testament.

Notice what our Saviour says himself: "This is my blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." "The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." "For as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life." "I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep."

Consider, again, what is said on this subject in the Epistles. "Jesus Christ, whom G.o.d hath set forth as a mercy seat through faith in his blood." "When we were enemies we were reconciled to G.o.d by the death of his Son." "He died for our sins." "He is sacrificed for us." "He gave himself for our sins." "We have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sin." "Having made peace through the blood of his cross."

"He gave himself a ransom for all." "He washed us from our sins through his blood." "By whose stripes we are healed." "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered, and being made perfect, became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." Again: "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that he, by the grace of G.o.d, should taste death for every man. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." "Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to G.o.d, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered, being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted."

These are some of the pa.s.sages which connect the sufferings of Jesus Christ with sin on the one hand, and salvation on the other.

-- 4. Difficulty in interpreting these Scripture Pa.s.sages.

There is a difficulty, however, in understanding the meaning and feeling the force of such texts as these. This difficulty consists in the fact that these pa.s.sages are constantly quoted as proof texts. From our childhood up we have heard them brought forward to prove the truth of some particular doctrine or theory of atonement, and when we read these verses, we immediately a.s.sociate them with some doctrine which we like or dislike.

Our feelings and prejudices are involved in interpreting the pa.s.sage one way or the other, so that we are unable to look at it fairly. In order to overcome this difficulty, we must make this obvious distinction. We must distinguish between the statement of a fact and the theory concerning it.

The fact which the Bible states is simply this-that the sins of man were the occasion of Christ's death, and that by his death he saves us from our sin. This is the fact which the Scriptures a.s.sert. The way in which he saves us is a matter of theory. Why it was that human sin made it necessary for Christ to die, how it is that his death reconciles us to G.o.d,-this belongs to the theory.

Now, while the Scriptures say a great deal about the fact that Christ's sufferings save us from our sins, they say very little as regards the way in which they save us from our sins.

-- 5. Theological Theories based on the Figurative Language of the New Testament.

The Scriptures state the fact; the theologians have supplied the explanations. Innumerable have been the theories devised by theology to show in what way the sufferings of Christ have availed for the salvation of men-theories of imputation, theories of subst.i.tution, theories of satisfaction. He was punished in our place; he paid our debt; he was our federal head and representative; he satisfied the justice of G.o.d; he appeased the wrath of G.o.d. But especially are the figures and metaphors of the New Testament pressed into the service of theology, and made the basis of grave theories. Thus are metaphors turned into metaphysics, and rhetoric changed to logic. The images of the New Testament were naturally taken from familiar objects and transactions, especially from war, from slavery, and from the Jewish ritual. Sin is our enemy, who has conquered us in battle, and made us his prisoners. Christ redeems us from this captivity, and pays our ransom. Sin is a cruel master, and we are his slaves. He is about to torture us with the rod. Christ comes and takes our punishment on himself. He bears our stripes. According to the Jewish ritual the paschal feast was a commemoration of G.o.d's mercy. It was to the Jews what Thanksgiving Day is to the people of New England. So the Christians said Christ is our Pa.s.sover. In the Jewish ritual G.o.d was believed to manifest himself over the mercy seat in the inner sanctuary of the temple. The Christians said, Christ is our mercy seat. All this was natural; but these images have been turned into elaborate theories by the theologians who have argued that Christ's death was a literal ransom, a literal mercy seat, and a literal pa.s.sover.

These theories have mostly pa.s.sed by. The common Orthodox theory in New England now is much more reasonable, but unfortunately much less scriptural. It is founded on the a.n.a.logy of human government. G.o.d is compared to a wise and kind ruler, who governs by law, and who wishes to pardon the penitent criminal, but fears that if he does so, he will impair the respect felt for his law, and therefore thinks it necessary to do something to show the evil of disobedience before he can pardon. Christ is willing to die in order to make this impression on the minds of men. And this he accordingly does. But unfortunately, as we said, there is nothing in the Scripture, not even a metaphorical expression, to support this theory. The apostles did not have recourse for their figures and images to such usage of government, and that for the simple reason that no such usage or necessity then existed. The governments were all despotic, and no despot, wishing to pardon, had any difficulty on the ground that the sanct.i.ty of his laws might be impaired.

War, slavery, and the Jewish ritual, and household usages existed. Their images were taken from these. They spoke of ransom, of stripes, of the pa.s.sover, and the mercy seat, of washing and healing, but not of governments and laws.

Sin is our conqueror, and Christ redeems us. Sin is a slavery, and Christ ransoms us. Sin is defilement, and Christ washes us. Sin is a disease, and Christ heals us. All this occurs again and again, but nothing occurs about const.i.tutional governments, or conflicts between the claims of justice and mercy.

-- 6. The three princ.i.p.al Views of the Atonement-warlike, legal, and governmental.

Three princ.i.p.al views on this subject have prevailed in the Christian Church as Orthodox. The first may be called the _warlike_ view of Christ's work, the second may be called the _legal_ view, and the third the _governmental_ view. The first was the prevailing Orthodox view from the earliest times till the middle ages, and is based on the idea of a conflict or war between Christ and the Devil for the soul of man. The Devil had gained possession of the human race in consequence of its sin.

The right of the Devil over men was fully admitted. Augustine considered it as the right of property, Leo the Great as the right of a conqueror.

Christ gave his own life to the Devil as a ransom, which was adequate to redeem the whole race. This theory rested on the literal interpretation of the words "ransom" and "redemption." If Christ's death was a _ransom_, if he came "to give his life a ransom for many," the question naturally arose, "_From_ whose power were men redeemed, and to whom was the ransom paid?" Certainly, men were not redeemed from the power of G.o.d. The ransom could not have been paid to G.o.d, but to some enemy who held us as his prisoners. The only possible answer, therefore, is, that the ransom was paid to the Devil. The Devil was the cruel tyrant who had enslaved us. He had a right to do so; for we had become his slaves through our sin. But he had no right over Christ, for Christ had committed no sin; so that the death of Christ was a free offering to the Devil to redeem the race.

According to this view, therefore, the atonement was made to the Devil.

But in the middle ages another view of the atonement became Orthodox, founded not upon the idea of a ransom, but on that of a _debt_. According to this view the divine law requires that the debt which man owes to G.o.d, which is perfect obedience, shall be paid, either by himself or by some one else. Anselm, the founder of this theory, defined sin "as not giving to G.o.d his due." Man cannot pay this debt himself, and therefore Christ pays it for him. This is the legal view of the atonement, or perhaps we might rather call it the commercial view.

But this theory, after having endured as Orthodox for some five hundred years, gave place to a third, based not on the idea of a ransom or of a debt, but of a state necessity. It would not do for G.o.d, as a moral Governor, to forgive sin, unless by some great example an impression could be made of the evil of sin. This impression is produced by the death of Christ, who therefore died not to atone for past sin, but to prevent future sin, or, in other words, to make a moral impression on the human mind. This is the popular theory of the atonement held by the Orthodox at the present time. But it is very much mixed up with the others. The different views held by modern Orthodoxy range all the way from the old Calvinism of Princeton, through the various shades of New England theology, to the latest form expressed by Dr. Horace Bushnell in his recent work on "Vicarious Sacrifice."

-- 7. Impression made by Christ's Death on the Minds of his Disciples.

First Theory on the Subject in the Epistle to the Hebrews.

The sufferings of Jesus produced a wonderful impression on the minds of his disciples. This impression was compounded of astonishment, tenderness, and grat.i.tude. That a man so divine in character, in wisdom, in a command over nature, should submit willingly to such labor, ignominy, and anguish, was a wonder to them. But there was a mystery of sorrow beneath the visible sorrow, a pain within the pain, a depth of grief felt not for himself, but for others, an anguish on account of the sin of the world, which especially awed and touched them. Christ plunged into the midst of sin to save souls, as a hero rushes into the midst of burning flames to save lives. No man like Jesus had ever felt such anguish and horror at the sight of sin; but instead of flying from it, he came into the midst of it to save the sinner. This was the secret of his agony, the bitterness of his cup. Martyrs at the stake are borne up by their own triumphant self-approval. But Jesus, in his anguish, did not think of his own triumph, but the sin and sorrow of those who afflicted him. "Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves and your children."

"Father, forgive them; they know not what they do." This is the secret of Christ's anguish-this infinite horror of sin joined to an infinite love for the sinner.

Through this depth of sorrow there came to the minds of the apostles a revelation of the evil of sin and the infinite compa.s.sion of G.o.d, which produced penitence, hope, and love. The dying Christ reconciled them to G.o.d. This they felt and declared; they did not attempt to explain how, but by images and metaphors drawn from all familiar objects, they declared that Christ's sorrows more than his glory, his patience rather than his power, his death more than his life, had withdrawn their hearts from sin, and given them peace with G.o.d.