YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

THE ATONEMENT.

cv
THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

£f)* atonement:
AN HISTORICAL REVIEW.

WITH AN INTRODUCTION ON THE PRINCIPLE OF
THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS.

BY.

HENRY NUTCOMBE OXENHAM, M.A.
LATE SCHOLAR OP BALIiIOL COLLEGE, OXFORD.

" Non mors sed voluntas placuit sponte morientia." S. Bernard.

THIRD EDITION.

LONDON :
W. H. ALLEN & CO., 13, WATEELOO PLACE, S.W.
1881.
(All nights Reserved.)

"Mille fois plus vivant, mille fois plus aimd depuis Ta mort que durant
les jours de Ton passage ici-bas, Tu deviendras k tel point la pierre
angulaire de l'humanit6, qu'arracher Ton nom de ce monde serait
l'ebranler jusqu'aux fondements. Entre Toi et Dieu on ne distinguera
plus." Renan, Vie de Jfsus, p. 441.

Impleta sunt, quse concinit
David fideli carmine,
Diceudo nationibus :
Regnavit a ligno Deus. Hymn. Eccles.

London : Printed by W. H. Allen & Co., 13, Waterloo Place, S.W.

TO THE RIGHT REVEREND
JOHN IGNATIUS von DOLLINGER, D.D.
PROFESSOR OF" ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY IN THE
UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH,
PROVOST OF THE CHAPEL ROYAL, ETC. ETC.
Cfyis Volnxm,
COMMENCED AT HIS SUGGESTION,
AND OWING MUCH TO OPPORTUNITIES OF INTERCOURSE
WITH HIM,
IS WITH HIS PERMISSION
INSCRIBED,
IN TOKEN OF GRATITUDE FOR MANY KINDNESSES,
AND WITH EVERY SENTIMENT
OF AFFECTIONATE ADMIRATION AND RESPECT.
April, 186S.

ADVERTISEMENT TO THE THIRD
EDITION.
In preparing a Third Edition of this work for the
press it has again been carefully revised throughout,
and considerable additions have been made, espe
cially to the Introductory essay on Development,
and the final chapter on the Moral Fitness of the
Atonement. The illustrative matter, appended
under the name of " Notes " to certain chapters in
former editions, has been somewhat enlarged, and
reappears here in the shape of Excursuses at the
end of the volume, two new ones being added, on
Communion in One Kind, and on the Popular
Cult of Antinous. An alphabetical Index has
also been supplied.
The Author trusts that, in its present form, the
work may prove more worthy of the friendly
reception it has already met with in so many
quarters.
Passion-tide, 1881.

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
The demand for a Second Edition of this work
gives me an opportunity of acknowledging the
various criticisms it has received, by which I have
tried to profit, from whatever quarter they might
proceed. My best thanks are due to several of my
reviewers for valuable comments and suggestions,
and to all (with one marked exception) for the
uniform courtesy and fairness of their treatment.
Comments no particular passages which seemed
to call for notice will usually be found referred to
in the notes at the foot of the page, and where no
special reference is made, I have often re-cast or
enlarged statements which had failed adequately
to convey my meaning. A new Note on the
condition of our Lord's Human Body has been
appended to the first chapter, in reply to a
theological objection against certain statements of
mine urged with much force by a friendly critic

PEEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. IX
in the Ecclesiastic* The book remains substantially
what it was before ; but it has been carefully
revised throughout, and considerable additions
have been made both to the text and notes, chiefly
in the Introductory Essay and the first and con
cluding chapters.
One of these additional passages, in the first
chapter, contains a brief outline of the teaching
of Scripture on the Atonement, which it may be
useful to bear in mind in connection with the
different theories on the subject reviewed in the
following pages. More than this has not been
attempted here, and would not probably be looked
for. Two of my critics, however, have alluded to
the subject, and it will therefore be desirable to
repeat here more explicitly what was stated in the
Preface to the First Edition, as to the general aim
and purport of this volume. One of them, already
referred to, has censured me in no measured terms
for not commencing my work with a complete
investigation and harmony of the whole teaching
of Scripture on the subject, as illustrated by the
traditional theology of the Church and the full
resources of modern criticism ; while the other
* In the present edition this stands as Excursus iv.

X PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
suggests with more show of reason that a verifica
tion of the Catholic theology from the Bible
should have formed the conclusion of the treatise,
and considers that its omission is a lacuna, though
not one that affects the value of the rest. The
same general answer will apply to both these
criticisms. A complete investigation and harmony of the
Scriptural doctrine of the Atonement, as gathered
from both the Old and New Testament — from
prophecies, types, allusions ; from the words of our
Divine Lord, and the more explicit teaching of
His inspired Apostles — would undoubtedly be in
itself a most important work, and might, under
different aspects, be regarded as a preface or as a
supplement to the history of the development of
that doctrine in the Church. But it would be
quite a distinct work, requiring distinct prepara
tion, and would suffice, if fully carried out,
to fill a separate volume. No doubt many of
the same authorities would have to be consulted
in either case, but the method of using them
would be different in an exegetical work from
what belongs to a treatise occupied with tracing
the history of a particular doctrine in its chrono
logical sequence, while for the former purpose

PBEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. XI
"the full resources of modern criticism," to adopt
my reviewer's language, would of course have to
be laid under contribution. Scriptural exegesis,
whether conducted mainly o patristic or critical
principles or on both combined, differs both in
its methods and its scope from the work under
taken in this volume. Its direct and primary
object is to elicit from the sacred text, with the
best assistance from ancient or modern interpreters
that can be brought to bear on ,its illustration,
that one consistent view of the particular subject
or document under consideration, which the writer
conceives to be the true one. Authorities, how
ever copiously quoted, are not referred to for their
own sake, but in subordination to the leading
purpose of the book, and in so far as they serve
to promote it. But a writer engaged on the
historical development of a doctrine is directly
concerned with the systems of the successive
schools or theologians under review, and only
indirectly with his own estimate of the general
outcome of their teaching in its relation to Reason
or to Holy Scripture. Still less is it his business
to engage in the direct interpretation of Scripture
himself. He is rather employed in supplying the
materials for it. It would indeed be hardly

XU PBEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
possible to write without indicating any opinion
of one's own on these points, and the more light
can be incidentally thrown upon them the better,
so long as the distinctive character of the work,
as an historical inquiry, is maintained intact. I
have not, therefore, thought it beyond my pro
vince to- lay down and enforce in the opening
chapter of this volume certain guiding principles
to be kept in mind during the subsequent inquiry,
or to gather up in the final chapter what appear to
me some of its more important results.
But still it remains true that history is one
thing and hermeneutics another. The same work
cannot be at once exegetieal, dogmatic, contro
versial, and historical. Something it may include
of all these elements, but one or other must
predominate, if it is to have any principle of
coherence, and not to be a mere confused medley.
I explained in the Preface to the former Edition of
this work that the method of treatment adopted
was " not controversial but historical," and that
whatever it had indirectly of controversial or
dogmatic aim was meant to be kept strictly
subordinate to its original purpose, as a faithful
record of successive schools of Catholic theology,
and of their relation to the antagonistic sysffems of

PBEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. Xlll
tbe Reformation. It was designed to be, in German
phraseology, not Dogmatik but Dogmengeschichte*
To explore and harmonize the whole teaching of
Scripture on the subject, and present a definite
view of the conclusions thus obtained — in other
words, to discuss the true sense of Scripture on the
doctrine of the Atonement, and expound my own
estimate of it — could only be regarded as part of
such an undertaking on the assumption that the
New Testament writers stand to the Fathers in
the same relation as the Fathers stand to the
Schoolmen, instead of supplying the inspired data
on which all later systems have been professedly
based. To analyse and define the teaching of
Scripture on a given doctrine is to define the true
sense of that doctrine. If this be done at the
commencement of an inquiry into its treatment
by the doctors of the Church in successive ages, it
must be done independently of their judgments.
If it is done at the conclusion of such an inquiry,
it may include an application of the results
obtained ; but still it is a supplement to the inquiry,
not a part of it. While, therefore, it might have
been quite possible to compress into a prefatory or

* See Kuhn's Einleitung in die katholische Dogmatik, § 18 ;
and cf. Preface to his Die TrinitdtsUhre.

XIV PBEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
supplementary chapter an abstract of the scriptural
argument, it did not fall within my present design
to do so, nor can I see that the completeness of
that design is at all affected by the omission. To
the majority of my readers, indeed, this explana
tion will probably appear superfluous; but I am
anxious to avoid even the semblance of indifference
to the critical examination of the letter of
Scripture in regard to Christian doctrine. It is, no
doubt, a most important branch of theological
inquiry, but it is not what is directly contemplated
in this volume. And it is enough to do one thing
at a time.
Exception has been taken in some quarters, and
especially by one of my critics, the vehemence of
whose denunciations is usually in an inverse ratio
to the accuracy of his statements, to what I have
said in the fourth chapter about St. Thomas
Aquinas and the Schoolmen gen orally. In the
present Edition, the passage has been enlarged,
and in some measure recast, in order to guard as
far as possible against misconstruction, but it
remains substantially unchanged. No one, who
has any acquaintance with the subject, would deny
the keen intellectual acumen and the enormous
industry of many of the scholastic writers ; and it

PBEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. XV
would be absurd to suppose that the devotion of
such talents and labours, combined often with the
most ardent piety, to the study of theology, could
be barren of results. But, after making the fullest
allowance for their real and important services in
the consolidation of Cathohc doctrine, especially
as regards the Sacraments, it still remains true, as
I have observed in the text — and that by no fault
of their own — that the entire absence of a critical
spirit, or indeed of any critical machinery, and
of the habit of subjective reflection and internal
analysis of the processes and ideas of the mind,
which is of comparatively modern growth, the
want of historical knowledge, and the prevalent
ignorance of Greek — to which St. Thomas forms
no exception — were very serious hindrances to
an adequate treatment of theological science.
There was no criterion for distinguishing genuine
from spurious authorities, and all alike were
accepted and used with implicit confidence. None
of the Schoolmen, for instance, entertained a
doubt that the so-called works of Dionysius, the
Areopagite, now universally acknowledged to be a
compilation of the fifth century, and which had
been translated into Latin by Scotus Erigena,
were genuine ; and this forgery, deeply tinged as

XVI PEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
it is with Neo-Platonic pantheism, exercised a
considerable, and by no means always a beneficial,
influence on their writings. The teaching of the
greatest of them, Aquinas, on questions of
ecclesiastical jurisdiction, is mainly based on a
series of forged documents, composed by Dominican
missionaries in the East, and sent to him by Pope
Urban IV., who seems to have been himself
deceived by them.* His book Contra Errores
Grcecorum is derived exclusively from this compila
tion, and his reliance on it as genuine, has
naturally coloured his other writings also,
including the Summa. He would hardly again have
devoted a section of the Summa (Sda Sdae, xi. 3)
to an emphatic, though singularly feeble, apology
for the capital punishment of heresy, had he been
aware that the odious system he was advocating
owed its origin to the Priscillianist heretics, and
that the first attempt to introduce it into the
Church was met by the indignant protest of St.
Martin of Tours. What he did know was, that
the practice had been recently adopted by the
Inquisition, and he therefore felt called upon to
* The forgery was exposed by Launoi, and other French
divines of the seventeenth century, and admitted at the time
by the Dominican editors of St. Thomas. An edition of j
Laun'oi's Epistle was published at Cambridge by Saville.

PBEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. XV11
defend it. Of the many passages in the Fathers
condemning persecution, he would of course see
nothing in Gratian's Decretum, which was the great
scholastic text-book, and into which the more
important portion of the Isidorian forgeries had
been incorporated, but only the few from St.
Augustine, written under pressure of the Donatist
controversy, which seem to tell in favour of it.
No one can reasonably affect to be shocked at
my speaking of the Schoolmen often wasting their
time on trifling or incongruous questions. It
might be sufficient here to give two characteristic
examples from a recent Cathohc writer, who
certainly has no prejudice against them. The
author of Christian Schools and Scholars tells us that
they gravely disputed whether a pig driven to
market is held by the man who drives it, or by the
cord fastened round its leg, and whether the
purchaser of a cloak has also purchased the hood
fastened to it.* On the whole, I do not believe
that any impartial reader, who is competent to

* Christian Schools and Scholars, vol. i. p. 476. Examples of
this sort of trifling on sacred subjects may be found in
abundance in the notes to Gieseler's Lehrbuch der Kirchen-
geschichte, vol. iv. chap. 4, and in Discussioni di Constantino
Grimaldi, Lucca, 1725. One comparatively inoffensive instance
from a criticism quoted in the latter (p. 266) may suffice here :
"Christum propria virtute ascendisse in ccelum, dogma est
b

XVI11 PBEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
form an opinion, will be hkely to regard my
observations on the Schoolmen as either deprecia
tory or unjust. The result may be summed
up in the words of one of the first Cathohc
divines of our own day, who says that, " as
the scholastic theology was no new product of
the mediaeval spirit, but was built up from a
diligent and elaborate study of the patristic
writings, so it must be the business of the theology
of the present to go on building on the foundations
of the Christian past, not exclusively of Scholas
ticism, and thus to bring its acquisitions into

fidei ; quomodo id factum sit, an corpori detracta gravitate, an
Christi vi sustentante corpus et sursum tollente, existhnet unusquisque
ut volet." Far more objectionable instances might be given
from the speculations of the Schoolmen on good and evil
angels. In some cases, their refinements led to the adoption of
moral heresies, not unlike what Luther afterwards arrived at
by a very different road. Thus Amalric taught at Paris, early
in the thirteenth century, " quod in caritate constitutis nullum
peccatum imputabatur. Unde sub tali specie pietatis ejus
sequaces omnem turpitudinem committebant." And his followers
said; " Si aliquis est in Spiritu Sancto et faciat fornicationem
et aliqua alia pollutione polluatur, non est ei peccatum, quia
ille Spiritus, qui est Deus, omnino separatus a carne, non potest
peccare ; quamdiu ille Spiritus, qui est Deus, est in eo, Ille
operatur omnia in omnibus." Cf. Gieseler, Kirehemjesch. vol. iv.
p. 414. Amalric's writings were condemned by the University
of Paris, and the Papal Legate forbade the study of Aristotle,
which however continued none the less to form the basis of the
Scholastic philosophy. Matthew of Paris says of the Scholastics
of the second period (1248), " Qui non verentes tangere montes,
a gloria Dei opprimendi, nitebantur secreta Dei investigabilia
temere perscrutari, et judicia Dei, quae sunt abyssus multa,
nimis praesumptuose indagare." Other writers of the period,
and notably Roger Bacon, speak quite as strongly.

PBEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. xix
harmony with the requirements of the age." * It
should be remembered, moreover, as the same
writer observes, that the Tridentine Fathers
studiously adopted Patristic and Biblical in pre
ference to Scholastic language, in drawing up their
definitions, f And this holds good also of the
language of the Tridentine Catechism, which is
the universal manual of instruction in Cathohc
doctrine, both for clergy and people.
While the present treatise is not in its form
dogmatic or controversial, as was observed just
now, it is concerned with the history of dogma,
and necessarily cuts across the controversies to
which that dogma has given rise. It was, indeed,
from what one cannot help seeing of the present
result of those controversies, in discrediting the
doctrine of the Atonement altogether with many
thoughtful and even religious minds, that the idea
of undertaking it first occurred to me. I thought
that the foreign accretions which had gathered

* See Preface to the last volume of Kuhn's Dogmatik, p. iv.
The whole volume {Die christliche Lehre von der gottlichen Gnade,
Tubingen, 1868) is devoted to an examination of the Scholastic
doctrine on grace, chiefly in reply to Schatzler's attack upon
the author, " euphemistically termed criticism," but which
appears from his account to be very much the sort of " criticism "
we are accustomed to from writers of the same school in
England. The book will well repay a careful perusal.
t lb. p. 401. b *

XX PBEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
round the doctrine in the course of ages, and
especially during the period of the Reformation,
some of which have so completely changed its
whole character as to make it, in fact, quite
another doctrine, would be most easily and most
effectually discriminated from the truth they have
only served to encumber, by an historical state
ment of their origin and growth. Meanwhile,
whatever of light is shed upon that truth by
doubtful or one-sided speculations, such as the
patristic theory of a ransom to Satan, or St.
Anselm's view of the necessity of an infinite
payment for an infinite debt, would naturally come
out in the course of the inquiry. Even the
repulsive and immoral tenets introduced at the
Reformation on human sin and Divine grace are
not without their importance, as illustrating the
awful reahties they so strangely caricature. On
the other hand, while the negative results of the
investigation are valuable in showing what the
doctrine is not, it has also its positive value in
educing from the consentient voice of Fathers and
doctors what they are agreed in regarding as
essential to a right understanding of it. Con
troversy, as a rule, irritates more opponents than
it convinces ; whereas truth, if it is fairly stated, is

PBEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. XXI
more persuasive than the ablest of its advocates.
It was impossible to steer clear of controversial
discussion altogether in dealing with the divines of
the Reformation; but even there I have chiefly
confined myself to an exposition of the rival
theories, and allowed the contrast to speak for
itself. And where, as in the first and final
chapters, I have had occasion to speak more
directly in my own name, I have studied rather to
suggest matter for thought or cautions against
error than to be aggressive.
Indeed, the nature of the subject would alone
disincline one from controversy, whenever it can
be avoided. It is the scandal of Christendom that
the Atonement should have been turned into a war-
cry, that the professed disciples of the Crucified
should meet to wrangle beneath the shadow of His
Cross. But it is also certain that, if ever the
wounds of Christendom are to be healed, and the
scornful or unbeheving milhons within and without
its visible precincts to be re-united to one another,
and to Him who died to reconcile all unto God in
one body by the Cross, that union can only be
consummated through the great attraction of His
atoning love, who was lifted up that He might
draw all things to Himself. If this httle work

XXU PBEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
shall in any degree have tended, however imper
fectly or remotely, to subserve that end, it will
have abundantly fulfilled the desire which first
suggested it.
And here I gladly recognise a certain community
of aim in another work on the Atonement
emanating from a different quarter, and approach
ing the subject from a very different stand-point,
which it becomes necessary, for special reasons, to
notice here. It is devoted to working out the
author's conception of the doctrine in accordance
with the testimony of conscience and of Scripture,
especially of conscience, and with some reference
to leading Protestant systems. It is not an
exegetical treatise, though the view maintained is
of course supported from Scripture; 'and it is a
remarkable view, as corning from a writer nurtured
on the traditions of Scotch Presbyterianism. My
immediate concern, however, is only with such
portions of the volume as come into contact or
collision with my own.
When the former Edition of this work was
pubhshed, I had not seen Mr. Campbell's,* to
which my attention was first directed by the review

* The Nature of the Atonement. By J. M. Campbell.
Macmillan,

PBEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. XXLU
of my own in the Guardian. I read it carefully
and with great interest, and have since had an
opportunity of consulting the Second Edition,
which contains some comments on my own book,
through the courtesy of the author, who sent me a
copy of it. I have referred to it as occasion served
in the following pages. Mr. Campbell's method of
treatment is different from mine, consisting mainly
of an exposition of his own belief on the Atone
ment ; and, so far as he examines the opinions of
others, he does not go further back than the
Reformation. For the most part, therefore, his
line of argument does not traverse mine. While
approaching the subject from a Protestant stand
point, and betraying in some respects strong
Protestant sympathies, his work is remarkable for
its emphatic rejection of the ordinary Protestant
views of vicarious punishment, substitution, and
imputation. He manifests throughout a keen
appreciation of the fundamental connection between
the Atonement and the Incarnation, and insists on
the inner reality of that justification, which is its
result, as no mere fictitious imputation of an ahen
righteousness, but the actual implanting of
righteousness in our natures through union with
our incarnate Lord. The former point is pro-

XXIV PBEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
minently brought out in the Introduction to the
Second Edition, which starts from the principle
that " the faith of the Atonement pre-supposes the
faith of the Incarnation," and proceeds to discuss
the question, first raised by the Scotists, whether
the Incarnation sprung out of the necessity
for Atonement, or is to be regarded as itself
" the primary and highest fact in the history of
God's relation to man," the Atonement becoming
necessary to the fulfilment of the Divine purpose
on account of sin. The writer expresses, if I
rightly understand him,* a decided preference for
the latter (Scotist) view ; but the main object of
the Introduction is to vindicate faith in the
Atonement for fallen man, as distinct from faith
in the Incarnation only, from certain sceptical
tendencies of the present day, which must not be
confounded with that view. " To trace redemption
to its ultimate root in the Divine Fatherliness, and
to regard that Fatherliness as leaving no room
for redemption, are altogether opposite apprehen
sions of the grace of God." The second theory
is indeed practically to fall back on natural
rehgion. * This seems to be distinctly stated at p. xiii., yet his
language in p. xviii. might point in an opposite direction.

PBEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. XXV
Mr. Campbell has devoted a chapter to the
teaching of Luther, and two more to the Calvinist
theology, as taught by some of its leading adherents
in this country and in America, which he strongly
condemns. His censure is just, but does not
call for any special comment here. I have no
acquaintance with the modern writers referred to,
but they appear, from the extracts given,, to have
faithfully adhered to the system of their master.
The modifications introduced by the spirit of the
age into the later Calvinism have done more to
mar its intellectual symmetry than to improve its
moral and spiritual character. In his account of
Luther's teaching the author seems to me to have
insensibly interpreted the Reformer's opinions
by his own.* Luther had not, like Calvin, the
mind of a theologian. He wrote quite as much
under the guidance of impulse as of deliberate
judgment, and, as he also wrote a great deal, it is
not wonderful that he is not always consistent with
himself. Considering that he was a man of strong
religious earnestness, it is only natural again tbat
much which is true and even edifying should be
* Mr. Campbell, moreover, confines himself to Luther's
Commentary on the Galatians. No examination of his teaching
which leaves unnoticed the portentous treatise De Servo Arbitrio
can pretend to do justice to it.

XXVI PBEFACE TO TEE SECOND EDITION.
found in his writings. Whatever spiritual life men
have is really nourished, under the least favourable
circumstances, by the truths they (often uncon
sciously) hold, not by the errors they have added
to them. But it is not difficult to gather from
Luther's writings the leading characteristics of his
system, which are summed up in the catechism
and other symbolical documents he composed or
sanctioned for the standards of his new community.
I can understand, and in some degree share, Mr.
Campbell's personal respect for the man, but for
his novel theory of justification I can feel none,
intellectual or moral. Both in itself and in its
practical results, which soon began to show
themselves, it seems to me most literally to deserve,
if I may borrow for once the favourite phraseology
of its professors, the name of a " soul-destroying
heresy." In his Second Edition Mr. Campbell has inserted
a Note to his Chapter on Luther, which I may be
expected to notice, as some parts of it directly cut
across statements of my own. While condemning
" the forensic character of the systematic theology
of the Reformers " as inadequate, he yet insists
on the importance of their protest against " the
general and doubtsome faith of the Church of

PBEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. XXV11
Rome," though it is admitted that this general
and doubtsome faith "prevails in Protestant as
well as in Roman Cathohc countries " ; I should
have thought much more so. The point insisted
upon is, however, that it is " alone logically
possible " on Cathohc principles, because, " the
doctrine that the Atonement had special reference to
original sin, while satisfaction for personal sin
remained to be made in the form of penance,
precluded the possibility of peace with God as an
immediate result of faith." He adds, oddly
enough, that the fact of our penances being con
nected with the sacrifice of Christ, and accepted
for His sake, " does not alter the case." In
another Note he speaks still more strongly,
and with express reference to my book, of the
Church " limiting the relation of the Atonement
to sin to original sin," while the Reformers held
it to apply equally to actual sins (p. 408). As
no authorities are given for this strange version of
Cathohc doctrine, and it is seldom safe to hazard a
universal negative, I will, only say that I know of
no single Cathohc theologian who teaches it,
and that it certainly is not the doctrine of the
Church. The Catechism of Trent, in explaining " the

XXVlii PBEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
reasons why the Son of God endured His most
bitter Passion," asserts that "the principal cause
consisted in the crimes and vices which men have
perpetrated from the beginning of the world till
now, and shall perpetrate henceforth to the end of
time ; for in his death the Son of God, our Saviour,
contemplated the Atonement and obliteration of
the sins of all ages, by offering for them to His
Father a full and superabundant satisfaction." *
So httle is the Atonement said to have special
reference to original sin that original sin is not
specifically mentioned at all. The charge might,
indeed, with far greater force be urged against-
the Reformers themselves, and especially Luther,
whose novel and highly exaggerated doctrine of
original sin, which will be found noticed in its
place in this volume, connected the atonement
more exclusively with it, and undermined the
sense of moral responsibility for actual sins. St.
Bonaventure and other Scholastic writers say, no
doubt, that by atoning for original sin Christ won
grace for men, whereby they are eoabled to make
satisfaction for their own actual sins, and that His
Passion accordingly acts more fully in the Sacra- ;
* Cat. ad Paroch. Pars. I. cap. v. Q. 11,

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. XXix
ment of baptism, which (in the case of infants)
remits original sin only, than in the Sacrament of
penance which remits actual sin. But this simply
means that, until the bar placed by original sin
had been removed, there was no room for the
pardon of actual sin or grace to subdue it ; and
that what poor satisfactions we ourselves may offer
are accepted by virtue of the full atonement for
aU sin, original and actual, made on the Cross,
and in union with it.
This is not the place to enter on the strong
arguments from Scripture and natural reason in
favour of the Cathohc doctrine of satisfaction.
Conscience alone would tell us that personal sin
deserves personal chastisement, and the instinct of
contrition would urge the pardoned sinner to do
all in his power to make reparation — even with
zeal, indignation, and revenge, as the Apostle
words it — to the Love he had so cruelly outraged.
What is important to observe here is, that it is
a complete misapprehension of the doctrine to
suppose that it makes forgiveness and peace of
conscience dependent on our own acts of satisfac
tion, and thus diverts the attention of the penitent
from his Saviour to himself. Pardon is complete
and instantaneous, whether given in absolution or

XXX PBEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
through an act of true contrition without it, and
with pardon is necessarily united the infusion of
grace. Satisfaction, whether voluntary or involun
tary, and whatever shapes it may assume, comes
afterwards, and is accepted precisely because it is
offered by one who has already been reconciled to
God. But it is not in this matter that the root
of Luther's contention against the ancient theology
is to be sought. It lay rather in his substitution
of faith, in the sense of fiducia or personal assur
ance — the laying hold of the merits of Christ by
an act of trust, — for the fides formata, or faith
working by love, to which alone the Cathohc dogma
ascribes a justifying power ; and the consequent
change introduced by him in the ^meaning of
justification, which he regarded as a bare act of
acquittal, not as the infusion of sanctifying grace,
whereby God does not simply repute but makes us
just. And this again springs from his novel and
most immoral theory of original sin, and the
denial of free will which is its result. The new
doctrine had its practical convenience in dis
pensing with the need for priesthood and sacra
ments, but it had also its attendant inconveniences,
which were not long in displaying themselves, in
practically dispensing with the obligations of the

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. XXxi
moral law.* Luther may not have intended his
teaching to be Antinomian, but he lived to
witness in the excesses of the Anabaptists a wild
outbreak of the Antinomianism which is its inevit
able result. From that day to this, wherever his
doctrinal system has been thoroughly accepted and
reahsed, whether in his own country or in ours, it
has acted as a deadly narcotic to the action of
conscience. Hallam observes that '( it is certain
that we find no testimonies to any reform of manners
in the countries that embraced it." If Lutheranism
is powerless for good or for evil in Germany now,
that is simply because, among the great majority
of its nominal adherents, "the doubtsome faith of
the Church of Rome," which it was intended to
supersede, has long since been replaced by a faith

* Those who wish for evidence of this statement in an easily
accessible form, may consult the extracts from Luther's writings
given by Hallam (Lit. of Europe, vol. i. p. 299,) in reply to
Archdeacon Hare. The following well-known passage, from
his Letter to Melancthon, is characteristic : " Sufficit quod
agnovimus per divitias glorias Dei Agnum, qui tollit peccata
mundi ; ab hoc non avellet nos peccatum, etiamsi millies millies
wno die fornicemur out occidam,us. Putas tarn parvum esse
pretium et redemptionem pro peccatis nostris factam in tanto
et tali Agno ? Ora fortiter ; es enim fortissimus peccator." It
would be easy to multiply similar extracts from his writings.
I have no pleasure in throwing stones at a great memory, still
less would I attempt to gauge theological systems by the
aberrations of individual teachers. But when Luther is again
put forward as a great preacher of truth and righteousness,
it is well people should understand clearly what his real
teaching was.

XXX11 PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
which can hardly be called doubtsome, for it does
not offer to the revelation of God Incarnate even
the homage of a doubt whether it may perchance
be true. There is, indeed, as we shall see later on,
a reaction in an orthodox direction among Lutheran
divines of the present day, but the most prominent
among them, though they may still adhere to the
traditional terminology of their formularies, have
wandered far from the ideas it was originally
intended to convey.
In another Note occurs the following passage,
which is probably, from the turn of expression and
the allusion to St. Bernard's words which stand on
the title-page, intended to include a reference to
my book, though it is not expressly named. I
therefore transcribe it as it stands.
" St. Bernard speaks of the merits of Christ's
death being the mind in which He died; and
recent Roman Catholic writers dwell on the merits
of Christ's satisfaction and sacrifice for sin,
speaking of the relation of the excellence that
was in Him to us and our demerits in a way
that, though free from the charge of legal fiction,
has in it the essence of that imputation of
righteousness with which they reproach the divines
of the Reformation. I have not thus conceived of

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. XXXiti
merit counter-balancing demerit, any more than
of penal suffering substituted for punishment.
That the self-sacrifice present in it has been the
atoning virtue of Christ's sacrifice is a form of
this conception of merit which commends itself
to some, though perhaps rather as a part of the
man-ward aspect of the atonement, than as its
power to prevail with God. Love is the life in
which the atonement was made, and self-sacrifice,
which is of the essence of love (though self-
sacrifice is not an adequate definition of love), is
the form in which love is seen in the atonement.
But the atonement is such, not because of the
self-sacrificing love manifested in it, but as that
love taking a form determined by our need as God's
offspring, alienated from Him by sin." *
The latter portion of this extract does not call
for much comment here. It is obvious that self-
sacrifice is not identical with love, though it is,
under the conditions of this life, one of its most
essential expressions, and, as the author admits,
is the form which it took in the atonement.
Neither, of course, would it suffice to constitute
an atonement in itself, and apart from the method
* Nature of the Atonement, p. 399.

XXXIV PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
of exercising it. It was not the self-sacrifice but
the moral element of the Sacrifice of Christ, to
which I ascribed its atoning virtue ; * the self-
sacrifice I spoke of chiefly in its relation to man.
But Mr. Campbell speaks of Cathohc writers
dwelling on the excellence of Christ as related to
our demerits in a way that has in it the essence of
the imputation of righteousness with which they
reproach the Reformers. I am not sure that I
clearly understand the charge. It is certainly
Cathohc doctrine, that all human merit is accepted
for Christ's sake only, and derives its whole efficacy
from His Cross and Passion. But this differs toto
ca.lo from the Lutheran view of a transfer or
imputation of righteousness, and of merit counter
balancing demerit. It is just the difference between
saying that His merit and obedience is taken as a
substitute for ours, and saying that He has merited
for His brethren, as the Second Adam and Head
of the family of the regenerate, forgiveness of the
past and grace henceforth to serve God, not as
slaves, but sons. It is a real though imperfect
righteousness which " the just Judge " rewards,
* A few words have indeed been insetted (at p. 98), to bring
out this idea more clearly, but they do not add to it, and I
wrote them before seeing Mr. Campbell's comment.

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. XXXV
yet in bestowing that crown of righteousness, He
is, in St Augustine's words, crowning His own
gifts. We can neither be justified without the
righteousness of Christ, whereby all grace is won
for us, nor is it by that righteousness, in the words
of the Tridentine Council, that we are " formally
just." A substituted righteousness is even more
alien from the Cathohc idea of "the Atonement
than a substituted punishment. The author, I
think, misapprehends that idea from failing to
realise the infusion of sanctifying grace through
sacramental union with our Lord, as an integral
part of it. At all events his objections to it seem
ultimately to run up into the difficulty, which he
elsewhere expressly recognises and dwells upon, in
conceiving of any atonement being required at all,
rather than a mere announcement of the Divine
mercy.* It will be seen that I have confined myself to
noticing in detail those passages of Mr. Campbell's
book which bear directly on my own, and seemed,
therefore, to call for a reply. Criticism on living
writers does not (as was observed in my former
preface) fall properly within the scope of a treatise

* Nature of the Atonement, pp. 20, sqq.

O *

XXXVI PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
on the history of doctrine. But it is impossible
not to sympathise with the spirit of Mr. Campbell's
book and with much of its positive teaching,
especially as to what he calls the " expiatory con
fession of our sins by Christ," which seems to be
its leading idea. My criticisms, were I to under
take the task of criticising, would probably refer
mainly to the negative aspects of his theology,
partly in the way of denials, and still more of
omissions. One conspicuous omission must at
once strike every Cathohc reader, though under
the circumstances it is only natural. No view of
the Atonement, either in relation to God or man,
can be other than incomplete, which ignores its
perpetuation in the Eucharistic Sacrifice,* and
application through the sacraments to the indi
vidual soul.
In the present edition, I have made more

* In one place the author seems unconsciously to be touching
on this, where he speaks of " the perfection of humanity in
Christ " being " a pleading, even were it silent, for all humanity."
It is such a silent pleading, where He presents it continually in
heaven — for in words He prays no more — and on the altars of
His earthly Church in the mystery of the Eucharist. It is a
melancholy pleasure to cite the testimony of my lamented friend,
Dr. Appleton, himself at once a keen philosophical thinker and
devout believer, on this point : " The Catholic Mass is not, like
the Protestant Lord's Supper, mainly and pre-eminently a
memorial of a past event, but before all things itself a sacrifice
which is eternal, i.e. of the Lamb slain before the foundation of
the world." Appleton's Life and Lit. Remains, p. 137.

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. XXXVU
frequent use of contemporary English writers in
illustration of my argument, both in the Intro
ductory Essay on Development and in the body of
the work. It will of course be understood, in such
cases, that I do not necessarily commit myself to
agreement with every syllable of passages, quoted
on the whole with approval, still less to any
opinions expressed elsewhere by the same authors ;
as neither, on the other hand, does my using their
testimony imply any agreement with me on their
part, beyond what is conveyed in their own words.
But it is instructive to observe how much there
often is in common between those who are widely
separated in position or belief, and how many
differences, long and bitterly cherished, have their
root in mutual misunderstandings. There is,
perhaps, no theological controversy to which this
remark apphes with greater force than to that
concerning justification. What Luther puts for
ward, as the articulus stantis vel cadentis Ecclesia,, is in
reality maintained by no theologian of name at
the present day, either in his own country or
in ours. Those who most highly honour the
Reformer himself, even those who still accept
the formularies which bear his name, are often the
furthest removed from teaching what he taught.

XXXVU1 PREFACE TO THE SECOND .EDITION.
The doctrine of justification preached in the
majority of Anghcan pulpits is, at least in its main
features, the doctrine, not of Luther, but of the
Council of Trent. And so, to take a very different
instance, it is remarkable how those, who not long
ago were strongly opposed to it, are coming to
acknowledge, in the words of one of my Anghcan
critics, and by no means the most favourably
disposed to my view, " that every student of
theology must admit some kind of development of
doctrine," and that " in a certain sense it underlies
the theology of all Churches, for wherever there is
any action of mind upon truth, there is a develop
ment of the latter." * Some of my reviewers
have said much more than this. The fact of such
a development has long indeed been familiar to
German writers of the most opposite theological
schools. But it is satisfactory to find that what
was almost unanimously denounced by the religious
press in this country hardly twenty years ago; as
sheer Rationalism or Romanism run mad, is now
beginning to be pretty generally admitted as true
in principle, though there is still of course much
difference of opinion about the application of the
* Guardian, Aug. 24, 1865.

PBEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. XXXIX
principle.* To come to a better understanding on
this point would be a most important step towards
the settlement of those doctrinal questions which
divide Protestants from Catholics, and the Eastern
Church from the West. But I am touching on
the confines of a vast subject which cannot be
enlarged upon here.
One word only shaU be added in conclusion.
The Cross may be regarded as the meeting-point
of the objective and subjective elements of

* My critic in the Westminster Review (Oct. 1865) observes
that rationalists will consider their own theory of development
more consistent, "which does not require the cataclysm of a
miraculous incarnation." But I was not arguing with those who
deny the Incarnation. That is a fact resting on its own evidence,
which is neither " required " nor capable of being disproved by
any theory of development, as such, though for all who regarjl
it as the final and fullest revelation of God to man, it is
necessarily the starting point of any theory of development in
Christian doctrine. When the reviewer goes on to "object,
above all, to that which is a characteristic of the so-called
Catholic developments, the deducing logical conclusions from
mystical premisses, as of Eucharistic flesh and blood from a
figurative victim," there seems to be some confusion of
language. No one dreams of deducing the Cathohc doctrine of
the Eucharist from "a figurative victim" — whatever precisely
is intended by the phrase — for no one who believes in Christianity
at all, certainly no believer in Catholicism, holds either the
Person or the Sacrifice of Christ to be figurative. Nor can
St. Bernard's words, in ascribing the efficacy of His death to
His will in voluntarily dying, in any way prejudice "the
perpetual sacrifice of the mass." As both Victim and Sacrifice
are in either case identical, whatever explanation is given of
the one, applies equally to the other. So far as the word
" mystical " indicates a distinction between the " premisses " and
the " conclusions," it belongs to the latter, not the former, for
though both Victim and Sacrifice are the same, the manner of
offering is mystical on the altar, while it was real on the Cross.

xl PBEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
Christianity. The Incarnation of fche Eternal
Word is the fundamental verity on which the faith
is built, and it is then most vividly brought home
alike to the intellect and the conscience, when we
are bidden to gaze on that bleeding Form on
Calvary, and to remember that the Blood so freely
shed for us is indeed none other than the Blood of
the Incarnate God. This is the picture suggested
to us when we think of the Atonement. And none
should dare to contemplate it, even though it be
from a distance, and rather for purposes of abstract
inquiry than of devotion, but with the deepest
reverence and in the spirit of adoring love. If
there is aught in these pages tending in any way
to lessen that reverence, or to cloud the vision of
His Atoning Love of whom they speak, the author
would wish it blotted out ere it was written.
" Domine Deus une, Deus Trinitas, qumcumque dixi in
his libris de Tuo agnoscant et Tui ; si qua de meo, et Tu
ignosce et Tui."
London, Advent, 1868.

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.
The scope of this Essay is not controversial, but
historical. It is designed to trace through the
patristic, scholastic, and later periods of theology
the Cathohc doctrine on the Atonement of the
Son of God, comparing it also with the principal
Reformed systems, to some of which the author
ventures to think that the antipathy felt by many
not irrehgious minds towards the whole idea of
Atonement is in great measure due. He has had,
therefore, a certain undercurrent of practical aim,
in showing that objections urged with more or less
reason against what are either doubtful excres
cences or erroneous perversions of the doctrine do
not apply to it, as part of the Church's faith. But
this secondary purpose has never been allowed
(he trusts) to interfere with strict fidelity of state
ment in recording the belief whether of individuals

Xlii PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.
or communities. References are in every case
given to the writers or formularies under review,
and their meaning is expressed, as far as possible,
in their own words.
Of authorities consulted, other than those
forming the direct subject of inquiry, the following
deserve special mention; for the Fathers of the
first three centuries, Bahr's Die Lehre der Kirche
vom TodeJe.su in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (Sulzbach,
1832) ; Thomasius's Origenes, Ein Beitrag zur Dog-
mengeschichte des dritten Jahrhunderts (Niirnberg,
1837) ; Redepenning's Origenes, Eine Darstellung
seines Lebens und seiner Lehre (Bonn, 1841) ; for the
later patristic and the scholastic period especially,
and partly for the Reformation, Baur's Die christliche
Lehre von der Versbhnung (Tubingen, 1831) ; * for the
patristic period generaUy, Petavius, De Incarnatione
Verbi ; Thomassin, De Incarnatione Verbi Dei ;

* Baur's work requires to be read with caution. He is on
the whole reliable as a chronicler of opinions, but with a
passsion for systematizing, which sometimes leads him to give
exclusive or disproportionate value to one side of a writer's
view, to the exclusion or neglect of others. This is particularly
shown in his treatment of the Fathers, which illustrates the
criticism that has been made upon his intellect, as " of an
essentially negative cast, preternaturally alive to the slightest
indications of inconsistency, while unable to recognise the
plainest evidences of unity."

PBEFACE TO THE FIEST EDITION. xliii
Fabricius, De Veritate Religionis Christians, cap. 41 ;
and for the Reformation period, Mohler's Symbolism
(Robertson's Trans., London, 1843) ; DoUinger's
Die Ueformation (Regensburg, 1848), vol. hi. ; and
Newman's Lectures on Justification (Oxford, 1840).
Other authorities will be mentioned as they occur.
The author desires further to put on record his
great personal obhgations to the kindness of Dr.
DoUinger, both for many valuable suggestions, and
for allowing him the free use of his extensive
library. It may be as well to observe, that the manuscript
was completed before he had an opportunity of re
ferring to Archbishop Thomson's Bampton Lectures
on the Atonement, which he had heard preached
at Oxford in 1853, but had not seen in print ; only
two of them, however — the sixth and seventh —
deal in part, and from the nature of the case very
briefly, with the history of the doctrine. As a
general rule, direct criticism on contemporary
hterature has been purposely avoided in this
volume, as unsuitable to the character of a work
not meant to be controversial ; but it has not
therefore been composed in forgetfulness of what
hving writers have said, or of the tone of the

Xhv PBEFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.
serial press on the subject. The treatise is chiefly
occupied with recording the opinions of others;
so far as it expresses his own, the author need
scarcely add, that he trusts it will be found to
contain nothing out of harmony with the spirit
and teaching of the Church.
London, i
Lent, 1865.

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION.
On the Principle of Theological Developments.
PAGE
Importance of the question  1
Method of treating it  2
Meaning of doctrinal development  8
Its relation to Apostolic teaching - . . . . . 5
It includes a human and a Divine element ... 7
Its analogy to historical development of Church . . 10
Analogy to order of Creed  12
Two alternative theories exammed ; the Bible only theory 14
The theory of limited development  16
Illustrations of the principle : —
1. Number of Sacraments  19
2. Cultus of Saints and Angels  22
8. Immaculate Conception  24
4. Doctrine of the Holy Trinity .... SO
Alleged contrast between earlier and later developments
examined  88
Genuine^and spurious developments discriminated . . 44
Developments of doctrine and practice compared . . 47
Antecedent tests  54
Corollaries of principle  57
Two leading objections discussed: —
1. Alleged dishonour to Revelation .... 60
2. Sufficiency of Tradition  69

xlvi

CONTENTS.

True way of meeting Rationalistic attacks
Importance of unity ....
Conclusion 

PA«E 71
79A80

CHAPTER I.
PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS.
Difficulties and Objections  83
Necessity of Preliminary Explanation .... 85
No Division of Will between the Father and the Son . 86
What is meant by the " Justice " and " Wrath '' of God,
and the need for an Atonement .... 87
Forshadowings and Illustrations of the Atonement . . 91
Why One Sacrifice alone could be perfect .... 94
The Atonement not the sole Object of the Incarnation . 96
The Scotist View of the Motive of the Incarnation
considered ........ 98
Connection of the Atonement with Justification . . 103
The Theory of " Imputation " no part of Catholic
Doctrine  104
The Testimony of Fathers and Theologians, how to be
used  106
Brief Summary of Scriptural Teaching on the Atonement 108
Conclusion  112

CHAPTER II.
THE ANTE-NIOENE FATHERS.

Unsystematic Character of Ante-Nicene Writers

114

First Century. — St. Clement of Rome

116

Epistle of St. Barnabas .

116

Hermas . . ...

117

St. Ignatius 

118

St. Polycarp 

119

Epistle to Diognetus

119

CONTENTS. xlvh

Second Century. — St. Justin Martyr ....
St. Clement of Alexandria
Claudius Apollinaris
Third Century. — Tertullian 
Hippolytus 
St. Cyprian 
Methodius 
Summary of Teaching of first three Centuries .
Theory of a Ransom to Satan first clearly enunciated by
St. Irenseus 
It is developed and systematized by Origen

PAGE 120122
123 124126126127128130134

CHAPTER III.

THE LATER FATHERS.

The altered Character of Theology in the fourth Century . 141
The two Theories of a Ransom to Satan and a Sacrifice to
God combined 
The Ransom to Satan includes, His Claim to a Payment
The Deceit practised on Him 146
The Necessity of Compen
sation
Remarks on this Theory 
The Death of Christ also viewed by the Fathers as a
Sacrifice to God ......
Two Ideas brought out in these Speculations .
No change in the Divine Mind taught
General Summary of Patristic Teaching .
Speculations of Scotus Erigena ....

142143

148150156159163165 170

CONTENTS.
CHAPTER IV.
ST. ANSELM AND THE SCHOOLMEN. PACK
Transition from Patristic to Scholastic Era . . . 175
Characteristics of the latter  177
Its earlier and later Periods  180
First Period. — St. Anselm's Cur Deus Homo marks ah
epoch in the history of Doctrine . 181
Analysis of its Contents .... 188
Remarks upon it  185
Abelard  189
St. Bernard  191
Robert Pulleyn  193
Hugh and Richard of St. Victor . . 194
Peter Lombard  195
Second Period. — St. Bonaventure ..... 198
Alexander of Hales and Albert the Great . 203
St. Thomas Aquinas .... 204
Duns Scotus  207
Thomist and Scotist Views compared . 211
Wicliffe  215
Raymund of Sabunde .... 216
Nicholas of Cusa  218

CHAPTER V.
THEORIES OF THE REFORMATION PERIOD.
Socinian and Rationalist views of the Atonement, why
excluded from the present Review .... 219
Differences of Catholic and Protestant doctrine bearing
upon it  221
The Catholic doctrme of Original Righteousness, Sin, and
Justification  225

CONTENTS.

xhx

PAGE
Lutheran doctrine on these subjects .... 228
Calvinist doctrine  237
Reaction agamst teaching of Reformers begins with
Osiander  242
It is taken up by the Anabaptists  244
Socinianism  245
Arminianism  246
Quakerism  247
Swedenborg  249
Grotius's treatise on Satisfaction analysed . . . 252
Remarks upon it  258
German Rationalistic theology  263
John Dippel  264
Anghcan Theology  267

CHAPTER VI.

LATER CATHOLIC THEOLOGY.

General Characteristics of later Cathohc Theology

. 271

French Theologians. — Malebranche and Arnauld

. 242

Tournely

. 275

Le Grand

. 276

Robbe ....

. 278

Massiot ....

. 280

Plowden ....

. 281

The Atonement and the Eucharist .

. 283

German Theologians. — Kliipfel, Dobmayer, Klee

. 286

Brenner ....

. 287

Giinther

. 287

Baader ....

. 289

Pabst ....

. 290

The Future of Theology 

. 300

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER VII.
THE MORAL FITNESS OF THE ATONEMENT. PAGE
Recapitulation and Summary of Teaching on the Atone
ment  301
Reflections suggested by it. — Suffering the true bond of
Sympathy and Instrument of Power .... 307
Universality of our Lord's Sufferings in HisPassion . 313
The Passion perpetuated in the Church .... 319
Suffering made Sacramental .
The lesson of Self-Sacrifice
Self-sacrifice and Tenderness .
The love of Beauty interpreted
The pledge of Divine compassion
Conclusion ....

325 326
331
336 338
340

EXCURSUS I.
On the Atonement and the Immaculate Conception . . 343
EXCURSUS II.
On Communion in One Kind ...... 346

EXCURSUS III.
On the Real Meaning op the Popular Cult of
Antinous  353

CONTENTS. li
EXCURSUS IV. PAGE
On the Condition op our Lord's Human Body . . . 358
EXCURSUS V.
On Recent Lutheran Theology on the Motive of the
Incarnation ........ 868
EXCURSUS VI.
On Strauss's Estimate op the Belief of the Early
Church  868
EXCURSUS VII.
On Baxter's View of Imputation ..... 876

EXCURSUS VIIL
On the Connection between the Sacrifice of the Cross
and the Eucharist ....... 879

EXCURSUS IX.
On Certain Ethical Contrasts op Christian and Heathen
Civilisation ........ 389

Index .......... 395

INTRODUCTION.

ON THE PRINCIPLE OF THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS.
It can hardly be doubted, that one of the most im
portant theological questions of the day, on which
many of our detailed controversies wiU be found to
hinge, and into which they must ultimately be re
solved, is that of developments in Christian behef.
From failing to recognise this great law of revealed,
as of scientific truth, thousands are prejudiced
against dogmatic Christianity altogether, while
others hold it with but a feeble and uncertain
grasp. Nor can we look with any confidence for
the return to unity of separated religious bodies,
while some rigidly adhere to the principle of a
lifeless and unfruitful tradition, and others insist
on an exclusive appeal to the bare letter of Scrip
ture. This question will accordingly be found, if I
mistake not, to he at the root of half our rehgious
disputes, and some understanding upon it is an
indispensable prehminary for their appreciation or
adjustment. There is of course a broad line to be drawn be
tween matters of faith, and of theological opinion,
1

2 INTRODUCTION.
between what is put before us as a portion of the
revealed deposit, and what may be reasonably, ox
probably, or piously beheved as an inference from
it. But it sometimes happens that theological infer
ences come to be so clearly ascertained in the course
of ages, that they are at length fixed by authorita
tive decisions, and accepted as part of the original
revelation, which, though not exphcitly contained
in the words of Apostles and Evangehsts, is felt
to be involved in the general scope of their teach
ing, and to supply the right key for its harmonious
interpretation. It is natural, then, to prefix to a work occupied
with tracing the history of a particular doctrine
some observations on this principle of growth and
development in Catholic theology, though aU that
can be attempted within our present limits is to
sketch out roughly certain main outlines of thought
on the subject. And as the method ofthe Treatise
is not controversial but historical, so will it be my
aim in this Introductory Essay to speak as httle
controversially as the subject admits. A statement
of principles cannot be made too clear, but it is
never less persuasive than when thrown into a
polemical shape. Most earnestly would I desire to
take for my motto in aU that I may say that noble
maxim of Christian antiquity, which, if not ver
bally stated in the works of St. Augustine, has ever
been held to express the mind of that great Saint
and Teacher in the Church of God ; In necessariis
unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 3
The development of doctrine, it can hardly be
needful to observe, does not mean that there is a
constant succession of fresh revelations in the
Church to supplement or supersede the revelations
of Christmas and Pentecost.* Still less does it
mean, as others have objected, that Christian
doctrine receives, as time goes on, a series of fresh
accessions, from the admixture or fusion of hetero
geneous elements. Let me illustrate my meaning
by an example. Supposing, as has sometimes been
maintained, that the invocation of Saints had
originally sprung from a gradual adoption of poly
theistic practices, as the converted heathen began
to multiply and dominate in the Church, instead
of being the natural outgrowth of a deeper view
of the Incarnation ; or suppose, as others have
urged, that the doctrine of the Trinity was im
ported from Neo-Platonism into the Gospel ; — that
would, in either case, be an accretion, but not a
legitimate development. It is true, indeed, as will
be noticed presently, that development has its
human side, and the Church therefore has the
right — of which she has all along habitually availed
herself — of assimilating and converting to her own
service such elements, both of speculative and
practical truth, as may be found in external or even

* Kuhn therefore (Kathol. Dogmatik, vol. i. p. 13) rightly rejects
Studenmaier's statement, " dass der heilige Geist als Princip
der Weisheit nicht nur das von Christus ausgegangene gottliche
Wort erhalte, sondern auch durch fortgehende Inspirationen
Wahrheiten aufs Neue immer erzeuge." 1 *

4 INTRODUCTION.
hostile systems, whether Hellenic or heretical, just
as St. Paul did not hesitate to enforce his teaching
by metaphors and iUustrations borrowed from con
temporary Greek and Boman life.* We have
instances of this in the adaptation of ritual details
derived from Jewish or Pagan worship, as in the
ceremonial use of flowers, candles, incense, and
lustral water, and even, as time went on, the actual
consecration to Christian uses of heathen temples —
which St. Gregory urged on our own Apostle, St.
Augustine f — and of heathen festivals, as when
Christmas took the place of the Saturnaha and
Solstitia, and, perhaps, St. Valentine's Day of the
Lupercalia ; in the gradual recognition of ascetic
principles first prominently put forward, though in
a perverse and exaggerated form, by Montanism ;
and again in the place assigned to Aristotle in
medieval theology. But the selection and ac
ceptance of such material aids from without must
always depend on their fitness to be subordinated
and rendered ancillary to the exhibition of the
great doctrinal and ethical truths contained in
the revealed deposit. Whatever cannot be har
monized with that unerring standard is cast aside
as worthless or injurious. The Church will from
time to time display novos fructus, but can never
consent to recognise what are really non sua poma.
And thus it requires a gift of spiritual discernment

* See Farrar's Life of St. Paul, vol. i. Excurs. 8.
t Bedffi Hist. Eccles. i. 30.

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 5
to discriminate between the evil and the good.*
Whatis meant, then, by the principle of development
is this — that the Christian revelation once, and
once for aU, " dehvered to the Saints," through the
Incarnation of the Eternal Word, and from the
hps of His inspired servants, though fully appre
hended from the first for all necessary ends, has
grown, and was intended to grow, by degrees on
the consciousness of the Church, iUumined by the
abiding presence of the Divine Comforter, f
The question may indeed be asked, though it is
impossible to offer any complete and positive reply
* It is from a one-sided apprehension of this power of assimi
lation in the Church, regarded ab extra, and partly in reference
to its occasional or local abuse, that Mr. M. Arnold, after re
cording his conviction that "the prevailing form for the
Christianity of the future will be the form of Catholicism," goes
on to observe that " Catholicism is that form of Christianity
which is fullest of human accretions and superstitions, because
it is the oldest, the largest, the most popular. It is the religion
which has most reached the people." Fortnightly Review for July,
1878, p. 38.
\ I subjoin all the more readily the following apposite passage
from the Commonitorium of St. Vincent of Lerins (c. xxviii), as his
famous rule — Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus — has been
frequently, but most incorrectly, quoted, in opposition to the
theory of development altogether, which, on the contrary, he
not only admits, but expressly insists upon ; " Nullusne ergo in
Ecclesia Christi profectus habebitur religionis ? Habeatur plane
et maximus. Nam quis ille est tarn invidus hominibus, tarn exosus
Deo, qui istud prohibere conetur ? Sed ita ut vere profectus sit
ille fidei, non permutatio. Siquidem ad profectum pertinet ut in
semet ipsum unaquseque res amplificetur ; ad permutationem
vero ut aliquid ex alio in aliud transvertatur. Crescat igitur
oportet, et multo vehementerque proficiat, tarn singulorum quam
omnium, tarn unius hominis quam totius Ecclesias, astatum et
saeculorum gradibus, intelligentia, sapientia, scientia ; sed in suo
duntaxat genere, eodem scilicet dogmate, eodem sensu, eademque
sententia." There is nothing propounded in Cardinal Newman's
famous essay which is not in principle contained in this passage.

6 INTRODUCTION.
to it, how far the Apostles themselves compre
hended in its fulness and its details the revelation
of which they were the organs. That they did not
teach it in all its details, though they taught it
sufficiently for the needs of the Church in their own
day, and that not the whole even of what they did
teach oraUy has come down to us, is certain ; and
that is the only point which properly concerns our
present inquiry. That in the hght of Divine in
spiration they appreciated the bearings of what
they did teach far more clearly than their unin
spired contemporaries, and that they knew much
more than they were commissioned to impart, we
can hardly doubt. But it does not foUow that the
whole range of revealed truth in aU its future, or
all its possible developments, lay open like an
illuminated scroll before their gaze, nor does such
a view commend itself to one as the most probable.
At the same time the principle of a gradual develop
ment of doctrine in the Church is no more affected
by their possessing such fulness of knowledge, if
they did possess it, than the gradual unfolding of
her history is affected by St. John's inspired pre
vision of its course in the Bevelation of Patmos.
It must be remembered, however, that there are
traces of a gradual development even in the New
Testament, and that there were some matters, as,
for instance, the duration of the present dispen
sation, on which the inspired writers were not only
left in ignorance but in error. Even Scripture has
its human side. And this leads to a further and

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 7
very important observation in reference to the
subject of this essay.
In the process of development, as in Scripture,
in Sacraments, and in everything which concerns
our relations with the unseen world, there must be
two factors, an earthly and a Divine.* The human
element is here supphed by the labours of theo
logians, the meditations of Saints, and even, as we
have seen, by the external, perhaps antagonistic,
speculations of men of science, men of the world,
heretics, and unbelievers. Even from the Positivist
we may have something to learn ; when he boasts
of the moral superiority of his faith to ours, and
points to his conception of an universal brotherhood
of mankind, as a new revelation, he is but remind
ing us — to our shame be it spoken — of our own
forgotten lore. All these last are in truth uncon
sciously serving a common end, as the Gibeonites
of old were " hewers of wood and drawers of water "
to the chosen people, whom they hated or despised, t

* On the combination of Divine and human elements in the
Church, see Mohler's Symbolism, pt. i. ch. v. sect. 36.
t This passage has been rather severely criticised by a friendly
reviewer in the Spectator, as assimilating "the most single-
minded men of science," or " the purest-minded and most
unselfish amongst those whom" the Church "chooses to set
down as heretics," to "members of a doomed race, who by a trick
escaped utter extinction, under penalty of being reduced by a
perpetual curse to the practice of the most servile labours." But
this is to mistake the whole point of the analogy suggested. It
has nothing to do with the treachery of the Gibeonites — which,
moreover, would have been far more lightly estimated in the moral
code of their age than of ours — or with the curse pronounced on
them, but simply with the relation they afterwards held to the
Israelites. And if it be true that important services are often

8 INTRODUCTION.
Those opposite tendencies of the Eastern and
Western mind, which have made ancient Greece
the mistress of speculative philosophy, and Borne
the fountain of law even for modern Europe, re
appear in the history of Christian theology. To
the one it was given to investigate the revealed
nature and attributes of God, to the other His pur
poses and His gifts for man. And hence during the
early ages the process of development on the
doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, which
concerned the theological rather than the anthropo
logical side of Christian truth, was carried on
almost exclusively in the Eastern Church, while it
was left for Latin theologians to deal with the later
controversies on free-will, justification, and sacra
mental grace. Thus, again, theology took its rise
in the third century at Alexandria, the centre alike
of the Neo-Platonist revival and of Gnosticism, and
had something to learn from both ; while after
wards the accidental introduction, as men count
accident, of Aristotle's writings into mediaeval
Europe by the Crusaders, in an Arabian translation,
was the immediate origin of Scholasticism, which,
beginning with St. Anselm, shaped through four
centuries the whole theology of Christendom.*
incidentally rendered to the cause of Christian truth by the labours
of unbelievers or misbelievers (e.g. Baur, or Strauss, or Renan), it
is surely equally true that those services are unconsciously or un
willingly rendered to a cause which, in nine cases out of ten,
they heartily dislike or despise.
* The controversy of Lanfranc with Berengar on the Blessed
Sacrament marks the opening of the Scholastic period. But the
method of argument which Lanfranc adopted partially and under

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 9
And thus, to Kuse the words of a high authority,
"gradually, and in the course of ages, Catholic
inquiry has taken certain definite shapes, and has
thrown itself into the form of a science, with a
method and a phraseology of its own, under the
inteUectual handling of great minds, such as St.
Athanasius, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas." As
a matter of fact, there is probably no single case
where the process of doctrinal formation has not
been more or less directly promoted by the question
ings of heresy. " No truth," as a rule, " is defined
till it is violated," and heresy, being a false develop
ment, requires to be met by an assertion of the corre
sponding verity, of which it is a denial or a distor
tion. Truth is struck out from the clash of conflict
ing opinions, to be fixed by theological science, and
finally ratified by the sentence of the Church.*

protest St. Anselm made his own. See Shirley's Scholasticism,
and cf. infra, ch. iv.
* " There are those indeed who seem as though they would be
glad to divest themselves of the advantage of such decisions.
They would rather fall back on the unreflecting simplicity of that
early faith, which rested only on the single facts of the Gospel.
But this is to be ignorant, that the gradual expansion of Christian
doctrines was only the growth of the religious mind as, under
the moulding power of the Holy Ghost, it compared the indi
vidual truths with which it had been entrusted. Those truths
must have resolved themselves into wrong combinations, if they had not
been resolved into light ones  Those who seek to regain it
(early simplicity of faith) by throwing away what was earned by
the religious impulse then given to the age, do but restore the
imbecility of childhood without its innocence." — Wilberforce's
Doctrine of the Incarnation, 4 ed. , p. 103. This development during
the early ages, as regards the formation of the Canon, is traced
by Dr. Westcott in his Bible in the Church, (Macmillan, 1864),
only he does not seem to recognise the similar operation of the
" divine instinct " of the later Church.

10 INTRODUCTION.
And this brings us to the second stage in the
course of development. So far many would agree
with us, who wiU differ, when we come to the Divine
or supernatural element in the process, which is
supplied in the Church by the continual guidance of
the Holy Ghost, and preserves her in the last resort
from giving her authoritative sanction to any
development not in accordance with the original
revelation and the mind of God. Whether that
sanction be expressed through the medium of a
Council, or through the voice of the Holy See, or
directly ascertained through the sensus fidelium, as
with the Athanasian Creed,* is immaterial to my
present argument ; nor need any question be raised
here as to the proper organ of its utterance ; we
are simply concerned with the result. Such, then,
is a brief statement of the theory ; the chief ob
jections which have been urged against it will be
noticed by and by. My present object is rather to
explain than to defend it.
First, then, I observe, what is obvious, that the
gradual development of Christian doctrine is analo
gous to the development of Christian history. The
grain of mustard seed, which was to grow into a
mighty tree, is emblematic ahke of the revelation
of Christ, and of the Church He estabhshed with
His Blood. As the one was to expand from a
" hidden sect in the bosom of Judaism," like an
* Htec professio Athanasii quidem opus non est ; cum tamen
ab utraque Ecclesia, Occidentali et Orientali, ut auctoritas suscipia-
tur, vera estfidei definition Denzinger, Enchiridion, p. 46.

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 11
unborn child in its mother's womb, into a " world-
Church," a "world-kingdom," co-extensive with
the nations of the earth ; so, too, was the original
deposit of "facts, principles, dogmatic germs,
and intimations," afterwards summarized in the
Apostles' Creed, not a mere " lifeless possession
ready-made for all times to be taken care of," but
a Krrjtm h &d, destined to expand, through the toil
of successive ages, and the corporate consciousness
of the faithful enhghtened from on high, into all the
majestic fulness and coherence of Catholic theo
logy.* There was to be a growth, incessant, but
with no break of continuity, continuo non vero per
saltum, alike in the Church's intellectual conscious
ness and her organic hfe. The primacy of the
Boman See was recognised with growing distinct
ness, as the practical importance of a visible centre
of unity became apparent in the clash of conflicting
interests and diverse nationalities at work within
the common fold; and so, too, successive theo
logical controversies were the providential means
of bringing out in detail the due " proportion " and
harmony of the faith. As Dr. Cole said, in contro
versy with Jewell, " the Church of Christ hath his
childhood, his manhood, and his hoar hairs. "t The

* Dollinger's Christenthumund Kirche in derZeit der Grundlegung,
pp. 162-164, 219-221. (First Age of the Church, 3 ed. vol. i.
pp. 264, sqq. ; vol. ii. pp. 4, sqq.)
t So, too, St. Vincent, (Common, c. xxix), " Imitetur animarum
religio rationem corporum, quae licet annorum processu numeros
suos evolvant et explicent, eadem tamen quaa erant permanent.
Multum interest inter pueritias fiorem et senectutis maturitatem

12 INTRODUCTION.
fulness of truth was wrapped up in the apostohc
tradition, the world-wide religion lay hid in the
upper room at Jerusalem, as the results of mathe
matical science are involved in its axioms, or the
oak is contained in the acorn.*
And, next, we may trace a certain historical
sequence in the evolution of doctrines running
paraUel to the order of the Creed. Eirst, in the
contest with Greek philosophy, the doctrine of the
Trinity had to be evolved and fixed, and this
mainly occupied the two first Oecumenical Coun
cils ; the four next were engaged in formuhzing
and guarding the faith of the Incarnation ; the first
doctrinal statement on the Eucharist occurs in the

sed iidem tanien ipsi fiunt senes, qui fuerant adolescentes, ut
quam vis unius ejusdemque hominis status habitusque mutetur,
una tamen nihilominus eademque natura, una eademque persona
sit  Ita etiam Christianas religionis dogma sequatur has
decet profectuum leges ; ut annis scilicet consolidetur, dilatetur
tempore, sublimetur setate, incorruptum ilhbatumque permaneat,
et universis partium suarum mensuris cunctisque quasi membris
ac sensibus propriis plenum atque perfectum sit, quod nihil
praeterea permutationis admittat, nulla proprietatis dispendia,
nullam definitionis sustineat varietatem."
* This passage, together with the preceding quotation from
Dollingcr's Christenthum, about " dogmatic germs," was vehem
ently denounced on its first appearance by the Dublin Review.
Yet the very same analogy, of a seed and full-grown plant, is
used of doctrinal development by St. Vincent of Lerins ; ' ' Severunt
majores nostri antiquitus in Ecclesiastica segete triticeae fidei
semvna  hoc rectum et consequens est ut, primis atque
extremis sibimet non discrepantibus, de incrementis triticeae in-
stitutionis triticei quoque dogmatis frugem demetamus ; ut cum
aliquid ex illis seminum primordiis accessu temporis evolvatur,
nihil tamen de gerrninis proprietate mutetur. . . . Quodcunque
igitur in hac Ecclesiae agricultura fide patrum satum est, hoc
idem filiorum industria decet excolatur et observetur, hoc idem
floreat et maturescat, hoc idem proficiat et proficiatur." Com-
mon. c. xxx.

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 13
acts of the seventh. Later on, and in the West,
the subjective questions of grace and free will, first
mooted by St. Augustine, and their mutual rela
tions in the justification of man (involving the
doctrine of "merit," so strangely misunderstood
afterwards) presented themselves to the mind of
the Church ; as also the theology of the sacra
ments, in their nature, number, and distinguish
ing characteristics ; aU which faU under the final
articles of the Creed. The results of her judg
ment on all these points found a luminous expo
sition in the Catechism and decrees of Trent, from
which the later doctrinal symbols of the Greek
Church do not materially differ. It was in the
subjective side of their theology that the strength
of the Beformers chiefly lay. Luther desired to
shift the verdict from the Synod, and the lecture-
room, and the cloister, and to make his appeal
direct to the hearts and experiences of mankind.
He questioned them, not of the nature or mission
ofthe Bedeemer, but of how the sinner is made
just before God. The controversies of our own
day turn principaUy on the last division of the
Creed, which deals with the Person and Offices of
the Holy Ghost, and concern more especially His
inspiration of Scripture, and His abiding Presence
in the Church. What the Protestant movement
was to the sixteenth century, that is the Bational-
istic movement to our own.
And here let me observe further, that, if the
principle of development be denied, only two

14 INTRODUCTION.
theories remain on which any positive scheme of
Christian doctrine can be maintained ; first, that
laid down by Chilhngworth, and accepted in name,
but rejected in practice, by nearly all Protestant
communities, " The Bible, and the Bible only, the
rehgion of Protestants." * His thesis is defended
in the famous passage which has passed into a
classical common-place of Protestant polemics, but
which is founded on a radical misconception of the
Catholic idea of Church authority and an absolute
ignoring, or rather denial, of the whole principle
of development, which indeed he elsewhere refers
to as a reductio ad, absurdum of the claims of Catho
licism. It runs as follows : — " I see with mine own
eyes that there are Popes against Popes, Councils
against Councils, some Fathers against others, the same
Fathers against themselves, and consent of Fathers of
one age against a consent of Fathers of another
age, the Church of one age against the Church of
another age. Traditive interpretations of Scrip
ture are pretended, but there are none to be found ;
no tradition but only of Scripture can derive itself
from the fountain, but may be plainly proved
either to have been brought in, in such an age
after Christ, or that in such an age it was not. In
a word, there is not sufficient certainty but of
Scripture only, for any considering man to build
upon." On this I have to observe ; as to " Popes
against Popes," waiving the question of fact, it is
* Chillingworth's Religion of Protestants, a Safe Way of Sal
vation, published in 1687.

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 15
still a moot question among theologians what
judgments of theirs, if any, when resting on their
own individual authority are to be considered ex
cathedra decisions. Councils are held by no one to
be infallible, except in matters of doctrine ; and
there is no case of doctrinal contradiction between
Councils universally received in the Church as
Oecumenical. The individual opinions of Fathers
are valuable as testimony to prevalent belief, or
from the character and position of the writer ; but
they form no part of our faith, and their contra
dictions to each other or themselves do not supply
even a plausible argument against the authority of
Cathohc tradition ; neither are " traditive inter
pretations of Scripture " any part of that tradition,
so far as it is authoritative, though they serve to
illustrate and enforce it. The "certainty of Scrip
ture only" is a perfectly useless criterion, unless
we also know the certain interpretation of Scripture.
Scriptura est sensus Scriptural. It is enough merely to
refer here to those perplexing questions about
scriptural history and inspiration, hardly dreamt of
in Chilhngworth's day, but which have led a recent
Protestant essayist to observe that " the doctrine
of plenary inspiration " — on which, according to
Chilhngworth, the whole fabric of the Protestant
faith reposes — " has broken hke packthread before
the rising gales of scientific discovery and histo
rical research." * On the actual results of the
* Essays on Church Policy (Macmillan, 1868), p. 39.

16 INTRODUCTION.
system, when fairly carried out, I shall have some
thing to say, in another connection, hereafter.
Suffice it to remark here that, when attempted
to be reduced to practice for corporate purposes, it
is obliged to assume at starting so much of the
Cathohc principle as will cover the authenticity
and inspiration of the Bible, and also some parti
cular scheme of interpretation ; if either of these
postulates be denied, the theory falls to the ground
as a basis for any definite form of belief.* In the
abstract, however, it is intelligible and coherent.
The other theory in fact, though not in words,
admits the principle of development, but seeks to
limit its operation to the early ages. According
to this view, we ought to accept not only the
Bible, but the Cathohc creeds — i.e. the Apostohc,
Nicene, and Athanasian — together with the dog
matic decrees of the earlier Councils, and the
judgment of the early Church on the Canon of
Scripture, rejecting all later developments, or as
they would be called "innovations," such as Pur
gatory or Transubstantiation. This principle is
professed by the Church of England, and, with

* This inconsistency of Protestant systems is dwelt upon in
Mackay's Tubingen School and its Antecedents. London 1863.
Fourteen centuries before, St. Vincent of Lerins had refuted
Chillingworth's theory by anticipation, with the same conclusive
argument ; " Quia scilicit Scripturam Sacram pro ipsa sua alti-
tudine non uno eodemque sensu universi accipiunt ; sed ejusdem
eloquia aliter atque aliter alius atque alius interpretatur, ut pene
quot homines sunt tot illinc sententias erui posse vid'eantur."
Common, c. ii. Cf. cc. xxxv. — xxxix.

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 17
more rigid consistency, by the Greek Church,*
and is acted upon in various degrees, though dis
claimed in theory, by the principal Protestant
communities of Europe. It has an advantage
over the former, or purely Bible theory, in pro
viding, up to a certain point, a definite system
of behef; but it is deficient in applicability to
fresh circumstances, and in internal coherence.
For the question at once occurs, Where are we to
draw the line ? Theological science cannot come to
a standstill, and if we are bound to accept the
definitions of Nice and Chalcedon, why are we to
reject the decrees of later Councils ? f If the
sensus fidelium is enough to guarantee the Atha-
nasian dogmas, and (in the Anghcan Church) the
Filioque, why is it inadequate to guarantee the In
vocation of Saints, or Purgatory ? The Holy
Ghost, who guided the Church during the earlier
ages, cannot be supposed to have withdrawn His
illuminating gifts ; and, since the new forms and
varied resources of error are confined to no par
ticular period, so neither should be the Church's
* Yet a fresh Confession, including the doctrines both of
Transubstantiation and Purgatory — though the latter term was
not used — was adopted by the whole Eastern Church in the
seventeenth century. Cf. infra, note p. 71, and see Appendices I.
and II. to second edition of my Catholic Eschatology, (W. H. Allen
& Co.). t So clearly did Jeremy Taylor perceive this, that he does not
conceal his dislike to the Nicene Creed, complaining that it has
been " made an ill example of, till, by explicating the old, they
have inserted new articles." He adds, consistently enough, that
" no one can tell how much is necessary, and how much is not,
if they once go beside the Apostolic [Apostles'] Creed."— Ductor
Dubit, ii. 13.

18 INTRODUCTION.
capabihties for meeting them, if need be, by fresh
definitions, and a fuller exhibition of that portion
of revealed truth which happens to be assailed.
We can understand there being no development
at aU — that is the " Bible only " theory ; but it is
not easy to understand (if I may be aUowed to
borrow a pohtical formula) development with a
principle of finality. We cannot, with the Danish
monarch of old, say to the rising spring tide,
" Thus far shalt thou come and no farther." If
the stream once began to flow, we clearly have a
right to ask where it was dammed up, and why.
That this difficulty is something more than a mere
inteUectual puzzle is shown by the fact, that both
the Greek and Anghcan Churches have had to frame
new formulas since the division, and will appear
further when we come to speak of the modern
rationahstic school. It may suffice to suggest it
here. There have no doubt been those in other days,
when history was less studied and criticism almost
unknown, who have supposed that all now taught
as Catholic doctrine could be discovered, not in
germ but in detail, in the writings of the early
Fathers. Such a view is no longer held by any well-
informed man. It is becoming daily clearer, that
the real question is, not whether such and such
details of doctrine are or are not developments (for
the Thirty-nine Articles, and the Confession of
Augsburg, are no less a development than the Creed
of Pius IV.), but what are the right developments.

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS 19
This is quite understood by Protestant divines in
Germany of the more orthodox, as well as of the
rationahst school, no less than by Catholic writers.*
And it involves more than may at first sight ap
pear; for if the radical principle be denied, we
shall find ourselves, sooner or later, compelled to
surrender, not only later definitions, but almost
every doctrine which discriminates Christianity
from the higher forms of natural religion. To
repudiate' all developments of primitive behef is,
not to restore its pristine purity, but virtually to
deface or obscure its original outlines ; and thus
every Communion which rejects the Athanasian
Creed has lost, or is in the way to lose, all definite
faith in the Trinity, f None, therefore, who value
any positive behef can afford to be mere spectators,
still less aggressors, in the fray. Tua res agitur, cum
proximus ardet, was never more surely verified than
here. It is Christianity itself that is at stake.
And now, as a principle is usually best under
stood by illustrations, I will proceed to exemphfy
in some crucial cases this gradual expression of
doctrine in the Church.
(1.) Let us suppose a Christian of the first, or

* See e.g. Thomasius's work on Origen, Ein Beitrag fur Dog-
mengeschichte des dritten Jahrhunderts.
+ It is reported by competent observers, that belief in the
Divinity of our Blessed Lord has almost, or altogether, dis
appeared from the popular creed of Protestants in Germany,
Switzerland, France, Holland, and Denmark, as well as in
several of the largest Protestant sects in America. The main
body of English Presbyterians had abandoned it half a century
ago. 2 *

20 INTRODUCTION.
second, or third century to have been asked, " How
many sacraments are there ? " He certainly would
not at first have understood the meaning of the
question. The word Sacrament was used by early
writers, as the corresponding term p.v<rrr)Pt.ov is used
in the New Testament, in a sense which includes
indeed our conception of a sacrament, but which
includes a great deal more besides. " This is a
great mystery," or sacrament, says St. Paul,
speaking of Christian marriage ; but he also says,
" Without doubt, great is the mystery of godli
ness," speaking of the Incarnation, and here again
the Yulgate reads sacramentum pietatis. There is
perhaps nothing to which the early Fathers, espe
cially St. Augustine, so frequently apply the term
sacramentum as the Incarnation. But, if our early
Christian had been made with great difficulty
to comprehend the question addressed to him, he
could only have replied, " I don't know." The
same sacraments were of course administered from
the first, and all are referred to in Scripture. Then,
as now, Christians were baptized, confirmed, ab
solved, communicated; then, as now, there was
marriage, and ordination, and the last unction.
But, just as for many ages doubtful or spurious
Gospels and Epistles were handed down alongside of
the genuine ones, and it was not till the end of the
fourth century that the Canon of either Old or New
Testament began to be fixed by dogmatic decree ;*
* St. Paul, St. James, and St. Jude, quote apocryphal books,
some of which, as the Revelation of Elias, are now lost ; while

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 21
so for centuries other rites were spoken of under the
common name of sacraments, some of which we
should now call " Sacramentals," while others,
like the agape, or the washing of feet, have almost
or altogether passed away.* It was left for a later
age to mark out seven, as alone possessing by
divine institution an inherent sacramental grace.
Hugo of St. Victor enumerates six, omitting Order;
Gratian gives also six, omitting Unction; Peter
Lombard was the first to specify seven, f But to
define two is equally to develope, only it is to
develope backwards. To speak, as is not uncommon
with Anghcan writers, of "the two Sacraments,"
as the teaching of the early Church, is quite as
incorrect verbally, and in substance far more
misleading, than it would be to speak of the seven.
There were many differences on the subject among
the earher Beformers ; Luther admitted three Sac-
others still survive, as the Book of Enoch, a compilation of the
first or second century b.c, which contains important evidence
of contemporary Jewish belief on the doctrine of future retri
bution. * St. Augustine' calls the salt and exorcism in Baptism " sac-
ramenta " (De Pecc. Orig. 40) ; St. Bernard, the washing of feet
(Serm. in Can. Dom. § 4) ; Godefrid, another writer of the twelfth
century, the salt, oil, water, ring, and staff, used in consecrating
bishops ; Dean Colet, in the sixteenth century, the sign of the
Cross and the Lavabo in the mass. Much useful information,
on the development of sacramental doctrine, may be found in
Professor Hahn's Lehre von der Sakramentenin ihrer geschichtlichen
Entwicklung bis zum Concil von Trient. Breslau, 1864.
f See on this point the treatise of Probst, Sakramente und
Sakramentalien. Bishop Forbes fully allows that " the septenary
number had long been held both by the Greek and Latin
Churches, and there is no ground to deprive of a sacramental
character the rites for which that character is claimed." Explan,
39 Articles, vol. ii. p. 446.

22 INTRODUCTION.
raments, Baptism, the Eucharist, and Penance.
Cranmer, also, at one time, taught that there were
three, making Confirmation the third. It would not
be difficult to trace out similarly the history of the
doctrine of the Eucharist, but it would occupy
more space than can be spared here.*
(2.) Let us turn to another illustration, afforded
by the cultus of Saints and Angels. Of this no
doubt abundant intimations — <bo>v5.vra o-werolxn — may
be found both in the Old and New Testament,
especially the latter, nor are there wanting clear
testimonies in writers of the third and fourth cen
turies, as weU as in inscriptions in the Catacombs,
of honour paid to Saints, especially martyrs, and
invocations addressed to them.f Still, and this is
my point, it was only by degrees that their position
was adequately recognised. In every one of the
liturgies of which manuscripts remain to us, among
the prayers for the departed in the Canon are found
special petitions for the Blessed Virgin and the

* The earlier stages of the process are exhibited with clearness
and candour in the late Archdeacon Wilberforce's book on the
Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist. Its later development, in the
definition of Transubstantiation (at the fourth Lateran Council
in 1215), and the appointment of the festival and ceremonies of
Corpus Christi, is thought to have been partly elicited as a pro
test against certain pantheistic leanings of the age.
+ Thomassin (De Incarn. xi. 6) thinks, with good reason, that
the early Church probably abstained from any public cultus of
Angels through an oiKovo/u'a, lest it should give occasion for
idolatry in converts from heathenism. This reasoning from
the disciplina arcani must not be pushed too far, but it would
fully account for a greater reserve than actually existed in the
teaching and practice of the first ages in regard to the honour
due to Saints and Angels,

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 23
Saints. Controversiahsts have sometimes ex
plained these as prayers for the increase of their
" accidental glory," but the explanation is ob
viously an afterthought. The very term " acci
dental glory," and the idea it represents, came in
centuries later with the scholastic theology. It is
better to say at once — what is certainly the case —
that the eye of the Christian worshipper was not
yet fully adjusted to the right focus for appreciating
clearly the position of the heavenly hierarchy in
the economy of grace. Not indeed that there is
any inconsistency in praying to and for the same
persons ; it is both natural and legitimate to seek
the intercession of the righteous souls in Purgatory,
not yet made perfect. But the importance of the
question, from its bearing on the central mystery of
the Incarnation, was gradually brought out in sub
sequent controversies, especially in the Iconoclastic
disputes of the eighth century,* though the practice
of invocation had of course, long before that time,
become general. It was not till the fourteenth
century, that the enjoyment of the Beatific Vision
by the Saints before the day of judgment was
defined by authority.!

* The first objectors to images were the Phantasiasts.
f On the Invocation of Saints, I may refer with pleasure to
an able, and on the whole satisfactory, essay by the late Rev. H.
Humble, in the third series of The Church and the World. The
practice has been defended inter alios by Grotius, Leibnitz, and
Gerhard, among foreign Protestants ; by Bp. Montague, Bp. W.
Forbes, and in our own day Bp. A. Forbes, of Brechin, among
Anglicans. (See Introd. to Eirenicon of Eighteenth Century, pp. 71 ,
72). Canon Luckock candidly cites what is really very con-

24 INTE0DUCTI0N
(3.) This leads me naturally to notice a some
what kindred development, which there is the more
reason for considering dispassionately, because it
has been selected as the reductio ad absurdum of the
whole theory — I mean the Immaculate Conception.
The reasons which led to its definition at Borne in
1854, and the nature of the defining authority, are
separate questions, which lie beyond the hmits of
the present inquiry. But the doctrine itself is
often objected to as neither primitive, nor scrip
tural, nor reasonable, nor devout ; as an addition
to the original deposit ; sometimes as ascribing to
the Mother the inahenable prerogative of her Son.*
Waiving the last point, which is founded on a
misconception of what is meant, let us see how the
case really stands, t The doctrine of original sin

siderable patristic evidence for it (After Death, pt. ii. ch. iii.),
though he endeavours to evade its force, with more ingenuity than
success. He distinctly admits, however, that " the testimony
of SS. Basil, Gregory Nyssen, Ephraem, and Augustine remains
unshaken," and that the Roman Catacombs contain " clear and
unmistakable proof that those who made the inscriptions con
sidered it lawful to ask the prayers of their departed friends."
* Even so calm and temperate a writer as Archbishop Tait
went out of his way, in his Preface to a work on The Final Court
of Appeal, to speak of " the idolatrous doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception." Yet, supposing (for argument's sake) the invoca
tion of the Blessed Virgin to be idolatrous, that practice is quite
independent of the belief in her Immaculate Conception, and
existed for centuries before any question on the latter subject
was stirred in the Church. Neither does the belief necessarily
imply the practice. Adam and Eve were certainly created
" immaculate," yet we do not invoke them in the ritual, while we
do (eg.) invoke Abel and Abraham, who were conceived and born
in sin.
f The patristic references in this and the following section are
taken from Petavius, De Innirn. and De Trin.

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 25
was first distinctly laid down by St. Augustine, in
controversy with the Pelagians, in the fourth cen
tury, whence it is obvious that Mary's exemption
from the general doom could not be exphcitly
taught earlier than that.* But we may go further.
St. Basil, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and Origen do
not scruple to affirm that she sinned by want of
faith at the Crucifixion ; St. Chrysostom accuses
her of ambition ; Tertulhan of unbelief. To our
ears such language sounds shocking, and it would
be shocking to use it now, but we must remember
that it did not appear so at the time. On the other
hand, Tertulhan and St. Irenseus contrast Mary's
faith with Eve's incredulity, St. Justin and Irenseus
her obedience with Eve's disobedience, and St.
Ambrose commends her courage at the Cross.
Epiphanius says that she is figuratively called, what
Eve was by nature, the mother of the living ; and
St. Augustine that, out of reverence, he will make
no mention of her when speaking of sin, but he is
referring to actual, not original sin.f
Then came the Nestorian controversy, and the
Council of Ephesus. And here it is worth while to
remark, that much the same hind of arguments
which are urged now against what its opponents
* Yet the current sneers at the doctrine as " astounding,"
" impossible," " incomprehensible," and the like, come mainly
from those who deny or ignore original sin altogether. On a
different class of objections, based on a misapprehension of the
true meaning of the doctrine, see Excursus I., " On the Atonement
and the Immaculate Conception."
t On the contrast drawn by the Fathers between the first and
second Eve, cf. Newman's Letter on Eirenicon, pp. 36, sqq.

26 INTRODUCTION.
are fond of stigmatising as the " new dogma " were
urged by Nestorians and their alhes then against
the new definition of Ocotokos. It was novel, it did
not occur in Scripture or the writings of the
Fathers,* it savoured of Eutychian heresy, and had
therefore been denounced from the pulpit of his
metropohtan cathedral by the second Patriach in
Christendom. It was certainly needless, and it
might be dangerous. Every one knew that Christ
was God, and that Mary was His Mother ; but the
adoption of this new-fangled formula might be
taken to imply that she was the mother of His
Divinity, which was blasphemous, or that the two
natures were fused into one, which was heretical.
The term xp"""0™"05; which Nestorius was willing
to accept, expressed all that was required, and was
free from these grave objections. So men argued
then ; but experience has abundantly proved the
necessity of the definition of Ephesus for guarding
the honour of Our Lord's Divinity, f And so the
* This was urged, but was not true ; the term had been in use
for two centuries. — See Petav. De Inc., v. 15. Thus e.g. Alex
ander, Patriarch of Alexandria, uses it in a letter to his namesake
of Constantinople, and Origen, in his Commentary on the
Romans. — Theodoret, E. H., i. 3 ; Socr. E. H., vii. 32.
t It is obvious how completely the definition is covered by St.
Paul's expression (Acts xx. 28) " the Blood of God," from which,
accordingly, the latent Nestorianism of Protestant piety is apt
instinctively to recoil. Yet the overwhelming weight of evidence,
both external and internal — the latter especiall}- — is shown by
such commentators as Alford and Bloomfield (in loc.) to be in
favour of the received reading. Dr. Farrar's objection (Life of St.
Paul, vol. ii. p. 282), that such language " would have given at
least prima facie countenance to all kinds of Sabellian, Eutychian,
and Patripassian heresies," is not very intelligible, when we re
member that " the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 27
later definition which our own days have witnessed
is designed to exhibit on the one hand the reality
of original sin, and on the other the spotless
sanctity of that human flesh, hypostaticaUy united
to the Godhead, which He took from His Mother's
womb. It has been objected,* again, that the doc
trine has " no necessary bearing on her office in the
economy of the Incarnation" ; but it is, at least,
premature to say that it has not, and the general
welcome accorded to it now, after the mind of the
Church has been exercised on the question for some
eight centuries, is a strong prima facie ground for
supposing that it has. It seems at all events to
bring out with peculiar prominence the general law
of original sin, from which one alone of the human
race is thus declared " by a singular privilege and
grace of God " to have been exempted; and this
may perhaps account in some measure for the
seemingly gratuitous indignation often manifested
by rationahstic critics against her solitary ex
emption from a doom in the existence of which
they do not ¦ themselves beheve. The exception
proves the rule. And surely natural reason and
Ghost is God," and thus, in the words of SlfTClement of Alexan
dria (De Div. Sen. 34), " we have a treasure guarded by the
power of God the Father, the blood of God the Son, and the dew
of the Holy Ghost." To say that "the Church has always avoided
the expression," is only true in the sense that it does not happen
to occur in any formal ecclesiastical definition. It is found in
several early writers, like St. Ignatius, St. Clement of Alexan
dria, Melito, and Tertullian, as well as in mediaeval and modern
theology. And it is, of course, implied in the communicatio
idiomatum: * Liddon's Bampion Lectures, 2nd edit., p. 433.

28 INTRODUCTION.
natural reverence would combine to tell us that
such a behef was most congruous to the dignity of
the Incarnation.
Meanwhile it shows the caution with which the
public ratification of developments is suffered to
proceed, that so many centuries should have inter
vened between its first suggestion and its formal
definition.* " The number of those (so-called) new
doctrines will not oppress us, if it takes eight cen
turies to promulgate even one of them."f The
disputes between Franciscans and Dominicans
on the motive of the Incarnation had no doubt
much to do with the ventilation of the question ;
for it is obvious how much more readily the Scotist
theory adapts itself to the Immaculate Conception
than the Thomist, though I am of course far from
denying that the latter, which is stiU widely held
in the Church, can be reconciled with it. St.
Bernard, St. Bonaventure, and St. Thomas, in
questioning the new development, simply repre
sented the conservative element which exists and
always must exist in the Church. It is natural
and right that every fresh phase of opinion, as it
appears, should be challenged and put on the de
fensive. "Quis novus hicnostris successit sedibus hospes? "
* It must be remembered that the belief in the Immaculate
Nativity of the Blessed Virgin has prevailed universally for cen
turies, and was expressly acknowledged by St. Bonaventure, and
St. Bernard, though spoken of doubtfully by St. Anselm. A
similar belief obtains, though not of faith, as to St. John Baptist,
and is indicated by the Feast of his Nativity being observed in
the Church. Cf. Luke i. 15.
f Newman's Apologia pro Vita Sua, p. 895. Longman, 1864.

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 29
is the inquiry it must expect to be greeted with.
And it is bound to justify itself at the bar of eccle
siastical pubhc opinion and theological science,
before it can make any claim to direct authoritative
sanction. There is, perhaps, no subject on which
the growth of doctrine has been so gradual as in all
that concerns the dignity of the Blessed Virgin
in the Gospel dispensation. And this accords with
such passages of the Old Testament as are often
considered to have a secondary reference to her.
We read, on the one hand, "And so I was esta
blished in Sion, and in the holy city also I rested,
and my power was in Jerusalem. And I took root
in an honourable people, and my abiding place was
in the fulness of the Saints." And again, on the
other hand, " I was exalted as the cedar on
Lebanon, and as the cypress tree on Mount Sion;
I was exalted as a palm tree in Cades, and as a rose
plant in Jericho  and I stretched forth my
branches as the terebinth, and my branches are of
honour and of grace." And, lastly, in the Apoca
lyptic vision, there was revealed to the gaze of the
beloved disciple " a great sign in heaven, a woman
clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet,
and on her head a crown of twelve stars."* Yet it
still remains true, that Gabriel's salutation is the
measure as well as the record of her greatness.
The importance of the question lies of course in its
connection with the doctrine of the Incarnation,
* Ecclus. xxiv. 15, 16, 17, 18, 22. Apoc. xii. 1,

30 INTRODUCTION.
whereof she has been the guardian in the history
and worship of the Church. It has no proper
bearing on particular views, moral or theological,
(such as those so strongly reprobated in Dr. New
man's Letter on the Eirenicon), about her office or
prerogatives in the Church. Nor does it faU within
the scope of this treatise to dwell on what a dis
tinguished modern writer has justly called the
" magnetic power " of the cultus of the Virgin
Mother in elevating woman to her true position
and dignity, and in promoting generally that type
of feminine excellence, so to name it, of which she
is the ideal representative, and which holds so
important a place in the Gospel code of morahty,
while Paganism at its best estate knew next to
nothing of it.* The glories of the Mother, we must
remember, are a reflection from the Divinity of her
Son, and every crown that is wreathed for Mary's
brow is laid at Jesus' feet.
(4.) But we must not imagine that the prin
ciple of development apphes only to the less fun
damental doctrines of Christianity. It is most
conspicuously illustrated in the case of those two
supreme verities on which all the rest depend —
the Trinity and the Incarnation. We are re
minded of this, as regards the former doctrine, by
two of the greatest names respectively in Anghcan
and in Cathohc theology — Petavius the Jesuit,
and Bishop Bull. The Defensio Fidei Niccence has
* See Lecky's European Morals, vol. ii. pp. 389, sqq. ; Hist, of
Rationalism, vol. i. pp. 234, 285,

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 31
won for its author a deservedly high reputation,
and is quoted respectfully by eminent Cathohc
divines. But in his controversy with Petavius,
though he may have the better of the argument in
some detailed instances, he has certainly failed to
make out his case as a whole. All impartial
judges, on either side, are now agreed that Peta
vius is right as to the heterodox language, implying
often heterodox notions about the Holy Trinity,
which many ante-Nicene writers use.* The fact
that, in an elaborate treatise on the Holy Ghost,
written expressly against heretics, St. Basil stu
diously refrains from giving Him the name of
God (which was first done by the Council of Alex
andria in 363) would alone indicate this. So
again, Justin Martyr speaks of the Son as inferior
to the Father, in His Divine Nature. Athena-
goras and Theophilus of Antioch use language about
His Eternal Generation, which sounds thoroughly
Sabelhan. Origen, who first brings out the reahty
of our Lord's Human Soul, teaches also its pre-
* Petav. De Trin. i. 3-5. No candid critic in the present day
would deny the substantial correctness of Petavius's estimate.
If he errs, it is rather in exaggerating than in depreciating the
accuracy of theological statement in the early Greek Fathers,
especially as regards the doctrines of grace. It is no disparage
ment to the general merits of the Defensio to say that the learned
author has sometimes allowed himself to become too much of a
special pleader, — a common fault of his day among theologians.
A recent Anglican writer observes ; " I am bound to state can
didly, that, while I sympathize with the intention of Bull, I
incline practically to the judgments of Petavius. It requires a
thorough-going advocate to accept Bull's expurgated edition of
ante-Nicene theology." Owen's Introduction to the Study of
Dogmatic Theology. London, 1858,

32 INTRODUCTION.
existence, and the final absorption of His human
nature into the Divine ; Hilary and Epiphanius
deny the union of His Divine Nature with His
Body during the period between death and resur
rection : St. Ambrose, relying on a mistaken
reading of Col. ii. 15, also denies its union with
the Human Soul, though both are implied in the
Apostles' Creed. Many Fathers, both Greek and
Latin, in arguing with the Arians, treat the unity
of Persons in the Holy Trinity as specific rather
than numerical. Cudworth not only says this
with especial, though not exclusive, reference to
Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory Nyssen, Anastasius,
Maximus the Martyr, and John of Damascus, but
roundly accuses them of teaching a " Trinity no
other than a kind of tritheism," while he charges
several others with denying a co-equahty of
Persons.* To quote the words of a great hving writer, who
had not at the time adopted any theory of deve
lopment : — " Some said that there was but one
vTroorao-Hs (substance) in God ; others three wroWao-ew
(Subsistences or Persons) ; and some spoke of
one oio-ta (substance), while others spoke of more
than one" oio-Ca. Some allowed, some rejected,
the terms TrpoBo\rj and opoovo-iov, according as
they were guided by the prevailing heresy of
the day, and their own judgment how best

* Cudworth's Intellectual System, vol. 8, ch. iv See esDe
cially, pp. 131, 146-50. V

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 33
to meet it. Some spoke of the Son as existing
from everlasting in the Divine Mind ; others
imphed that the Logos was everlasting, and be
came the Son in time. Some asserted that He
was unoriginate, others denied it. Some, when in
terrogated by heretics, taught that He was born of
the Father, at the Father's will ; others from His
nature, not His will ; others, neither with His
willing nor not willing. Some declared that God
was in number Three ; others, numerically One ;
while to others it perhaps appeared more philo
sophical to exclude the idea of number altogether,
in discussions about that Mysterious Nature,
which is beyond comparison with itself, whether
viewed as One or Three, and neither falls under
nor involves any conceivable species." * A late
Theological Professor of Cambridge, who had made
the early Fathers his special study, has under
taken to illustrate the doctrine of the Athanasian
Creed from their writings, mainly from the works
of Irenaeus, Justyn Martyr, Origen, and Tertulhan.
But what his argument comes to is precisely what
is here insisted on, that the Ante-Nicene Fathers
on the whole supply a legitimate basis for the
Nicene development ; to use his own words " so
many elements- of evidence for a Trinitarian creed are
afloat in patristic theology " ; and again, " we must
be prepared to see in them (the early Fathers)
the doctrine in the ore, if I may so speak, encum-
* Newman's Arians of Fourth Century, 4 ed. pp. 222, 223,
(1 ed. p. 240). 3

34 INTRODUCTION.
bered with dross." He himself quotes several
passages of an opposite tendency, and his explana
tion of them is confined to the case of Origen,
while he elsewhere expressly admits that " the
notions of the early Fathers about the FaU are
often even contradictory." * The point I am in
sisting upon is not of course that the Nicene
dogma is not a legitimate development from the
teaching of earlier Fathers— which it must be, if
true — but simply that it is a development. It is
no answer to the argument of Petavius to say,
with one of my critics, that the " Arian scheme is
inconsistent with their behef," or to speak of their
" substantial orthodoxy." f This is allowed on
all hands. Unless the Arian scheme had been a
wrong development of their behef, the Nicene
Creed would not have been the right one. J
The importance of the point leads me to adduce
the testimony of another distinguished Anghcan
writer, who speaks even more strongly than Dr.
Blunt as to the fa^+ o developments in the early
Church. Speaking of the Christian dogma in the
age of the Apologists, Dr. Merivale says that " the

* Blunt's Lectures on Right Use of the Fathers, pp. 490, 509,
585. t See Guardian for Aug. 23, 1865.
I A recent Anglican writer justly observes ; " A doctrine of
development which regards with calmness the absence in the
past of the exact proportions of our present views, and even the
presence in the past of much which seems adverse to them, is a neces
sity with any honest thinker and believer in God's constant
teaching of His Church." Church Quarterly Review for April,
1880, pp. 208, 209.

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 35
time was not yet ripe for its full and consistent
exposition . . . the discrimination of the Persons
of the Godhead was as yet unsteady and fluctuat
ing. Christ was commonly regarded as man's
champion against the devil, or his raiser from the
Fall, rather than his Bedeemer from sin and Be-
conciler with his Judge ; grace was extenuated too
much as a universal inheritance, instead of being
proclaimed as the special gift of the Spirit to them
that believe." He adds in reference to the Incar
nation, what we shall find in a later portion of this
work to be substantially correct, that " the utter
ances of the earher Fathers were fewer, less
distinct, less uniform and consistent. There was
as yet no technical language on the subject ; the
age had not required it, and no one had been im
pelled to offer it. The Church, in its corporate
capacity, had been content with its implicit behef,
shadowed forth in prayers and liturgies, not em
bodied in dogmatic treatises." But when, in the
fourth century, "circumstances led to a full and
anxious appreciation of the texts bearing on
Christ's divinity, the way had been prepared, the
Church . . . could speak the thoughts that were
in her, imbued with the deep-felt teaching of her
immemorial traditions." *
It would not be difficult to add further evidence
that the 6/aoouVios of Nice was fully as much an
poch in the development of doctrine as the
Merivale's Conversion of the Northern Nations, pp. 19, 20.
3 *

36 INTRODUCTION.
Lateran definition of the Eucharist.* And we
have seen that many early writers are equally
vague, to say the least, on other matters besides
the doctrine of the Trinity. Thus, no Greek
Father, before the rise of the Pelagian heresy,
speaks of grace in terms that would necessarily
discriminate it from aids of the natural order, and
all before St. Augustine are silent or indistinct on
the nature of original sin. To come to the special
subject of this volume, St. Anselm's Cur Deus
Homo is the first systematic attempt to explain the
Atonement in its relation to the Divine Attributes.
The question has indeed been asked whether
the Ante-Nicene writers were reaUy heterodox in
their belief. If this refers to their formally and
consciously holding opinions inconsistent with
Cathohc doctrine, the answer must of course be in
the negative. But if it is intended to inquire
whether they had the same clear and accurate
conception of truths brought into controversy
by the heresies of the fourth and fifth centuries,
and finally settled by the definitions of the con
temporary Councils, which subsequently became
the common heritage of the faithful, it is impos
sible to give any general reply. The question is
one of detail, and each separate case must be con
sidered on its own merits. Nor is it important for
* In reply to a characteristically shallow criticism of Bp.
Wilberforce's — who, whatever his greatness in other lines, was
not great as a thinker or a theologian — on Newman's Essay on
Development, Mr. Gladstone observes, with characteristic depth

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 37
our present argument to discuss it. So much,
however, is obvious on the face of it, that many
early writers were materially, though not formally,
heterodox in their notions on points not as yet
authoritatively ruled, while many more had failed
to reahze distinctly how much was imphed in
the truths they firmly believed. When floating
notions, which had been loosely held, at variance
with those truths were accentuated by Arius or
other heretics into positive denials, those whose
real animus was Cathohc, shrunk back instinctively
from results they had not foreseen, and recognised
the need for developments in a right direction as
the only security against developments that were
wrong. While there is much that is doubtful, or
more than doubtful, mixed up with the details of
Ante-Nicene theology, its legitimate outcome, as a
whole, is found in the Nicene and Athanasian
Creeds. It is true, indeed, in one sense, that the latter
most subhme and instructive formulary does not
contain new truths, but simply exhibits and eluci-

and subtilty of discrimination : "I am not able to convince
myself that ' to draw out with logical accuracy what is actually in
Scripture ' constitutes the whole expository gift of the Church.
It is long since I read Vincentius [of Lerins] , but I have always
taken it for granted that there is necessarily in the Church some
power of ' development ' ; and he gives certain limits of that power.
. . . . The very fact of founding the Homoousion upon ' I
and my Father are ev ' (which, I suppose, is the nearest Scrip
ture authority), involves a spiritual gift, and therefore requires
more than logical accuracy." Life of Bishop Wilberforce, vol. i.
pp. 328, 829.

38 INTRODUCTION.
dates, from diverse points of view, and in contra
distinction to various and antagonistic phases of
erroneous behef, the fundamental verity of Beve-
lation. Its separate propositions bring out in
detail so many different aspects of the one cen
tral idea which in their combination they conspire
to express ; they hang together, as one whole, and
imply each other, so that the deliberate rejection
of any one of them would involve the imphcit
rejection of all the rest, and is fatal to the pre
servation in its integrity of the idea they are
designed to guard. But they are none the less
developments of that idea ; " every expression,'
to adopt Mr. Brewer's language, " contains a
history, and in every statement is gathered up a
volume of controversy that no untutored mind
could master or comprehend," as it has been gra
dually worked out by " the subtlest inteUects of
the Greek and Latin Churches." In the words
of another writer, who is avowedly " an ortho
dox Trinitarian," but who would also avow him
self to be a Protestant, " this technical language
of theology has not been a gratuitous invention
of ingenious divines, but was a necessary development
of thought. Each phrase is the record of some
fierce controversy, which had to be fought out, if
dogmatic truth was to be preserved."*
A distinction is, however, sometimes drawn
between the earlier developments ratified at Nice
* See Spectator for May 22nd, 1880.

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 39
and Ephesus, and the later definitions of the
Lateran or Tridentine Councils, or, still more,
the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. We
are told, that in the former case, the Church was
simply explaining her previous behef, while in the
latter she was adding to it, and thereby claiming
not so much to be the guardian of the original
deposit as the organ of a continuous revelation.*
That there is some distinction in the circumstances,
rather than the principle of these different deve
lopments, may be readily admitted, but it certainly
is not such as to show that there is no real cor
respondence between them. In the first place, we
must distinguish between implicit and exphcit
faith. From the beginning, the Church ex
phcitly believed in and worshipped Christ as
God, for without that behef there could have been
no Christianity. It foUows that from the begin
ning the 6/x.oovotos was imphcitly believed, for it
is a necessary corollary from the doctrine of His
Divinity, and is seen to be such when once it is
clearly apprehended. But abundant evidence has
been already adduced to prove that it was not
always clearly apprehended. The Nicene defini
tion not only put an end to a great deal of doubt
ful or heterodox language, but served to dispel

* For a clear and temperate statement of this line of objec
tion, the reader may be referred to Liddon's Bampton Lectures on
the Divinity of Christ, p. 426, sqq., 2nd edition. It is one of the
very few passages one is obliged to regret in so admirable and
masterly a vindication of the central verity of the Gospel.

40 INTRODUCTION.
much haziness and confusion of thought, which
must have ultimately led to positive misbehef on
the central verity of the faith. The dogma of
Transubstantiation is a strictly parallel case. From
the beginning, the Church had recognised and
adored in the Holy Eucharist her present God, and
by virtue of that heavenly food the spiritual life of
her children had been sustained through centu
ries of fiery trial, temptation, and martyrdom.
From the beginning, therefore, she had implicitly
believed in Transubstantiation, for that behef is
logically involved in the Beal Presence.* But with
the doctrine of the Eucharist, as of the Trinity,
the need for precise definition was first elicited by
the assaults of heresy. And, whereas Arianism
arose in the fourth century, there was no dispute
about the Beal Presence before the ninth. When
Paschasius Badbert was attacked for speaking of
change of substance in the Eucharist, he rephed,
as the Nicene Fathers had rephed to Arius, that
he was only putting into words the ancient
and universal belief of Christendom on that sacred
mystery. And, accordingly, when Berengar two
centuries later reproduced and openly maintained
in a more explicit form the opinions of Scotus
Erigena, the general sense of the Cathohc world
was felt at once to be against him. Archbishop

* See Wiseman's Lectures on the Eucharist, and cf. Cobb's Kiss
of Peace, on the necessary connection between Transubstantiation
and the Real Presence. And cf. Appendix I. "On the Doctrine of
Transubstantiation," in Catholic Eschatoloyy and Universalis))!.

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 41
Trench admits that his teaching "would leave the
words of consecration a trope, and the Sacrament
itself httle more than a commemorative meal. ' ' * He
was not only answered by Lanfranc, but condemned
by several local Synods ; and finally, in 1215, the
fourth Lateran Council, in defining Transubstan
tiation, set its seal to the faith which had been
all along implicitly held. But we need not be
surprised if we come across language in earlier
writers difficult or impossible to reconcile with that
definition, as we often find language in Ante-
Nicene writers impossible to reconcile with the
6/*oovo-ios, though in either case no other result
from the revealed premisses is really conceivable.
It was by degrees that the Consubstantiality of
the Eternal Son, and the Transubstantiation of the
Eucharist, passed from the region of imphcit into
the region of exphcit faith. But the process was
sooner completed in the former case, partly because
heresy busied itself with the mystery of the Divine
Nature long before it speculated on the Eucharist;
partly because the one doctrine touched more
closely than the other on the foundation of all
Christian behef. The Lateran and Tridentine defi-

* See Trench's Lectures on Mediaeval Church History, Lect. 13.
Dr. Pusey says more strongly : "The faith [in the Real Presence]
was as entire in the century which still saw St. John, as when
Christian thought and devotion had dwelt upon it 
it was antecedent to philosophy ; it was not affected by it ; it will
survive, or (as seems likely), it will win philosophy. For a
thousand years, until the unhappy Berengar, not a light cloud
overshadowed it ; and that, too, soon passed away." Pusey's
Univ. Seniwns, vol. ii. p. 286.

42 INTRODUCTION.
nitions are a development of the earher behef in the
Beal Presence, only in the same sense as the
Nicene is a development of the Apostles' Creed,
and the Athanasian of the Nicene.
The question of the Immaculate Conception
stands on somewhat different ground. It has no
immediate bearing on the centre of Christian faith
or of Christian worship. The Church could well
afford to wait for a settlement of it. And accord
ingly, for many centuries, the subject was not
mooted at ah, though there is no reason to sup
pose that the exemption of Mary from the doom of
original sin may not have been imphcitly or even
explicitly beheved by many, and the language of
St. Augustine goes far to prove that at aU events
such a behef would not have been out of harmony
with the habitual tone of men's thoughts in his
own day. When at last the question was raised,
there were naturaUy different views about it, and
the general agreement eventually arrived at no
doubt adds something to the subjective behef of
the Church. But it does not, therefore, add any
thing to the original deposit from which that behef
is deduced, or imply the claim — which every
Cathohc theologian would absolutely repudiate in
her name — to the possession of a fresh or con
tinuous revelation. If it is urged that nothing can
really be a portion of the revealed deposit which it
has taken so long to discover there, or which, when
once pointed out, is not at once seen like the Nicene
dogma to be a logical corollary froin it, the answer

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 43
is twofold. The longer and more profoundly the
body of revealed truth is subjected to the devout
meditation and scrutiny of the faithful, the greater
fulness of meaning is hkely to be educed from it.
Nor does it follow that a given deduction is not
legitimate because it does not immediately com
mend itself to this or that individual thinker [or
school. On the other hand, it must be borne in
mind that a large and increasing succession of
theologians for many centuries past have professed
to recognise this truth, as contained in the revealed
deposit, while none of them ever dreamed of its
resting on a new revelation. To say that a doctrine
was " unknown to the Church of the Apostles," is
not to say that it is no part of the Apostohc deposit,
unless the paradox be maintained — for such it really
is — that the Apostles not only perfectly compre
hended, but openly proclaimed in its minutest
details, the full significance of the message they
were inspired to dehver to the Church. This is
not the place to discuss the nature of the defining
authority which ultimately fixes a development as
an article of faith. Those who say, with a recent
Anghcan writer,* that they would be ready to
admit the Immaculate Conception, if propounded
hke the OeoroKos on the word of " the undivided
Church," have in fact admitted the principle which
is here contended for. Their objections turn on a

* See review of Eirenicon in Chr. Rem. for July, 1866, attri
buted to the late Rev. G. Williams.

44 INTRODUCTION.
point which hes beyond the range of this treatise,
and would apply to one or two only of the develop
ments ordinarily excepted against.*
And here it may be weU to guard against a
possible misconception. The growth, or even
universal prevalence, of an opinion in the Church
is no necessary evidence of its truth, f There are
no doubt spurious as weU as genuine developments,
and what are sometimes called " corruptions," that
is, exaggerations of true ideas, just as there are
fictitious and doubtful miracles, as well as real
ones ; but the counterfeit is no prejudice in either
case to the existence of the reahty. There are
developments based on the acceptance of spurious
authorities, which are of course themselves spurious.
Opinions have flourished for centuries, though with
out receiving any authoritative sanction, and have
* It must be remembered that none of the Bishops who ob
jected to the definition of 1854, based their objections on disbehef
in the doctrine.
+ Still less, of course, is the Church, as such, committed to
the belief in any particular miracle or miracles, however widely
spread, and however strong may be the evidence. It is worth
while to remark this, when even so accomplished and able a
writer as Dean Stanley speaks of the tradition about Loretto as
" bringing to an issue the assumption of a particular Church to
direct the conscience of the world " (Stanley's Sinai and Palestine,
p. 443) ; and Lord Macaulay could use " a believer in the blood
of St. Januarius," as a synonym for a Cathohc. That miracles
were to continue in the Church, and cannot therefore be rejected
wholesale on a priori grounds, though not an article of faith, is a
direct inference from such passages of the New Testament as
Mark xvi. 17, 18, John xiv. 12, Acts ii. 17, sqq., not to insist on
Old Testament prophecies. Probably Dean Milnian is right in
saying (Hist, of Jews, vol. i. p. xx.), " Men believe in miracles,
because they are religious. I doubt their becoming religious
through belief in miracles."

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 45
passed away. Such, for instance, was the once
universal belief in a miUennial reign of Christ on
earth, founded on an expectation of His speedy
return, which it is abundantly clear from their own
writings that, for wise reasons doubtless, the Apostles
were suffered to entertain. It was not till this be
lief had gradually died out, in the hght of history,*
that room was left for the doctrine of Purgatory to
occupy men's thoughts. St. Paul had spoken of
the fire that should try every man's work, but it
was long before the full significance of his words
came to be apprehended. We have one of the first
express intimations ofthe doctrine, as now generaUy
held, in St. Augustine (De Doct. Christ.), but stated
only as a conjectural view.f So, again, as regards
the state of the lost, St. Augustine felt no scruple
in consigning unchristened infants to endless tor
ments. No theologian holds such an opinion now.
In the fifteenth century the Council of Florence
defined, that those who die in actual or only in
original sin will be eternally, but unequally, punished.
* As Dr. Farrar says, " the divine and steady light of History
first made clear to the Church, that our Lord's prophetic warnings
as to His return applied primarily to the close of the Jewish
Dispensation." — Life of St. Paul, vol. i. p. 598. But the theory
of the author of The Parousia (Daldy, Isbister & Co.), that the
destruction of Jerusalem is the only, or even the notion that it
is the chief, fulfilment of these prophecies, seems to me, for many
reasons, wholly untenable.
t There is, however, frequent mention in earlier writers of
purification by fire or imprisonment in the intermediate state.
See Newman's Via Media, vol. ii. p. 102, note, and cf. Neander's
Church History, vol. ii'. pp. 401, 402 ; Pusey's Everlasting Punish
ment, in Reply to Dr. Farrar, pp. 108, sqq. ; Bp. Forbes's Explan.
39 Articles, vol. ii. pp. 329, sqq.

46 INTRODUCTION.
Later theology teaches, that the punishment of the
latter consists solely in their not attaining to the
Beatific Vision, for which they have no capabihties,
and is consistent with the highest enjoyment of
natural beatitude. Balmez apphes the same prin
ciple to the case of adults, especially among heathen
nations, who die with their moral and intellectual
faculties feebly developed, and may be regarded as
children in character and responsibility. The ex
treme predestinarian theory, into which St. Augus
tine was finally driven in his controversy with the
Pelagians, but which he would probably have
modified had he hved longer, remained for twelve
centuries a floating opinion in the Church ; it was
not till it had been formuhzed into a system by
Jansenius, and had become the rahying cry of a
powerful theological party, that it was authori
tatively condemned.* Another opinion which has
widely prevailed among Cathohcs, though borrowed
originally from Protestants, but which is now known
to be untenable, is a belief in the verbal inspiration
of Scripture, first dogmatically laid down in the
Formula Consensus Helvetica in 1675, but previously

* I am not forgetful of the controversy raised as to St. Augus
tine's real meaning ; but there can be no doubt that the lan
guage of his later writings gave, to say the least, very plausible
support to such views as those of Gotteschalk in the ninth cen
tury, and of the Jansenists afterwards. Sainte-Beuve, in his
History of Port Royal (vol. ii. p. 129), quotes " one of the most
eloquent of the Catholic orators of our age," as saying, " II est
vrai qu'il ne pouvait s'empecher de croire que sur tout un en
semble de points le grand docteur, tout grand qu'il etait, avait
pousse a l'extreme et avait sans doute erre."

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 47
maintained by the great body of the Beformed.
Bibhcal criticism is yet in its infancy, and dis
coveries hke that of the Codex Sinaiticus (now esta
blished beyond dispute) may seriously affect it.
Should the controversies of our own day ultimately
lead to some definition of the meaning and limits of
inspiration, or the nature of future retribution —
subjects on which the Church has hitherto been
silent — this in its turn would open out fresh sources
of speculation in other directions. Thus, even a
false or imperfect development may have a relative
and provisional use, and fulfil a providential office
in the evolution of divine truth. There are opinions,
again, which prevail, and have prevailed for cen
turies in the Church, but which have been expressly
excluded from a place among articles of faith. Such
is the very common behef in a material fire of
Purgatory, which, though frequently ranked by
Protestant controversiahsts among Catholic doc
trines, was declared, at the Council of Forence, to
be matter of opinion only, and has never obtained
in the East.*
A further contrast may be drawn between de
velopment of doctrine and development of practice,
though there is, of course, a close analogy between
* See Bellarmine De Purg. lib. ii. ch. xi., who expressly
denies, on this ground, that it is any article of faith. And cf.
Perrone, Protect. Theol. De Deo, pars iii. c. vi. art. 2 : " Duo
tantum ab Ecclesia de Purgatorio definita sunt, ejusdem scilicit
existentia, et suffragiorum utilitas erga defunctorum animas.
Omnia deinde qua ad locum, tempus, panarum naturam et acerbitatem
spectant, dogma non attingunt, prout nee attingunt quae ad modum
pertinent quo defunctorum animae fidelium suffragiis juvantur."

48 INTRODUCTION.
them. Here again my meaning will be best ex
plained by illustration. " Blessed are the poor in
spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven," is the
statement of a principle of which the Franciscan
and Cistercian Orders were a natural and legitimate
expression ; yet more than a thousand years inter
vened between the utterance of those words from
the sun-crowned brow of Tabor and the time when
Francis of Assisi drew up his rule of " holy
poverty," or Bernard, in the flower and prime of
youth, turned his back on all the endearments of a
happy home to bury himself in the sohtude of
Citeaux. Or take the famous passage (Matt. xix.
12), which contains in germ the idea of celibacy as
a Christian grace, and consider how gradual was
its institution as a rule of hfe. At the close of the
fourth century, Pope Siricius censured the marriage
of the clergy in the Western Church ; but though
forbidden, it was not made invahd till the time of
Gregory VII. , and in many parts of Europe, espe
cially in England and Wales, it continued to be
very common ; in the East the rule has always been
restricted to the Episcopate. So, again, sacra
mental absolution was ordained by our Lord for
the remission of post-baptismal sin ; but the rule of
annual confession was first laid down by the Lateran
Council in 1215, and accordingly from that time
forth we find frequent mention of " confessors " in
rayal or noble households, whereas before, " chap
lains " only had been spoken of. Kneeling at
elevation in the Mass, and when the Blessed

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 49
Sacrament is carried to the sick, was not
ordered till the close of the thirteenth century,
and the festival and procession of Corpus
Christi, first instituted by Urban IV. in 1264,
only came into general use after the Council
of Vienne, in 1311, though the behef in the Beal
Presence had, of course, prevailed all along.* In
the early ages, again, it was customary for all the
clergy to communicate at the bishop's mass ; the
practice of every priest saying his own mass after
wards became universal in the West, but the
doctrine of the Holy Sacrifice remains unchanged, f
So far the analogy between doctrinal and prac
tical developments seems complete; but there is
an important distinction. A dogmatic develop
ment, once authoritatively sealed by the judgment
of the Church, can never pass away, except as
being merged in a higher and fuller reahzation of
the same truth. J But practical developments are
* It is worth noting that the general observance of Trinity
Sunday dates from a still later period, having been first esta
blished by Pope John XXII. in 1334. It was introduced some
what earlier into England and Germany, whence the reckoning
of Sundays " after Trinity," instead of " after Pentecost," in then-
national rituals. Becket is said to have first enjoined it in
England. It has never obtained in the Eastern Church.
t When daily celebration became general is a disputed point.
The language of Acts ii. 46 seems to imply that it was the custom
of the Apostolic Church, but Dr. Dollinger understands the pas
sage differently (Christenthum, p. 351), from there being no later
evidence of such a rule for some centuries. Wilberforce (Doc
trine of the Holy Eucharist), argues the other way. Attendance
at the Holy Sacrifice on Sundays and festivals was undoubtedly
held to be of universal obligation from the first, and was then,
as now, the only public service obligatory on the faithful.
J It is quite possible, of course, for the same theological lan
guage to be at one time accepted, and at another rejected by
4

50 INTRODUCTION.
from their nature variable, though the principles
they spring from are not. The rehgious conse
cration of virginity, as a state of life, is a principle
imphed in the words of our Lord and his inspired
Apostle, but particular rules about vows of cehbacy
may vary with variations of time and circumstance.
The adoration of Christ in the Eucharist foUows
immediately from the belief in His Presence, but
the methods of external worship need not always
be the same. Absolution and communion are
divine ordinances, but special rules about the
manner and frequency of their ministration are
left to the discretion of the Church. The same
practices may not be equally adapted to every age
and condition of society ; and what the Church has
solemnly sanctioned at one time, she may, with
equal wisdom, alter or abrogate at another. Thus,
rules about fasting have varied according to time,
chmate, or other circumstances. Communion in
both kinds was expressly enjoined by Pope Gelasius
in the fifth century, in opposition to a current
heresy ; it began to be discontinued in the West in
the thirteenth, and the later practice has lasted on,
the Church, according to the sense in which it is understood, as
happened with the term S/aooixtios. Thus again, St. Cyril's famous
dictum, fita (fivcris tov 6eov \oyou <r&rapK<apxvr), was received by
the fifth General Council, and is explained and defended at length
by Petavius in its orthodox acceptation, as used by the writer
against Nestorius ; but it was abused by the Eutychians in the
service of their opposite heresy, and could not safely be adopted
in public teaching now. So the formula, " One of the Trinity
suffered in the flesh," was condemned by Pope Hormisdas, and
accepted by his successors, but in different senses. — See Petav.
JJe Incarn. v. 2, 3.

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 51
with certain exceptions, to our own day.* Daily
Communion was the ordinary practice of the early
Church, but by 1215 the love of Christians had
waxed so cold, that it was found necessary to
enjoin at least an annual reception under pain of
sin.t The same rule continues, but in our own
day it would be thought httle short of scandalous
for any one professing to lead a religious life to
communicate so seldom.
A far more momentous change than any of these
was introduced in the thirteenth century, in the
abohtion of Infant Communion, which had pre
vailed universally throughout Christendom up to
that period, as it is still practised in the East, and
the postponement of Confirmation, which had been
also administered to infants, either immediately
after baptism, or, in the West, where it was reserved
to bishops, as soon as an opportunity occurred.]:

* In the early ages, as is admitted by Bp. Forbes (Explan. 39
Articles, vol. ii. p. 595), those who communicated at home, as was
then very common, as well as the sick and confessors in prison,
received under the form of Bread only ; infants were communi
cated with the chalice only, as is still the custom of the Greek
Church, and thus the great majority, in the ages of persecution,
received under one species only. Cf. Excursus II.
+ A recent writer states that " the generality of the Russians
receive the Sacrament and confess once a year during the great
Fast, but some go twice." Romanoff's Sketches of the Greco-
Russian Church. (Rivingtons), 1868, p. 136.
I In the Eastern Church, Confirmation, or " Chrism," is ad
ministered immediately after baptism by the officiating priest,
with oil consecrated by the bishop. In the West it continued to
be very commonly, though not universally, administered to
infants, till a different practice was introduced at the Council of
Trent. The statement at the close of the Anglican Baptismal
Office that baptized children, dying before they commit actual
4 *

52 INTRODUCTION.
This entire withdrawal Of the Sacraments of Con
firmation and the Eucharist from between a third
and half the whole body of the baptized was a far
graver innovation than the mere withdrawal in public
administrations of the chahce, which had never
been given in private Communion, — the more so
as it involved a seeming contravention of our Lord's
solemn declaration (John ii. 53), on which the pre
vious usage had been avowedly based. It is not, of
course, at all intended to imply that the Church was
not competent to make the change, or that there
were not good and sufficient reasons for it ; but it
must in fairness be admitted that the change was
an enormous one, in comparison to which the con
temporaneous introduction of Communion under
one kind in church — sometimes strangely mis
called " half- Communion " — shrinks, especially for
those who have grasped the doctrine of the Beal
Presence, to an almost infinitesimal significance,
and that it is simply paradoxical for those who have
quietly adopted the greater " innovation " — as have
the Anghcan and all the Protestant bodies — to de
nounce the lesser, however inexpedient they may
think it, as unscriptural and unprimitive, which,
moreover, in principle, it is not.
To take a different case ; the whole legislation
of the Church, as regards the intercourse of
Cathohcs with those without, was pretty weU
sin, are undoubtedly saved, was designed, as is expressly stated
in a rubric of the Book of 1549, to meet the scruples of parents
who feared for the salvation of those dying unconfirmed.

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 53
revolutionized by the Council of Constance, acting
under a just appreciation of the altered conditions
of European society. These are but a few instances,
selected almost at random, of the various or seem
ingly contrary apphcations of a common principle,
according to the exigencies of time and place, of
which Christian history is full. It has been well
observed that " to transfer a form of one age un
altered into another is in most cases to be faithless
to that very principle of continuity by which we
claim to be children of the first century, or the
fourth, or the ninth, or the thirteenth. We are the
children of the men who hved then ; we cannot be
the men themselves.'"* The mystical Bride was not
only to be all glorious from within, but also
" clothed in raiment of many colours," and it is no
paradox to say that she is ever changing while still
the same. To her we may apply the poet's
words — " Mother of form and fear,
Dread arbitress of mutable respect."
* Rev. B. F. Westcott in Contemporary Review for July 1868.
It is the converse error to make the circumstances of our own
day the criterion for judging of historical personages or events.
Nothing e.g. is commoner than to hear St. Thomas of Canterbury
spoken of as having died for a trivial or positively mischievous
object, which has long since been tacitly abandoned in all
Catholic countries, viz. the exemption of ecclesiastics from trial
for civil offences in the civil courts. As a matter of fact Becket
was actually put to death for something quite different. But if
the popular version of the story were correct, it would not at all
follow that what is needless or inexpedient in the nineteenth
century may not have been worth contending for in the eleventh.
If this obvious truism were steadily kept in mind in the study of
history, many of our traditional verdicts would have to be
revised.

54 INTRODUCTION.
A still closer analogy, in some respects, may be
traced between the development of doctrine and
the growth of what are called special devotions in
the' Church, which are themselves the corollaries of
doctrine. Thus, e.g., the devotion to the Sacred
Heart is theologically the outcome of the Ephesian
definition, proclaiming Mary to be " the Mother of
God," which guards the reahty of the hypostatic
union. And to object to it on doctrinal grounds
— for, of course, devotional tastes and instincts are
necessarily various — is to betray a latent Nestor-
ianism. The same may be said of devotions to the
Five Wounds or the Precious Blood, and others
connected with separate details of the Passion.
To revert to doctrinal developments ; this may
seem the place for saying something of the ante
cedent tests by which their value is ascertained,
but the subject is too wide to be more than glanced
at here. It is obvious, at the first blush, that every
true development must be in harmony with the
original revelation, and the mind of God ; and thus
any theory, for instance, which should trench on
the Incarnation, or Divinity, or mediatorial office of
the Eternal Son, or, again, on the moral principles
of Christianity, would be at once self-condemned.
To take a single example, the doctrine of Pur
gatory may be regarded as a particular development
of the idea of Divine Justice, or more specifically
of the aggravated heinousness of post-baptismal
sin ; and hence it has been observed that " no
doctrine of the Church so practically and vividly

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 55
brings home to the mind and engraves upon it the
initial element of aU true religion, — sense of sin,
original and actual, as an evil attaching to one
and all." * At the same time it helps to supplement
and explain what would otherwise be so distressing
and difficult to us in the revelation of eternal
punishment. Another method of meeting such diffi
culties has, however, become popular of late years, in
the modern development of Universahsm, which,
instead of explaining the revealed truth, begins by
flatly contradicting it, and thereby proves itself to
be no genuine development, but a corruption.
It is clear, on the other hand, that no deve
lopment could be admitted, which should conflict
with truths already known from other sources,
as from natural reason, science, or history. God
cannot contradict Himself. His word in revelation
must be in perfect accord with His word written in
the heart of man, or in the records of the past, or
on the crust of the earth, or on the firmament of
heaven. Hence no development which should
exalt what are usually called the Evangehcal vir
tues — those first introduced by Christianity — to the
exclusion or disparagement of the so-called natural
virtues — those which Christianity did not introduce,
but most certainly adopted and sanctioned — could
be a true one. There may have been periods in
the history of the Church when purity, humihty,
and other graces of the Gospel had almost come to
be regarded, in some quarters, as a substitute for
* Newman's Via Media, vol. ii. p. 102, note 7.

56 INTRODUCTION.
candour, justice, manhness, and other virtues of
the natural order ; or, again, when Manichean
notions as to the impurity of matter were impli
citly, though not consciously, entertained. But
these could be no more than passing phases of
opinion, and have never been absorbed into the
texture of her inner life. Hence again, as we ob
served just now, the theory of hteral inspiration,
so dear to one large school of Protestants, is un
tenable, being disproved by facts. I will mention
but one other test, which is imphed in the very
term development, and is expressly noticed by St.
Vincent of Lerins, in a passage quoted above,
viz. that it means progress from less to more * ; it
must be an accession to our knowledge, and must
enlarge, not narrow, the boundaries of religious
thought. The collective mind of the Church,
gazing from age to age at the orb of divine truth,
using all available apphances from without, and
enhghtened by the Spirit from within, grows con
tinually in wisdom as in strength, and her path is
as the shining hght which increaseth continually
unto perfect day.
This part of the subject may be fitly closed with
the account of the hmits, within which the deve
loping authority of the Church is exercised, given
by one eminently qualified to speak on the subject :
" The great truths of the moral law, of natural
rehgion, and of Apostolic faith, are both its boun
dary and its foundation. It must not go beyond
* Cf. supra, p. 7.

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 57
them, and it must ever appeal to them. Both its
subject-matter, and its articles in that subject-
matter, are fixed  It must ever profess to be
guided by Scripture and by tradition. It must
refer to the particular Apostohc truth which it is
enforcing, or (what is called) defining  The new
truth which is promulgated, if it is to be called
new, must be at least homogeneous, cognate, im
plicit, viewed relatively to the old truth. It must
be what I may even have guessed, or wished, to be
included in the Apostohc revelation ; and at least
it will be of such a character that my thoughts
readily concur in it, or coalesce with it, as soon as
I hear it."* It is of course imphed here, as the
author expressly states elsewhere in reference to
the Immaculate Conception, that a "hew truth"
may not always be recognised thl after ages of con
troversy, and may even for a time be strenuously
opposed. The divine illumination vouchsafed to
the Church does not supersede or anticipate the
historical development of her thought.
And now, before proceeding to consider objec
tions, let me notice, in passing, one or two prac
tical corollaries which follow from what has been
said. First, it is clear that we have no right to
be hasty in rejecting new developments in theology
simply because they are new. Very often, indeed,
the novelty is of appearance only, and we are but
welcoming " old friends with new faces." But, if
not, let us remember that every fresh definition,
* Newman's Apologia pro Vita Sua, pp. 392, 393.

58 INTRODUCTION.
from the o/Wo-ios of Nicaea downwards, has been
branded in turn with the charge of novelty. It
was superfluous because it contained nothing new,
or it was dangerous because it did. But wisdom
is justified of aU her children. There is no fear of
new deductions from the revealed deposit being
prematurely incorporated into the creed. Every
fresh definition has been the slow growth of cen
turies, and well-informed Protestants have by this
time learnt to smile at the controversial sciohsts
who say they can put their finger on the date when
this or that doctrine was invented. The Church
is patient because she is eternal. She can afford
to wait. Meanwhile, if we choose to be startled
or scandalized at what we do not immediately
comprehend, the course of theological science will
not therefore stand still for us, hke the sun and
moon in the vaUey of Ajalon.
Neither, on the other hand, must we carp at
scientific discoveries, which seem to trench on
received opinions. In such cases it has been very
common, first to say that the new theory is un
true ; and then that it is dangerous to rehgion ;
and when at last it is proved to be both true and
innocuous, that it is unimportant, for every one
knew it before. But this is neither wise nor alto
gether honest. If there is a danger in offending
the prejudices of the ignorant, there is also a
danger of shaking the faith of the learned, when
we insist on denouncing as irrehgious what they
perhaps know to be a demonstrated fact. Noli

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 59
cemulari. Either our opinion was merely an opinion,
and no part of revealed dogma at aU, or the alleged
discovery will turn out to be only a conjectural
hypothesis, serviceable for the moment but des
tined to pass away, or the two do not really clash.
In any case, the cause of truth is safe. He who
made all things beautiful, handed over this mate
rial universe to the investigation of man, and the
fulness of time will not suffice for the study of His
wondrous works.* A Cathohc, firm in his behef,
will have as httle desire to check the free course of
science, as doubt that its results will ultimately
tend to the confirmation of faith. He may, indeed,
complain of random assertions, hasty generaliza
tions, of treating hypotheses as conclusions, and
identifying difficulties with disproof ; and no honest
student of science will quarrel with him for doing
so.f When we remember how it was once ima
gined, by friend and foe alike, that revelation itself
was at stake in the discussion of the solar system, we
can afford to smile at the ignorance, or the impa
tience, or the unbelief , which welcomes or dreads, as
the case may be, in the results of geology or physio
logy, a probable death-blow to our Christian faith. J
* " Cuheta fecit bona in tempore suo, et mundum tradidit
disputationi eorum, ut non inveniat homo-opus quod operatus est
Deus ab initio usque ad finem." Eccles. hi. 11.
t The office of the apologist is to trace from time to time the
" Connection of Science and Revealed Religion," as Cardinal
Wiseman expresses it, not to contrast them as antagonistic
systems. J Supposing, for instance, the Darwinian theory of the " origin
of species " were ever to be recognised as a scientific truth

60 INTRODUCTION.
I pass on to notice, in conclusion, two leading
objections, one of a theoretical, the other of a
practical kind, which are frequently urged against
the principle of development, though, in fact, they
only require to be thoroughly sifted to be conclu
sively disproved.
It is objected, then, often not without contemp
tuous acrimony, that to maintain a development of
doctrine is a dishonour to revelation, and an im
plicit denial of the faith once delivered to the
Saints ; that Scripture can have no place in a reh
gion which is one thing yesterday, another to-day,
and may be a third quite different to-morrow ; and
that it is an accident, whether the journey lands
us in the blasphemies of Strauss, or the decrees of
Trent. Now, if this is anything more than a
simple misconception of the whole question, suffi
ciently met by the passage quoted just now from
the Apologia, it is not only untrue, but the precise
reverse of the truth. It is, in the first place, to
forget that, while the process of development is
necessarily carried on by the aid of the intel
lectual faculties, the data on which it works,
and which supply at once the basis and the

(which I am very far from saying that it will be), the Catholic
doctrine of the Fall would remain untouched. For after all, we
must draw the line somewhere ; there must be a point in the
series of animal developments, where man, in the language of
Scripture, " became a living soid," unless the existence of the
soul be denied altogether, and then would begin those relations
of the human soul with God comprehended under the terms
" original justice," and " original sin."

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 61
hmit of its operation, were not discovered by the
human intellect, but revealed direct from1 heaven.
The divine deposit of " the faith once for aU deli
vered to the Saints," and enshrined in Scripture
and Tradition, is the exclusive source of all later
developments, and the criterion for testing their
legitimacy. Instead, therefore, of the principle
asserted being a dishonour to revelation, so far as
we are capable of forming any a priori judgment on
the subject, it would be a great dishonour to reve
lation to deny it. If it is certainly a law of the
human mind in relation to every other kind of
truth, philosophical, moral, or scientific, that our
mental no less than our bodily muscles are deve
loped by use, it would be a prima facie objection to
any professed system of revealed truth, that it did
not repay by a fresh accession of knowledge the
labour and attention bestowed upon it. Or shall
we say, that in the highest subject-matter of all
the mind is forbidden to energize, or must energize
with no results ? While development is the law
of all God's natural dispensations, are we to pre
dicate an exceptional stagnation of the king
dom of grace ? To imagine that, because the
Gospel was God's last word to man, theology,
as we now possess it, sprung full-grown from
the mind of the first century, like PaUas from
the head of Zeus, is but to transfer to the
moral what we have learnt to discard from our
conceptions of the material world, a succession
of miraculous cataclysms with another succession

62 INTRODUCTION.
of supplementary miracles to obhterate all traces
of them.*
But, perhaps, our opponents will join issue on
the fact. Let us therefore appeal to facts. And
here I will not refer to the obviously gradual educa
tion of the Gentile world, in God's Providence,
till the " fulness of time " for the Incarnation had.
arrived. I will appeal to the more decisive analogy
of the Old Testament dispensation. There, if any
where, we might expect the law of development
to be suspended, for the commandment, written on
tables of stone, was a letter rather than a spirit,
and the Jewish Church, while possessing a Divine
* In the second edition of Bp. Wordsworth's St. Hippolytus and
the Church of Rome, there is a chapter directed against " the
theory of development," the argument of which is thus summed
up : "It must not be imagined that the Truth was made by being
elucidated. [Who ever did imagine it ?] No ; not a single
article of it was so formed. It had existed, and had existed in
its perfect plenitude, even from the beginning, in the pages of
Holy Writ. ... So when the clouds of heresy were dis
persed . . . the Orb of Truth was seen more clearly by the
eye of the Church, as that orb had shone from the first in the
firmament of Holy Writ." Exactly so ; but the whole question
concerns the development, or " elucidation " of the truths al
lowed on all hands to be fully contained in the original deposit.
On the next page we read — the italics are throughout the
author's — " Whatever, therefore, has been received by the Church
Universal as the true Exposition of Scripture, that is the true
sense of Scripture. And the true sense of Scripture, — that and
that alone is Scripture. And, since the Creeds have been so
received, we believe them to contain the True Faith, as pro
pounded in Scripture. ... we believe that these doctrines
[of the Creeds] are contained in Holy Scripture, and that they
have been in Scripture from the beginning." Certainly ; but
the Nicene Creed dates from the fourth century, and the Athana-
sian is a century, or perhaps more than a century, later. Why,
then, should we not equally accept creeds or definitions received
by the Church in after ages, and evolved by a similar process
from the teaching of Scripture ?

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 63
revelation, had no infallible authority. But was
it so ? Most surely not. Nowhere is the " increas
ing purpose " of revelation more conspicuous than
throughout the Old Testament dispensation, from
Patriarchs to Prophets, from Prophets to writers
later still. Not to insist here on the growing tone
of higher spirituahty as we advance from the
earlier to the later books, as is seen in the marked
change from the rituahsm of the Pentateuch to the
more spiritual tone of the Canticles or of Isaiah,* I
will confine myself to what is strictly doctrinal. We
are all familiar with the argument of Warburton's
famous work on the Divine Legation of Moses, where
he undertakes to prove the inspiration of the Pen
tateuch from the absence of any direct teaching
contained in it of a future life. No impostor, he
urges, would have neglected so powerful an engine
of influence as that behef supplies ; certainly all,
with whose history we are acquainted, have availed
themselves of it. Whatever becomes of his argu
ment, the fact is beyond dispute, though what is
never directly taught. is often mdirectly imphed.
But if we turn from the Mosaic record to the
Deutero-canonical books, or the Psalter, or the
Prophets, the expression of spiritual truth becomes
clear and significant enough. " What have I in
heaven but Thee, and what beside Thee do I
desire upon earth ? My flesh and my heart fail ;
* As to the^gradual development of the doctrine of the Holy
Trinity both in the Old and New Testaments, see Newman's
Arians, ch. II. sect. 2.

64 INTBODUCTION.
God is the strength of my heart, God is my
portion for ever." Still more exphcit is the
assurance of Daniel that those who sleep in the
dust of the earth shaU wake, some to everlasting
life, some to shame and everlasting contempt, and
they that convert many to righteousness shall shine
as stars for ever and ever. So, again, instead of
the curse of sterility and blessing of longevity we
read the praise of virginity and the happy lot of
the man who "being perfected in a short time
hath fulfilled many times," and is " taken from the
midst of iniquities, lest mahce should change his
understanding or guile deceive his soul." Or turn
from Solomon's saying that " old age is a crown
of glory " to the utterance of later inspiration that
" venerable old age standeth not in length of time,
nor is computed by number of years, but wisdom
is the grey hair of man, and an unspotted life is old
age." The Maccabean martyrs died amid cruel
torments, "being mindful of the resurrection"
and surely trusting that He for whose laws they
suffered would raise them up in glory, for they
knew that it is a good and holy thought to pray
for the dead and that " the souls of the just are in
the hand of God, and there shall no torment touch
them. In the sight of the unwise they seemed to
die, and their departure was taken for misery, and
their going away from us for utter destruction, but
they are in peace. . . . We fools accounted their
life to be madness, and their end without honour.
Behold how they are numbered among the chil-

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 65
dren of God, and their lot is with the Saints."*
And so completely had this doctrine of a fututre
life become part of the national creed, that the
Sadducees, who denied it, and on that account
rejected all the later books of the Old Testament,
were regarded, in the time of our Lord, as httle
better than a sect of heretics. f
Nor let it be rephed that, under the Old Law,
the fount of inspiration never ran dry, but was
sealed up in the first century of our era. For,
not to dwell here on the partial inspiration which
many have ascribed to such men as St. Bernard,
or Savonarola, or Thomas a Kempis, we possess
in the Divine iUumination of the Church of all
ages — 17 ad tKKhna-ia — a surer guarantee against
error than could be found in the intermittent reve
lations vouchsafed to holy men of old. \ The same
Spirit, who once " spoke by the Prophets," abides
for ever in the mystical Body of Christ. Now
indeed, as then, whenever some special crisis
occurs, we need not doubt that a special prophet

* Ps. lxxii. (E. V. lxxiii.) 24, 25. Dan. xii. 2, 3. Wisd. iii.
1-3, iv. 8, 9, v. 4, 5. 2 Mace' vii. 9, 29, 36, xii. 43-5.
f The author of Ecce Homo speaks of this (p. 37) as " the
greatest revolution the human mind has ever experienced."
\ The Hebrew Prophets discharged an office somewhat
analogous to that of the sensus fidelium or public opinion of the
Church among ourselves, standing to the Levitical priest
hood in the relation of the faithful and intelligent laity to the
clergy. This analogy, however, must not be pressed too far, as
the ritual and prophetic offices, separated under Judaism, are
united in the Christian priesthood. In another way the
Prophets may be compared with the Hermits of the earlier, and
Monks of a later age, as contrasted with the secular clergy.

66 INTRODUCTION.
or preacher of righteousness will be raised up to
meet it, from whose hps a fresh energy may be
caught for the enhghtenment or regeneration of
them that come after. Thus, amid the collapse of
ancient philosophies, and fabrics of pohtical great
ness tottering to their fall, the form of Socrates is
revealed against the dark background of heathen
antiquity, clothed in the radiance of an ideal
purity, and, as he conquers by the sacrifice of his
life the right to teach a nobler wisdom than his
people cared to listen to, giving dim surmise of a
Higher Presence yet to come. Thus, in the deep
decline of the fifteenth century, with its hideous
moral depravities and terrible burden of secret
unbehef, the white-robed monk of Florence stands
forth, annealed in martyr-flames, to bear witness
to an outraged holiness, and give warnings, httle
heeded, of the judgments that were coming upon
the earth.* But it is our privilege, as contrasted
with our Heathen or Israehte forefathers, that we
are not mainly dependent on such exceptional in
terpositions raised up for an emergency, but can
assimilate and utihse the intellectual acquisitions
of every age as it passes, from whatever school
they may be derived, knowing how to separate the

* Savonarola has often been claimed as a forerunner of
Luther. He has actually had a niche assigned him in the
Luther monument at Worms. It may be worth while, there
fore, to observe that his writings, after a rigorous scrutiny at
Rome, were pronounced entirely free from doctrinal error. St.
Philip Neri had a special reverence for him.

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 67
dross from the genuine ore, to refuse the evil and
choose the good.*
If, then, aU systems of ancient philosophy, so
far as they had any truth in them, contained not
mere arbitrary axioms, but germs to be developed
in the thinking mind ; if the hght of divine inspi
ration, handed down through a long hne of Pa-
triachs and Prophets, like the fire of a Greek
torch race, kindled more and more continually
towards brighter day — there were httle reason and
less reverence in denying, that the words of Christ
and His apostles are instinct with an exuberant
fulness of life, with capabihties of infinite expan
sion, of which our creeds and theologies are a true
but inadequate expression, which the science of
eighteen centuries has fed upon but has not ex
hausted. Who does not recognise the manifold
teaching of the Psalter, as its thunderous echoes
roll from age to age along the aisles of our stately
Cathedrals, and its whispered music cheers the
lonely deathbed, and its tones of awful supplica
tion caU " out of the depths " of human misery on
that unwearied compassion which watches over
the Christian dead ? The very form of the New
Testament, which contains not dogmas but prin

* Certainly, therefore, " all the devout thought of Protestant
Christendom " is not to be ignored, as one of my critics has
strangely supposed me to imply. On the contrary, as DoUinger
has observed, the greatest Catholic theologians will be the first
to acknowledge their obligations to their Protestant rivals,
especially in Biblical criticism. But the results can only be
finally authenticated by the judgment of the Church. 5 *

68 INTRODUCTION.
ciples, narratives and letters instead of creeds, is
itself a confirmation of our view. Its very " half
sentences, its overflowings of language, admit of
development ; they have a life in them which
shows itself in progress." * What more unlike in
form than De Lugo's De Incarnatione, and the Gospel
of St. John ? Yet the great Jesuit does but for-
muhse the Apostle's behef. It took centuries to
draw out the full significance of those few verses
which form the prologue of St. John's Gospel, as
it took centuries to exhibit in practice the mean
ing of the commission addressed to Peter, on the
shore of Gennesaret, " Feed My sheep." Con
sider, again, all that is involved in the idea of
personality, which, though not new in itself, must
have come almost like a new revelation on St.
Paul's Greek and Boman converts, and from which
all that is imphed in the true dignity of man is
derived ; thence come by gradual but inevitable
sequence the abohtion of slavery, and the modern
conception of "liberty, equahty, and fraternity,"
in the Christian sense of the words. The heavenly
message is addressed to the Church, like that
mysterious saying of Christ to His blessed
Mother in the temple of Jerusalem, not merely
to be received with devout acquiescence, but to
be laid up and pondered in the heart, to be
come the source of growing knowledge, a seed

* Newman's University Sermons, 3rd ed. p. 318 ; cf. pp. 335-7,
and the passage referred to in Butler's Analogy, pt. ii. ch. 3,

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 69
springing up continually into higher forms of
life.* The second and last objection requiring notice
here proceeds from a class of thinkers deserving of
deep sympathy and respect. They would say in
effect that this theory, however plausible it may
look on paper, is, after all, nothing but a theory ;
that, whatever intellectual difficulties may be
started, their own system holds water practically ;
that the three creeds, and the great verities of
Christianity, have been accepted by thousands
who indignantly rejected all later " additions " ;
that the Bible, whatever criticism may object to
its authenticity or inspiration, has, in fact, been to
thousands a rule of conduct, a guide in perplexity,
an unfailing source of strength in hfe and solace on
the bed of death. The Greek Church, it will per
haps be added, though the statement is conspi
cuously incorrect, t has never admitted the principle
* Alphonsus de Castro is quoted in Harper's Peace through the
Truth (p. 202), as saying, " The Church daily progresses in her
members, since God enlightens her daily more and more.
Wherefore she is compared to the morning, Quae est ista qua
progreditur sicut aurora I But the morning at its commencement
has a more feeble light, which increases as time goes on. So it
is with the Church ; hence I doubt not but that many matters
will be more clearly and plainly discovered by those who come
after us, which are utterly unknown to us at present."
f " Til the Eastern Church the Greek mobility of intellect and
spculative direction of thought predominated. In the Western
Church the more rigid and calm, the less mobile but more
practical tendency of the Roman spirit prevailed. Hence it
happened that, while in the Eastern Church the development of
doctrines had to pass through the most various forms of oppo
sition before they could come to any quiet adjustment, the result
at which she arrived, after manifold storms and conflicts, was,

70 INTRODUCTION.
of development, but has none the less maintained
intact its inheritance of orthodox behef. So far
as the facts alleged are accurately stated, they
constitute no real objection to my argument. The
Eastern Church has presented certainly, for the
last thousand years, the nearest existing approach
to a crystallized, or undeveloped form of Chris
tianity ; and the explanation is not far to seek.
Having adopted for herself and transmitted to the
Latin Church the result of the developments of
the first eight centuries, which were in fact wholly
her own work, and supphed the basis of the Nicene
and Athanasian Creeds and of the dogmatic decrees
of ah the Oecumenical Councils held before the
separation of East and West, while holding aloof
from the later Western definitions, she has been
able thenceforward to maintain her status quo
almost unchanged. But this is a complete reversal
of her earher intellectual experience, and has only
been possible because for the last thousand years,
owing to circumstances it would take too long to
specify here, she has stood apart from the whole
course of European thought, and has advanced
neither in dogmatic nor moral theology, in Biblical
criticism, or historical research. Once bring her
into contact with the criticism, the questionings,
the doubts of the day, and she will be compeUed

n a certain sense, anticipated by the Western Church, which
subsequently appropriated to herself the accurate definitions
which had been devised in the Eastern Church from the conflict
of opposite parties." — Neandcr, Church Hist. vol. iii. p. 492.

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 71
either to advance or to recede, either to sacrifice
what she jealously retains, or to recognise new
apphcations of her ancient faith. There has been
too httle temptation to fall into error, to suggest
the necessity for harmonizing truth.* And hence
Eastern theology, on its subjective side, remains
to this day barren and undefined. In England
there has of course been more freedom of thought,
but the strong conservative instincts of the
national character have combined with the Catho
hc elements of written or verbal tradition retained
in the national Church, and which discriminate
her broadly from continental Protestantism, to
sustain in the hearts of the people a large inherit
ance of orthodox feeling aud belief. They have
accepted the Bible, and have (often unconsciously)
accepted with it a traditional interpretation of
its meaning on many points, partly because it
has never occurred to them to question the one
or the other. And we may rejoice that it has
been so.
But this period of unthinking acquiescence is
rapidly passing away. A School, long powerful
in Germany, has, of late years, made its way into
* The Greeks, however, did put forth a fresh confession of
faith in 1643, in consequence of the Calvinistic tendencies of
Cyril Lucar, under the title of " Orthodox Confession of Faith
of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church," which was con
firmed by the Synod of Bethlehem in 1672, and is in close
agreement with the dogmatic decrees of Trent. With this may
be compared, or contrasted, as equally containing new defi
nitions, the English articles and formularies. The term tran
substantiation (/xerovo-iWis) is adopted in this confession.

72 INTRODUCTION.
England, which, from the far more general interest
felt in religious questions in this country, may be
expected, if it is not already beginning, to exercise
a tenfold greater influence here over popular
Christianity. There are those among its more
prominent members of whom all would wish to
speak with that respect which their character,
their learning, and their abilities deserve ; who in
their generosity of tone, and in some of their
detailed opinions, excel many who profess a more
orthodox belief. But there can be no doubt that
their teaching, logically carried out, would disin
tegrate the whole received system of Christianity,
however little they may contemplate such a
result, or be prepared to face it. They make
no secret of their absolute hostility to dogma,
as a mischievous . excrescence on the sim
pler " faith of the Incarnation," which, in
some not very intelligible sense, many of them
profess their desire to retain. And their line
of argument can be met successfully only by
a bold and ungrudging assertion of the Catho
hc as opposed to the rationalistic principle
of development. For the champions of dog
matic Christianity to ignore it, is as though an
astronomer should ignore the laws of motion, or a
physiologist the circulation of the blood. The
Christ of the Gospels, they would tell us, was gra
dually formulised, through the action of ecclesias
tical dogmatism, into the Christ of later theology,
till we pass from the simplicity of the evangelical

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 73
narratives to the technical subtilties of the creeds.*
" To attribute," says the greatest writer in the
well-known volume of Essays and Reviews, " to St.
Paul or the Twelve the abstract notion of Chris
tian truth which afterwards sprung up in the
Church, is the same sort of anachronism as to
attribute to them a system of philosophy." This
may be true, in a sense, but when the same writer
goes on to suggest that the 6/u,oo™™os of Nice was
only a less misfortune to the Church than would
have been caused by an opposite decision, and we
are justly bidden to observe that the traditions of
the first century, without any notion of develop
ment, are an insufficient basis for the theology of
the nineteenth, we are practicaUy reminded that
the same scythe which lops off the doctrinal " in
novations " of Trent is ready to include in its
ruthless sweep the definitions of Nicaea, and the
Athanasian Creed. There are many, again, who
would shrink from the extreme opinions of Strauss,
but who desire with him to detach Christian
morality from its basis in Christian dogma, and,
in strange oblivion of the facts of human nature
and the witness of history, expect that the flower
will continue to blossom when the root is dead.
Nor let the mere Protestant, who cares nothing
for creeds and controversies, console himself with

* An able sketch of the leading characters of the Tubingen
School (suggested by the Colenso controversy) will be found in
an article by M. Edmond Schcerer, in the Rente des Dm.v Mondes,
for March, 1863, entitled Confessions d'un Missionaire.

74 INTRODUCTION.
the fond illusion that, at any rate, the cause of
" Bible Christianity " is safe.* One of the most
briUiant, if not the most profound, of living
French writers, himself once a Cathohc behever,
has taught us how possible it is to accept nearly
the whole framework of the Gospel narrative, while
rejecting, without even the poor compliment of
refutation, the Divinity of Him of whom the Gospel
speaks, written though we had deemed it as with a
sunbeam on every page. Another writer of the
same nation, the first in reputation among living
novelists, when describing his ideal of a Christian
death-bed, makes his hero expire, gazing indeed
on the crucifix, to remind him of the ' ' example of
the Great Martyr," but neglecting the sacraments,
as neither appreciating the reahty of guilt nor the
need of atonement. A third has aspired to found
not only a philosophy, but a rehgion and a Church,
based on a negation of theism, and of the future
hfe, and has found among our own countrymen
some of the ablest and most ardent apostles of his
dreary creed, f Positivism, indeed, or rather Ag-

* To quote M. Guizot's words, in the Preface to his first vol
ume of Meditations on the Christian Religion, " It is, in fact, the
whole Church of Christ, and not this or that Church in par
ticular, which is at the present day the object of attack in its
fundamental principles. When the supernatural world, the
inspiration of the Sacred Books, and the divinity of our Lord
Jesus Christ are denied, the blow falls upon the shoulders of the
whole body of Christians, whether Roman Catholics, Protest
ants, or Greeks."
f The reader may be referred to the Essays on International
Policy, by some of the principal English adherents of this
school.

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 75
nosticism, which is but old atheism " writ large,"
bids fair, if left to itself, to become in the future
both the bitterest and most formidable rival of the
Christian faith ; philosophical theism, which seems
to bar the way, will not long serve as a breakwater
against it. It can but give us an intellectual
abstraction in place of the Living God, while it
really leaves untouched — as one of the ablest scep
tical writers of the day has pointed out — the diffi
culties urged against revelation, if it does not
rather exaggerate them.* Views similar in ten
dency, though differing considerably in detail from
each other, have been advocated by such writers
as Greg, Martineau, and Francis Newman among
ourselves, Emerson and Theodore Parker in Ame
rica. Let it be well remembered that opinions of this
kind, and I have but cursorily noted their bearing
here, are steadily on the increase, that they have
already gained the pubhc ear, and meet with some
thing more than acquiescence from the rising intel
lect of the day. What future may be in store for
* " Those who admit an omnipotent, as well as perfectly
just and benevolent Maker and Ruler of such a world as this,
can say little against Christianity but what can, with at least
equal force, be retorted against themselves." — J. S. Mill's Auto-'
biography, p. 39 ; and cf. his posthumous Essays on Religion,
p. 314: "The argument of Butler's Analogy is, from its own
point of view, conclusive ; the Christian religion is open to no
objections, either moral or intellectual, which do not apply at
least equally to the common theory of Deism ; the morality of the
Gospel is far higher and better than that which shows itself in
the order of nature." His own solution of the problem was to
' ecur to the old Gnostic and Manichean heresy of Dualism.

76 INTRODUCTION.
the Church, or for the world, I know not, nor do I
presume to meddle with vexed interpretations of
prophetic lore. There are those who deem the
reign of Antichrist is at hand. Be this as it may,
in one sense he is always near, and it needs no
prophet's eye to discern to-day on the spiritual
horizon many of the predicted signs of his coming,
written so that he who runs may read. There is,
indeed, much in the present condition of Christen
dom to suggest such an expectation. If we are to
seek the characteristic temper of Antichrist, not
in the wild speculations of modern Apocalyptic
dreamers, but in the words of the beloved disciple
who lay on the bosom of Jesus, we must recognise
it in that direct or indirect dishonour of the Incar
nation, that perverse determination expressed in
various forms to " dissolve " the unity of Christ's
natural Body on the altar and His mystical Body
in the Church, of which there are so many indica
tions among us ; we find it in " every spirit that
dissolveth Jesus." * And if it be true that the
rival hosts are marshalling now for the last great
conflict, it gives to the controversies of the pre
sent a deeper and more solemn significance. I
am far, of course, from forgetting how much there
is in the religious temper of the day to encou
rage as well as to alarm us, distinguishing it most
* The Vulgate, following what Socrates (H. E. vii. 32) states
to be the reading of the ancient MSS., reads in 1 John iv. 3,
" omnis spiritus qui solvit Jesum," and thus the third verse
supplies a further illustration of the statement in the second,
instead of being merely a repetition of it.

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 77
honourably from many former periods of Christian
history. Our very scepticism is other than it was.
We have httle now of the coarse exultant blas
phemy of Tom Paine and Voltaire ; there is a
tone of diffidence, almost of sadness, in avowedly
infidel literature, and those who doubt seem loth,
not eager, to disbelieve. They share the feeling
expressed by our representative poet, of " an infant
crying for the light." One of the keenest ob
servers of modern society, lately removed from
amongst us, has remarked that, what strikes him
most prominently both in its religious and secular
aspects is, on the one hand, the general sense of
weariness and uncertainty, and on the other .the
grandeur and unexampled complexity of the pro
blems which are pressing for solution.* At the
same time, a conscious or unconscious yearning
for unity is gaining ground among those estranged
by centuries of strife, and there is a growing con
viction that the unprofitable bitterness of mere
negative controversy is treason against the majesty
of truth, f Ours is an age of uncertain and con
flicting tendencies, powerful alike for good or for
evil, suggesting the gravest anxieties, yet brightened
with the dawning promise of a second spring. One
* Preface to third series of Guizot's Meditations.
t The existence of a " deep and all-possessing desire for
unity " is insisted on with startling emphasis in Mr. Maurice's
"Few Words on the Pope's Encyclical" in Macmillan's Maga
zine for Feb.. 1865. See also Dr. Westcott's paper on Positivism
in the Contemp. Rev. (July 1868), already referred to, both on
this point and on the principle of development, as inherent in the
nature of Christianity.

78 INTRODUCTION.
thing, at any rate, is clear enough — that we are on
the eve of a crisis, such as for the last three cen
turies the Church has not witnessed. The Befor
mation was but the first act of a drama which has
yet to be played out ; and it may be expected that
our own age will see questions stirred more search
ing even than any that were mooted then. Nul-
lum tempus occurrit Ecclesia>. But it is of the last
importance that, at this supreme crisis of her
history, her children should be closely united, and
well equipped to meet the coming foe, not with
the blunted or misshapen implements of a ruder
warfare and a coarser age, but with weapons
forged and pohshed fresh in the armoury of wisdom,
of justice, and of truth. Once, in the iconoclastic
controversy, Christian art and civilization sued for
admission before the portals of the Eastern Church,
and were rejected ; and she sank for a while into
a sterile petrification of her former self. St. John
of Damascus, in the eighth century, was her last
theologian. The Benaissance stood before the
gates of Borne, and in its better elements was ulti
mately admitted. The Beformation rent half
Europe from her obedience, and resulted in the
decrees of Trent. Science, philosophy, and criti
cism are knocking at our doors to-day. We must
accept or reject them, and to reject their aid is
to hand them over to the service of error. Now,
as ever, the Church must go forth to conquer in
the might of that Gospel which she, and she alone,
is divinely commissioned to proclaim ; but now

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 79
too, as ever, like a good householder, she must
bring forth from her treasures thing old and
new. At such a time the desire, which can never be
far from the heart of an earnest believer, for the
perfect fulfilment of the Bedeemer's dying prayer
is brought home to one with a peculiar urgency.
To adopt the eloquent words of a great prelate,
who has since died a martyr's death, we gaze on
the face of Europe miserably divided by three
centuries of theological strife into the hostile camps
of her Catholic and Protestant peoples. Yet the
laws, the institutions, the habits of all alike, and
the whole framework of their civil and social hfe,
bear abiding witness to the Christianity they still
profess in common ; they are still alike ennobled
by the indehble character of baptism imprinted on
their brow.* Would, indeed, that all who name
the Name of Christ in sincerity might be once
more united in prospect of a common danger
round the altars of a common faith ! For this
blessed consummation the loftiest intellects and
the sainthest souls are yearning with a passionate
desire both within and without the limits of
Cathohc Communion. " At the bare thought of
this vision of peace," it has been touchingly said,
"the pulse quickens and the eyes fill with
tears." I have spoken elsewhere at length on the subject,
* Pastoral of Archbp. Darboy, Lent 1868,

80 ¦ INTRODUCTION.
and it must suffice only to refer to it here.* But
none who honestly believe that the highest inte
rests of the human race are bound up with the
revelation of God, Incarnate and Crucified, can
watch the course of events, or the tendencies both
of religious and irrehgious thought, without feehng
a profound conviction, deepened by every year's
fresh experience, of the supreme importance of
visible union among Christians. For lack of it the
action of dogmatic truth on the world is paralyzed,
missionary energy is sorely crippled,Fthere is weak
ness within, restlessness and uncertainty without
the fold, and the moral condition of Christian
countries and Christian capitals finds its parallel
in the Borne of the later Empire and the cities
which sank under the avenging flood of fire.
Meanwhile, inteUectual energies are frittered away
on the barren labours of a controversial warfare
between those who should be brethren, which
under happier auspices might be combined in the
common task of eliciting and exhibiting, in all its
majestic harmony, the fulness of wisdom and of
knowledge wrapped up in the living oracles of
God. Truth, indeed, like Him whose voice she is, is
one and indivisible, and knows, "in her deep
self," nothing " of transient form." Yet the sha
dow varies, though the substance cannot change ;
* See Dr. Pusey's Eirenicon Considered in Relation to Catholic
Unity, (Longman's) ; and Introduction to An Eirenicon of the
Eighteenth Century, new ed. (Rivingtons).

ON THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS. 81
the earthly reflection grows from age to age, but
the Word of the Lord " endureth for ever in hea
ven " The whole revelation of God, all spiritual
truth that has been or shall be known on earth
from the beginning to the day of doom, was latent
from the first in the Church's spiritual conscious
ness, but it existed there as the universe, visible
or invisible, existed before creation — an unbreathed
music, an unspoken poetry, deep within the Heart
of God. One by one, in their fulness and their
detail, its manifold glories were to dawn on her
inner apprehension, and become part of her or
ganic life, as the stars are painted one by one on
the darkening azure of the sunset sky. There can
be no stint to her growing knowledge, no stay in
the kindling path of her divine illumination, till
the fires of Pentecost are quenched in the bright
ness of the everlasting sunshine. It may be said
that all the articles of the creed are summed up
in its opening clause, Credo in unum Deum, as all
musical tones are summed up in the seven notes
of the scale. His omnipotence is the origin of
creation; the Incarnation, the Passion, and the
Eucharist are the expression of His boundless love ;
justification is the work of His wisdom ; His mercy
is the measure of our endless beatitude ; His jus
tice is revealed in the fiery chastisement of sin.
And so it would scarcely be too much to say, that
the whole circle of revealed truths is wrapped up
in the very letter of the Scriptural record, but
then that record (if I may be pardoned a homely 6

82 INTRODUCTION.
simile) is like the handkerchief written over with
sympathetic ink, which must be held to the fire
for the characters to come out to view ; or as the
faculties nascent in the human mind, which re
quire to be elicited by influence from without, and
fixed by mental analysis ; or rather, let me say, it
is hke the dry bones in the vaUey of the Pro
phet's vision, which await the breath of that Spirit
who inhabits and iUuminates the Church, to
quicken the dull clay with power from on high,
and make it a hving soul.

83

THE ATONEMENT.
CHAPTEB I.
PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS.
That Jesus died, the Just for the unjust, to re
deem mankind from the bondage of corruption, and
restore the broken communion between earth and
heaven, is, and ever has been, a fundamental
verity of the Christian faith. From that uphfted
cross, for eighteen centuries, He has been draw
ing aU men by the " cords of Adam " to Himself.
Bound the altars where that one true Sacrifice,
offered once in blood on Calvary, is presented per
petually in a bloodless mystery, from the rising to
the setting of the sun, has been gathered through
those eighteen centuries of her chequered history
the faith, the penitence, the devotion of the
Church He purchased by that greatest pledge of
love. Yet, even as then among the spectators of the
crucifixion there were some who worshipped and
some who doubted, and its stillness was broken by
6 *

84 THE ATONEMENT.
the questionings, or the jests, or the mockeries of
those for whose sake it was endured, so it has been
thl now. And doubts have multiplied tenfold
since the first controversies of the Beformation
period involved the whole subject in the confu
sions of a theological warfare, where men darken
counsel with many words, and strive rather for a
party triumph than for simple truth. Forgetting
or greatly underrating, for the most part, the sig
nificance of the Incarnation as the centre-point of
aU Christian behef, the first leaders of the move
ment in the sixteenth century dragged forward into
disproportionate prominence, and often in connec
tion with an erroneous theory of " imputation,"
one side and one only of that Divine mystery,
namely, the doctrine of the Atonement. And
hence there has grown up in many quarters a way
of looking at the doctrine, and speaking of it, full
of difficulties to the devout behever, and offering
abundant opportunities for the cavils of the
sceptic. In our own country this has been partly
due to the theological influence of Paradise Lost,
which had become for a large number of English
men a kind of supplementary Bible. The Arian
opinions of Milton on our Lord's Person have
strengthened the hold obtained over the national
mind by what is in fact an Arianizing conception
of His work.* It has been so represented as to
* See Preface to Rev. R. M. Benson's Sermons on Redemption,
from which I quote the following apposite passage ; " The act of
redemption is not the mere act of the love of the redeeming

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 85
cloud our most primary conceptions of the attri
butes of God ; and to imply, or seem to imply, a
division of will between the Persons of the un
divided Trinity, in whom being and wiU are one.
And so men have come to complain that they
cannot beheve in a justice which strikes the inno
cent, while it spares the criminal ; that they can
not understand a love which waits to forgive till
it has exacted rigorous compensation ; or recog
nise the holiness of that displeasure against sin
which is content to exhale in displeasure against
the Sinless One.* Such objections may often be
urged in a tone of mockery, or disbehef; but
it is not always so. It will not then, I trust, be
an unprofitable task to show that the doctrine of
atonement held and taught from the beginning
in the Cathohc Church is open to no such
criticism. An investigation of her teaching, as
laid down by the Fathers and later theologians
who are the accredited interpreters of her mind,
will prove that the opinions fairly open to objection
are no part of it, but are either those of particular
writers or schools only; or such as have prevailed
Person, but the manifestation of the love of the Triune God. God
the Son came upon earth to satisfy His own justice, as much as
to satisfy His Father's, and for the accomplishment of His
Father's love to man, as much as for His own. If this truth is
often lost sight of, it is because the consubstantial Godhead of the
Father and the Redeemer is ignored."
* See some excellent remarks on " the coarse and dispro
portionate manner in which the doctrine of the vicarious satis
faction of Christ has been taught," and " the extreme intellectual
difficulties " caused thereby, in Bp. Forbes's Explan. of 39 Articles,
vol. i. pp. 43, sqq.

86 THE ATONEMENT.
for a season and then passed away, like the notion
of a ransom paid to the Evil One ; or were put
forward from the first with an heretical animus,
and have never found a home within her pale ; or
are the doctrines of those who have formally
renounced her creed. Meanwhile, it will not be
out of place to premise some explanations, at
starting, in reference to certain leading misconcep
tions on the subject.
First, then, let me repeat distinctly what has
/ already been imphed, that no division of mind or
I will is even conceivable between the First and
Second Persons of the holy and undivided Trinity.
\ The Atonement was not, if one may put such
blasphemy into articulate words, a device of the
Son to avert the wrath or appease the justice of
His offended Father, as when He is said in a well-
known hymn to have " smoothed the angry
Father's face." On the contrary, to use the
words of the Tridentine Catechism, "Holy Scrip
ture testifies that Christ our Lord was dehvered
up by the Father and by Himself." Sin is equally
displeasing to the Father and the Son, and to the
Father as much as to the Son belongs the love
which by the mystery of redemption " devised a
way to bring His banished home." The Father
sent the Son in likeness of sinful flesh, and by the
Eternal Spirit was He conceived in Mary's womb,
and offered on the Cross.* The atonement is the
* 1 John iv. 9. 10 ; Heb. ix. 14 ; cf. John iii. 16 ; Rom. v. 8.

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 87
»
work of the whole Trinity, and the sacrifice of the
Cross, hke the sacrifice of the Altar, is offered to
the whole Trinity. To conceive of the Father
being angry with His sinless Son, and inflicting
on Him the punishment He would else have
inflicted on us, is to forget that " the Father is
God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God,
and yet They are not Three Gods but One God."
The justice which required satisfaction and the
mercy which provided it, are the justice and
the mercy of the Triune God. In the language
of St. Leo, which will be quoted again further on,
" One is the kindness of Their mercy as the
sentence of Their justice, nor is there any division
in action where there is no diversity of will."
It is only necessary to insist upon this, because it
is so frequently forgotten.
In the next place, it must be always borne in
mind that in speaking of the avenging justice, or
the wrath of God, we mean by such language,
which is necessarily more or less metaphorical,
simply to express His hohness, in relation to sin.
Bighteousness is the best equivalent in our
language for the theological term justitia, which
has a far wider scope than is ascribed in ordinary
usage to the Enghsh word justice, or giving every
one his due, though it of course includes it.* It
* " Justice," in its narrower sense, as applied to the Incarna
tion, is generally used by. the Fathers in reference to Satan.
Thus e.g. St. Augustine says, " Nonautem diabolus potentia Dei,
sed justitia superandus fuit." (De Trin. xiii. 13.) On the

88 THE ATONEMENT.
is not that we have done an injury to God for
which He requires a quid pro quo, as in a case
of injustice between man and man, or that He
was angry as though we had defrauded him, and
required to be appeased ; it is no such unworthy
and anthropomorphic conception as this that we
mean, when we speak of a satisfaction to His
justice, or a sacrifice to appease His wrath. It is
the perfect hohness of God, which is one with
Himself, that is outraged by sin, and then becomes
what is frequently called in Scripture His indig
nation or anger, and expresses itself in the
righteous chastisement of the sinner. It is that
hohness which is satisfied by the spotless sacrifice
of His Son ; not, as St. Bernard says, by His
death, but His will in voluntarily dying. In His
perfect life, enduring meekly the contradiction of
sinners, while He sternly rebuked their sin, He
manifested the name of God to the world by
reveahng God's estimate of evil. In His bitter
sorrow for the transgressions of mankind, His
brethren after the flesh, He offered to God an act
of perfect contrition, which He alone could offer,
for the sins of those who slew Him, but whose
nature He had made His own, as though He were
Himself the criminal, not the Victim.* That act
other hand he says, soon afterwards, " Quid enim justius quam
usque ad mortem Crucis pro justitia perseverare ?" (ib. c. 14)
where obviously " what greater evidence of righteousness or
holiness ? " is meant.
* Cf. Newman's Disc, to Mixed Congregations, p. 859. " His
agony takes the form of guilt and compunction. He is doing

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 89
was consummated on the Cross. We need not
doubt that He might, had He so wiUed, have par
doned us on our repentance, without any sacrifice
at all; nay, the sacrifice offered was itself the
provision of His mercy. But He preferred a
method of reconcihation which exhibited ahke His
hohness and His love. " Without coming among
us at ah," says St. Athanasius, " God might by a
mere word have undone the curse, but we must
consider what is expedient for man, not simply
what is possible with God." And so St. Augustine
argues that it was " not that no other way was
possible to God, to whose power all things are
subject, but that there neither was nor ought to be
any other way better suited to heal our misery."*
We had fallen away, not by any arbitrary external
accident, but by a moral perversion of our will ; and
He therefore chose to redeem us through a moral
act, through the perfect oblation of a will obedient
to His own. It was a consequence of the FaU,
and it is so still, that obedience could only be
exercised through suffering ; that the right to
benefit mankind could only be purchased through
enduring their persecution ; t and Jesus submitted
for our sakes to that law which was the fruit of our

penance, He is making confessson, He is exercising contrition with a
reality and a virtue infinitely greater than that of all saints and
penitents together, for He is the one Victim for us all, the sole
Satisfaction, the real Penitent, all but the real Sinner."
* Ath. Contr. Arian. ii. 68 ; Aug. De Trin. xiii. 10.
t 2 Tim. iii. 12.

90 THE ATONEMENT.
sin, and which, while He has not repealed it, for
all who love Him He has turned from a curse into
a blessing. As, in this hfe, others suffer for our
sins, so also do they benefit by our suffering for
righteousness' sake.* A leading Agnostic of our
own day has frankly recognised in his latest, as in
former pubhcations, this great law, which finds its
highest expression in the faith he has unhappily
abandoned, that all the chief benefactors of man
kind have had to expiate their services by their
blood, f It would be superfluous to ihustrate this
in detail from the familiar history of the Jewish, or
the Christian Church. We know full weU how the
shadow of His Cross has more or less deeply fallen
on all who prefigured Him under the Old Law, on
all who have been pre-eminent as His followers
under the New ; making them, after their measure
and degree, partakers of His sufferings. That was
no unmeaning record inscribed on the luminous
cross which converted the first Christian emperor
to the obedience of faith : In hoc signo vinccs. It

* " It is a truth, always new from its strangeness, that the
prophet must be a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief ;
despised and rejected of men ; that the consoler must be one who
feels all that is human keenly, but who is unfelt for himself by
men." Life and Letters of F. W. Robertson, vol i. p. 104. This
aspect of the Passion is strikingly brought out in Robertson's
sermon on Vicarious Sacrifice. Sermons, vol. i., Sermon ix.
t " Such as we are, we are all sons of the martyrs . . .
All have expiated, or will expiate their good deeds ; for labour
for the happiness of humanity is never recompensed." " Judaism
still exists, because of the intense ardour of its prophets and
zealots ; Christianity, because of the courage of its first wit
nesses." Renan's Hibbert Lectures, pp. 7, 89.

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 91
sums up in four short words the work of the
Bedeemer, and the mission of His earthly Church.
On that I need not dwell.
It is more to the purpose to observe that, even
without the hmits of His visible kingdom, the same
principle has been perceived and exemplified. The
well-known passage in Plato's Republic, which
sounds almost hke an echo of inspired prophecy in
its thrilling description of the perfectly righteous
man, whom, notwithstanding his righteousness, his
fellows will scourge and crucify, is in fact but a
summary of the whole experience of mankind.* Of
the two most rehgious heathen of whom history
teUs us, it is remarkable that one was a persecutor
and the other a martyr. Socrates died, because he
would not purchase safety at the price of his con
victions of truth ; and his words before his judges,
" I must obey God rather than you," are the key
note of his character and his hfe. Marcus
Aurehus, who has been not unjustly designated a
" Pagan saint," and who might well, if he had
been a Christian behever instead of a Stoic
philosopher, have attained to the true ideal of
heroic sanctity, was born into a corrupted atmo
sphere, and brought himself to beheve it a duty to
the Empire to persecute the Church. But, if his
position exempted him from suffering at the hands
of others, his Meditations contain abundant evidence
of inward struggles, and leave us no room to doubt
* Plat. Rep. ii. 362 (quoted in Clem. Alex. Strom, v. 14). Cf.
Isaiah liii.

92 THE ATONEMENT.
that he would more willingly have borne, had it
been his lot, that oppression which he unwillingly
consented to inflict. To die for mankind, like Pro
metheus, who so strangely combines the characters
of a rebel and a redeemer, the Miltonic ideals of
Paradise Lost and Regained ; or for one's country,
like the popular heroes of Boman and Athenian
legend ; or for the sacred duties of kinship, like
Antigone; or for one's friend, hke Nisus for the
young Euryalus in the JEneid, represents the highest
type of Pagan virtue.* And it foreshadowed,
however imperfectly, a higher truth. It was far
more than the usage of animal sacrifice, so often
quoted, the genuine though unconscious witness of
the natural conscience, that " without shedding of
blood there is no remission." f For sacrifice, apart
from direct revelation, was often httle more than
the rude expression of a want dimly felt. It did,
indeed, bear solemn witness to a sense of sin, but
it might also mean, like the ring of Polycrates,
that too much happiness is not safe for man ; or it
might be the mere unreasoning fear of a superior

* Origen (Contra Celsum ii. 17) refers in this connection to
the death of Socrates and of Leonidas. Cf. Excursus iii. " On the
Popular Cult of Antinous."
¦f Whether the usage of animal sacrifice was originally derived
from revelation, as Butler supposes, or from natural instinct, is
a further question, not touched upon here. It would certainly
appear that one reason why the animal sacrifice of Abel found
acceptance, while Cain's offering of the fruits of the earth was
rejected, arose from the recognition in the former, and the
absence in the latter, of a sense of sin. " Sacrifices of expiation,"
as Butler observes, " were commanded the Jews, and obtained
amongst most other nations."

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 93
power, or the perplexed sense of obligation to a
law imperfectly fulfilled ; or it might be degraded
to the horrible conception of human sacrifice, as an
offering acceptable to the Deity. It scarcely touches
the moral element in the death of Christ. Oblatus
est quia Ipse voluit; " He was obedient even unto
death." Yet in this hes the very essence of the
atoning Sacrifice. Thus, in what may be regarded
as a classical passage, we read, " Lo, I am come to
fulfil Thy will, 0 God ... by which will we have
been sanctified through the offering of the body of
Jesus Christ." And our Lord sums up his re
demptive work in the great Eucharistic prayer,
saying, " I have glorified Thee on the earth, I
have finished the work which Thou gavest Me to
do." * And, accordingly, the Fathers regard even
the Jewish ritual of bloody sacrifice chiefly as a
temporary concession to human infirmity, ordained
through Moses, to withdraw the people from the
service of devils ; depreciated by the Prophets, to
remind them of its intrinsic worthlessness. The
mystic offering of Melchisedeck is, in patristic
theology, the great type of the sacrifice of
Christ. It will not of course be imagined for a moment
that I suggest these illustrations as more than
illustrations, or as in any sense adequate parallels

* Heb. x. 9, 10 ; John xvii. 4. There are some very
thoughtful observations on this point, especially in reference to
the " expiatory confession of our sins " by Christ, in the sixth
chapter of Campbell's S'ature of the Atonement.

94 THE ATONEMENT.
of that which they nevertheless serve to adum
brate. So much at least they may prove in reply
to objections, that there is no prima facie incon
gruity in the doctrine of redemption, from its
having to be wrought out by the Bedeemer's
death. Christianity has not contradicted but en
dorsed the presentiments of natural rehgion, when
it teaches by the acts, even more than by the
words of its Founder, that self-sacrifice for the
good of others is the measure of our perfection,
our highest law of hfe. " Pain," it has been
truly said, " is the deepest thing we have in our
nature, and union through pain has always seemed
more holy and more real than any other." By
those " cords " of the first Adam the second
bound us to Himself. Even those who believe
Him not have owned their power ; * how much
more those who love Him ! Would such a life as
that of Eugenie de Guerin, to take no extreme
case, be conceivable without the Passion ?
It is further evident that if our redemption was
to be not simply conceded, but purchased by sacri
fice, it could not be won by any of the redeemed
themselves. Prophets and just men under the Old
Law did and suffered much, to bear testimony to
the truth ; but their obedience, hke their testi
mony, was imperfect. They were lifted up from
* Thus Renan (Vie de Jesus, p. 475) : " His religion will for
ever grow young again. His sufferings will soften the best hearts ;
all ages will proclaim that among the sons of men there has not
been born a greater than Jesus." Similar expressions abound
in the book.

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 95
the earth, but they did not draw all men to them
selves. He alone could offer to the Creator a per
fect oblation of the human will, to whom hohness
belonged of inherent right. He alone, as Man,
could make an act of perfect contrition, who knew,
as God, the fulness of the Eternal Love, and saw,
as God sees it, the reality ol the contradiction to
that love involved in human sin. If, again, men
were to be delivered from their "vain conversa
tion," from that thraldom of sense by which the
corruptible body presses down the incorruptible
spirit, not merely by external teaching or threats
of future judgment, but by the living witness of a
nature identical with their own, yet with every
motion of flesh or spirit brought into subjection to
a higher law, then He alone could deliver them
who was perfect Man, yet "did no sin." And if
the very method of dehverance was to be a mea
sure of the ultimate consequence and tendencies,
because a measure of the true character of sin, of
the real and hving energy of that evil principle
from whi<m men required to be set free, then He
could only deliver them through submitting to their
injustice, through bearing in His own Body that
death which was itself the fruit of the creature's
apostasy from his Maker, while its infliction on the
Sinless One was the culminating act and typical
expression of the coUective sins of mankind.* It
* " As our Lord alone truly tasted death, so to Him alone
had death its perfect meaning as the wages of sin, for in Him
alone was there full entrance into the mind of God towards sin,

96 THE ATONEMENT.
is no answer to this to say, that God might, had
it pleased Him, have accepted an imperfect satis
faction, or have dehvered us without any sacrifice
at all. I have already admitted that, so far as we
know, it is so ; what I am urging now is that, if
there was to be a true and proper sacrifice, we can
conceive but one, because one alone is perfect.
And it is in this sense, as we shaU see, that those
Fathers are to be understood who speak of the sacri
fice of Christ being necessary. They always imply,
what most of them expressly state, as do also the
great majority of Scholastic writers, that God might
have dehvered us by some other means ; but they
affirm that no other sacrifice could be adequate.*
St. Anselm was the first to lay down a law of abso
lute necessity, and he does so on the professed
ground, usually held to be untenable, that it was
the most fitting means of effecting our reconciha
tion, and therefore God was bound to adopt it.
And here it may be well to repeat more dis
tinctly, what was imphed just now, that the atone-
and perfect unity with that mind . . . the tasting of death in
full realization of what it is, that God who gave life should recall
it, holding it forfeited, was only possible to perfect holiness."
Campbell's Nature of the Atonement, p. 302.
* See Petav. De Inann. ii. 13. ; Lugo, De Incarn. ii. 1. In
the words of a modern Catholic theologian ; "It was no necessity
which drove God to the redemption of the world by the Precious
Blood. He might have redeemed it in unnumbered other ways.
There is no limit to His power, no exhaustion to His wisdom
 The shedding of His Blood was part of the freedom of
His love. It was, in some mysterious reality, the way of re
demption most worthy of His blessed Majesty, and also the way
most likelv to provoke the love of men." Faber's Precious Blood
(Richardson, 1860), pp. 27, 28.

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 97
ment of Christ, even in its fullest sense, and still
more in the narrower sense of satisfaction,* is part,
and part only, of the great work wrought out
through the " sacrament," or as the Greek Fathers
are wont to caU it, " economy " of the Incarna
tion. "The Word was made Flesh." That is the
mystery which is the hfe and hght of the Church,
the centre of her worship and kernel of her creed ;
the mystery which angels desire to look into, and
which sinners are permitted to adore in the abid
ing miracle of the Eucharist. Theologians usually
make a threefold division of the causes or motives
of the Incarnation, f As one motive they assign
the glory of God, in the manifestation of His attri
butes of power, sanctity, wisdom, and goodness,
which broke forth in the Person of Jesus through
their veil of flesh. A second motive is the benefit
of man, and that in three ways ; by redemption
and sanctification, by teaching, and by example.
A third motive is the triumph over Satan. It will
be observed, that both the first motives would have
held good, under certain modifications, if men had
never sinned. And accordingly one great school
of theologians in the Church, whose theory harmo-
* The word " atonement " is often popularly used as synony
mous with satisfaction. In its broader and more primary sense,
as the at-one-ment, it is of course co-extensive with the whole
work of redemption, which includes not merely what was due
to the Divine Majesty, but what is needed to make us the
children of God 0«as kowuvoI <f>vo-eoK. It might even, under this
latter aspect, have a meaning independent of the need for
redemption. t Petav. De Inc. ii. 5. 7

98 THE ATONEMENT.
nizes best with the behef in the Immaculate Con
ception, and is also the most natural inference
from the spirit if not the letter of patristic teach
ing, hold that, if there had been no FaU, the Second
Person of the Trinity would yet have taken our
nature upon Him and become our Brother. He
would have come, of course, other than He
actually came. He would not have taken a pas
sible body ; He would not have come to die.* But
He would have been, as now, our Teacher, our
Pattern, our Mediator, the Second Adam, and
Source of Grace ; we should stiU have seen mir
rored in His perfect Humanity the mind of God.f
And thus, while the Incarnation formed part of
the Divine purpose from the beginning, and the
predestined Manhood of the Eternal Son was the
archetype and model on which ours was formed,
the Passion, so to say, was an afterthought, added
because of transgressions ; it was not the original
motive of the decree, but affected the manner of
its fulfilment.
As this question will frequently come before us
in the foUowing pages, and is moreover one that
cannot but affect materially our view of the Atone
ment, or rather of the Christian dispensation
* "Passible" was substituted for "corruptible" (in the
first edition) not to express any change of view, but to avoid
implying by an obiter dictum an opinion on a controverted point
which has been called in question. See Excursus iv. " On the
Condition of our Lord's Human Body."
t On the Mediation of Christ, as necessarily involved in the
very fact of the Incarnation, see Wilberforce's Doctrine of the
Incarnation, ch. vii.

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 99
altogether, it wiU not be out of place to say a few
words on its origin and significance here. Though
what is caUed the Scotist view of the Incarnation
was first formaUy stated, as its name imports, by
Duns Scotus in the thirteenth century, it harmo
nises better with the general tone of earher teach
ing than the opposite or Thomist view. This will
appear more fully in the sequel, when we come to
examine the treatment of the Atonement by the
Fathers and to contrast it with the systems of the
Beformation. But the question in its technical
shape was not one hkely to be raised in their age.
It is sometimes, indeed, spoken of as a mere scho
lastic subtlety which can have but httle interest
for us, or at best as a legitimate subject for devout
speculation which can have no real influence on
our behef. I cannot so regard it. Certainly the
Scotist theory is no point of faith, and probably
never will be. Its acceptance or rejection depends
mainly in individual minds on an original differ
ence of rj6o<s. But on the view taken of it hinges,
to a great extent, our whole way of regarding the
Bedeemer's life and work. It colours insensibly,
perhaps, but not less truly, the habitual temper of
our devotion and behef. And it is remarkable
that we find some of the most thoughtful among
Protestant writers both in England and Germany
again recurring to what the Beformers repudiated,
so far as they knew of it, as a scholastic corrup
tion of the Gospel. Some examples from the
works of Lutheran divines wiU be given further on
7 *

100 THE ATONEMENT.
in the volume.* The late Mr. Bobertson has very
happily expressed the leading idea of the Scotist
view when he says, " God's idea of Humanity is,
and ever was, Humanity as it is in Jesus Christ." f
The same conception seems to he at the root of
much that would otherwise be scarcely intelligible
in the theological speculations of another weU
known writer of the day. \ Nor need this fact sur
prise us. The Scotist view, while it clears up some
difficulties about the Atonement which harass
thoughtful minds, opens out to us both a wider and
a deeper appreciation of the love of God to man,
by representing our personal nearness to Him, and
participation of His nature, as included in the
eternal purpose of creation, not as a consequence
of the FaU.

* See Excursus v. " On Recent Lutheran Theology on the
Motive of the Incarnation."
t Life and Letters, vol. ii. p. 121.
I See especiaUy the remarkable chapters on the Incarnation
and Atonement in Maurice's Theological Essays. The author
says in the former : " First we receive the fact of the Incarnation,
because we feel that it is impossible to know the Absolute and
Invisible God as man needs to know Him, and craves to know
Him, without an Incarnation." I subjoin with pleasure the
following eloquent passage from the author's Doctrine of Sacri
fice, (p. 119), which points in the same direction : " If sacrifice is
implied in the very Original of the universe — if it is involved in
the very nature and being of God — if it was expressed in the
divine obedience of the Son before the worlds were — if the
manifestation of it in the latter days was to take away sin,
because sin and sacrifice are the eternal opposites — then, indeed,
we may believe that the telescope will only give us another sense
of the truth which the microscope has already revealed, that
every conceivable multiplication of worlds, and of spiritual
creatures, will only manifest some aspect of that love which was
gathered up in the Cross of Calvary."

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 101
It may, indeed, be said that to speak of the
motive of the Incarnation as antecedent to the
prevision of sin is a perversion of language, for
with the Divine Mind there is neither past, pre
sent, nor future. No doubt such language is an
accommodation to the exigencies of human thought,
but this is no peculiarity of Scotism. All theolo
gical language about God, and His relations to us,
is more or less a condescension to our hmited
faculties. It conveys to us, as we can bear them,
through a human medium- truths which in them
selves transcend the utmost range of human com
prehension. But the idea conveyed to us is true
as far as it goes, though it is inadequate. There
is no change in the Divine Mind, yet Scripture
speaks of the wrath and the forgiveness of God ; to
Him aU His works are known from the beginning,
yet He waits to be gracious and listens to His
children's prayer. And so, in saying that the
Incarnation was or was not predestined indepen
dently of the Fall, we are referring to a real dis
tinction, though any form in which it may be ex
pressed is sure to be open to criticism. And it
makes aU the difference whether the Humanity of
Jesus was the original archetype of our own, and
to be conformed to it our predestined end ; or
whether, like His Sufferings, it resulted from the
FaU, and was from the first included in the Divine
predestination for the remedy of human sin. Of
objections to the Scotist theory as dishonouring the
redemption of Christ, as also of its Scriptural

102 THE ATONEMENl
bearings, something wiU be said later on. It is
enough to observe here that such objections are
reaUy a relic of the habits of mind engendered at
the Beformation, when the Incarnation came to be
looked upon simply as a necessary incident of the
Atonement. Whether or not, however, the theory
be accepted — and it certainly seems most in ac
cordance with the tradition of the Church, and
with what revelation would suggest to us of the
love of God — it remains equaUy certain, that the
Incarnation had objects not necessarily connected
with the Fall, and even as regards our present
fallen state had further ends besides that of satis
faction. Some of these are elaborately worked
out by writers strongly opposed to the Scotist
view, such as Thomassin, who devotes the greater
part of his first book on the Incarnation to setting
forth the exhibition in the Person of the God-Man
of the eternal law and the Divine attributes.
The mediatorial office of Christ includes, besides
and even before the notion of intercession and
sacrifice, that of reconcihation, or " making peace,"
on which Scripture so constantly dweUs ; uniting
man with God, giving peace from the internal con
flict of passion in the human soul, and joining to
gether those who are no more strangers and fo
reigners, Jew or GentUe, Greek or barbarian, but
united in His one famUy, of whom aU fatherhood
in heaven and on earth is named.*
* See Petav. De Inc. xiii. 6, 7.

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 103
The doctrine of the Atonement is of course
closely connected with the kindred doctrines of
Justification and Original Sin. But on these
points there was httle direct discussion before the
Beformation, putting aside the Pelagian contro
versy, which turned rather on the necessity of grace
and its relation to free wiU than on the conditions
and methods of its bestowal. Original sin, it has
been truly said, " is no perplexity that a man may
get rid of by ceasing to be a Christian, and which
has no existence for the philosophical deist." * It
is a fact as weU as a doctrine, and a fact which
experience can hardly fail to bring home to the
most thoughtless. We cannot but confess that to
be, to use the words of Jeremy Taylor, which we
feel and groan under, and through which the whole
world is miserable, f The origin of evil is one of
those insoluble problems which philosophy can
never hope to master. We must be content to
know that the AU-wise permitted, though He
never willed it, whose mercy is over all His works,
and wait to read in the light of the Beatific Vision
what is obscure to us now in the ordering of His
Providence. Bevelation does not solve the mys
tery, but it explains the fact of the introduction

* Aids to Reflection, p. 228.
t So, too, St. Augustine (Op. Iniperf. iii. 89), " Teste ipsa
generis humani miseria peccatum originale monstratur." The
reader will hardly need to be reminded of the wonderful passage
on the witness of history to this " terrible aboriginal calamity "
in Cardinal Newman's Apologia, ch. vii. Cf. also Mozley, On
Predestination, 2 ed. pp. 79 sqq,

104 THE ATONEMENT.
of sin into the world, through the perverse wiU
of the creature, and points out the remedy.
The promise of redemption foUowed immediately
on the FaU. Man was created after the image and
similitude of his Maker, and the grace of original
righteousness, which the first Adam forfeited for
himself and his descendants, the Second Adam won
back for us on the Cross. Justification is the free
gift of Christ, whereby He restores to us our lost
inheritance of grace, and in restoring it cleanses
every stain whether of actual or original sin, though
concupiscence stiU remains for our trial. But it is
more than a simple restoration of our forfeit birth
right, for we are raised by justification to a higher
state than that from which Adam feU, and made
through union with the Bedeemer partakers of the
Divine nature, whence the Church sings, 0 felix
culpa, qum, talem ac tantum meruit habere Redemptorem.
We receive the Spirit of adoption whereby we be
come joint heirs with Christ and sons of God. Such
is a brief statement of the relations of justification
to the Atonement ; we shah have to enter into
details more fuUy by and by, when the controver
sies of the Beformation come under review.
Meanwhile, two cautions against popular mis
conceptions of the doctrine may be added here,
though for theological readers they wiU be super
fluous. The notion of "imputation," in the sense
of a transfer, by a kind of juridical fiction, of our
sins to Christ and His righteousness to His mem
bers, was first started in the sixteenth century, and

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 105
must be kept quite distinct from the doctrine of
Atonement, on which it has been engrafted. It is
quite a different thing from saying that He suffered
for our offences, and that His Sacrifice is the
ground of our forgiveness, as we shaU see when we
come to examine the teaching of the Beformers.
The word may no doubt be used, and has even
been sometimes used by Cathohc divines, in an
innocent and orthodox sense. But in its natural
and historical meaning, as fixed by the Lutheran
controversy, it marks a wide departure from the
doctrine of the Church on righteousness, not im
puted but imparted, which is expressed by the
CouncU of Trent in language borrowed from St.
Augustine, to the effect that in crowning our
merits God crowns His own gifts.* The Passion
of Christ was not to be the substitute for our per
sonal obedience, but the source of it. To justify
is to make, not simply to account, men just. Neither
again do we find the shghtest hint in any Father,
except St. Augustine and Fulgentius, of the notion
that Christ died for some, or for the elect only, not
for the whole race of mankind. There are no
doubt traces of such a view to be found in St.
Augustine's later writings, during the Pelagian
controversy ; and he was the first to explain St.
Paul's words (Bom. ix. 21) of the " mass of per
dition " (dtvpapux) from which only the predestined
* Cone. Tricl. Sess. vi. cap. 16 ; cf. Can, 11, 12, where the
imputation of Christ's merits is denied to be the cause of our
justification.

106 THE ATONEMENT.
would be taken out. This idea of Christ dying
for a chosen few re-appears, to support an argu
ment which is however complete without it, in one
passage of Abelard ; it found distinct expression
later, among the Beformed in the heresy of Calvin,
ampng Cathohcs in the heresy of Jansenism. That
God is no respecter of persons, but wiUs aU men
to be saved, that Christ died for all, and that to
aU sufficient grace — in fact, not in name only — is
offered to work out their own salvation, is, on the
other hand, the constant teaching of the Church.
This reference to St. Augustine, who is usuaUy
regarded as the greatest among uninspired teachers,
leads to a remark,, which must be borne in mind
throughout the ensuing examination of the writ
ings of Fathers, Schoolmen, and later Cathohc
theologians. WhUe the " unanimous consent of
the Fathers," so far as it embodies the faith of
the universal Church, is affirmed by the Council
of Trent (Sess. vi.) to be an authoritative rule for
the interpretation of Scripture, the individual
opinions of any one, or of a majority, of them, how
ever valuable as testimonies to the opinion of their
day, can never constitute more than a strong
prima facie presumption in favour of the view
adopted. And as regards later writers also, we
may expect to find much variety in their way of
handling points not defined by authority, and shaU
gain light from their very differences. To use the
words of the great leader of the Catholic revival
in Germany, "For a time even a conception of a

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 107
dogma, or an opinion, may be tolerably general,
without, however, becoming an integral portion of
a dogma, or a dogma itself. There are here eter-
naUy changing individual forms of an universal
principle, which may serve this or that person, or
a particular period, for mastering that universal
principle by way of reflection and speculation,
forms which may possess more or less of truth, but
whereon the Church pronounces no judgment ;
for the data for such a decision are wanting in
tradition, and she abandons them altogether to the
award of theological criticism." This is said with
special reference to " Augustine's and Anselm's
exposition of original sin, and the theory of the
latter respecting the vicarious atonement of
Christ."* The Church of God was to be clothed
in raiment of many colours (circumamicta varietatibus),
and unity in diversity is among her predicted
glories. The different and even mistaken or imper
fect aspects under which the same truth may
present itself to different minds do but serve to
bring out the more clearly, in the long run, its
vital unity and coherence.! It must be remem
bered, too, as one reason why this particular doc
trine of the atonement has not been so fully treated
as many others by Cathohc writers, that it never

* Mohler's Symbolism, Eng. Tr. vol. i. p. 11.
t " Dass aber in dieser nur durch Irrthumer hindurch der
Weg zur Wahrheit fiihre, ist ein Gesetz, welches in der Zukunft
eben so gelten wird, wie es in der Vergangenheit sich bewahrt
bat." — Die Vergangenheit und Gegenwart der katholischen Theologic,
Yon J. von DoUinger. Regensburg, 1863. Cf. supr. p. 44,

,108 THE ATONEMENT.
formed the subject of any specific heresy before the
Beformation, and did not even then become in
itself a prominent topic of controversy, partly from
internal differences among the Beformers them
selves about it, partly from the more immediate
practical interest at the time of questions about
Church authority and the Sacraments. We shaU
have occasion, however, to notice the treatment of
the question in its bearings on justification by the
leading Protestant divines, with the earliest of
whom it acquired a new shape and significance,
and became a fruitful source of misconceptions.
To investigate and harmonise the teaching of
Scripture on the Atonement does not faU within
the scope of the present inquiry. The result of
such an undertaking, if adequately carried out,
would indeed fill a separate volume. AU that can
be attempted here is to give such a rapid sum
mary of the general bearings of the Scriptural
argument as may help us to appreciate more
clearly the various interpretations put upon it by
successive writers and schools in the Church,
which it is the object of this work to examine.
I need hardly say that this, like the other great veri
ties of Christianity, is not laid down with dogmatic
precision in the letter of Scripture as in the arti
cles of a Creed. It has, hke them, to be gathered
inferentiaUy, however direct may be the inference,
from anticipations in the Old Testament, from the
historical statements, implications, figures, and
aUusions of the New, and from the general drift

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 109
and tenor of the whole. We cannot, perhaps, do
better than take as a groundwork Coleridge's four
fold division of the forms under which the mystery
of redemption is presented to us in the New Testa
ment, and especiaUy in St. Paul's Epistles, as
sacrifice, reconcihation, ransom, and satisfaction.*
The word sometimes rendered atonement, only
occurs in four passages, t But the idea is conveyed
through different metaphors, each of which has its
peculiar force and significance. Sometimes it is
regarded as a sacrificial expiation cleansing us from
sin, as ceremonial defilements were cleansed by the
Mosaic offerings. This is the idea running through
the Epistle to the Hebrews.]: Sometimes it is
treated as a reconcUiation or atonement, as the
prodigal son is reconciled to his father. This is
the notion conveyed in some of the Parables, and
in such passages as speak of those who were once
enemies and ahens being reconciled to God by the
death of His Son, or of " peace " as the result of
His atonement, or His gift, or of His being Him
self our Peace. § It is part of the same idea when
union with God, or " life " in union with Him, is
spoken of as resulting from the Propitiation of
Christ. This language is most frequent in St.
* Coleridge (Aids to Reflection) is speaking of St. Paul's Epistles
only. I have modified and enlarged his classification so as to
include the N. T. generally, and added the special references.
t KaTaXXayrj in Rom. v. 11, xi. 15; 2 Cor. v. 18, 19. Coleridge
gives the first as the only passage. The cognate verb occurs
elsewhere, as in the kindred passages, 2 Cor. v. 18 ; Col i. 21, 22.
I See especially Heb. ix. 19-28. Cf. 1 John i. 7.
§ See Rom. v. 11 ; 2 Cor, v. 18; Col. i. 20, 21, 22 ; Eph. ii, 14.

110 THE ATONEMENT.
John's writings, though by no means confined to
them.* Elsewhere, both in the Gospels and
Epistles, the image of redemption or ransom from
slavery, is adopted, both with reference to the
bondage of sin and its punishment. To this cate
gory may be referred those passages which speak
of our being purchased or bought with a price. f
And lastly, there is the reference to the notion of
satisfying a creditor by payment of the debt,
though the word satisfaction, it need hardly be
said, does not occur. It has, in fact, no precise
equivalent in the Greek language. But this idea
is imphed in passages which speak of sin as a
debt, of death as the wages of sin, of our being
debtors to keep the whole Law, and, on the other
hand, of Christ being made sin for us, and bearing
our sins in His Body on the tree. J It is also the
leading idea of the Epistle to the Bomans, as
gathered from its general drift. Of these four
aspects of the Atonement we shaU find the first
three chiefly dwelt on by the Fathers, the third
with especial reference to the ransom from Satan.

* See e.g. John iii. 16, xv. 4-7, John i. 3, iv. 9, 10, and the
Epistle passim.
t The verb Xvrpow occurs in Luke xxiv. 21 ; Tit. ii. 14 ; 1 Pet.
i. 18 ; in the two latter with special reference to the bondage of
sin ; airo\vTp<j)oi<s in Eph. i. 7 ; Col. i. 14, where it is immediately
connected with remission of sin. Both ideas seem to be com
bined in Heb. ix. 14, 15. In 1 Tim. ii. 6, we have the stronger
term avrlXvTpov. (Cf. infr. p. 129, note). In 1 Cor. vi. 20, vii.
28 ; Gal. iv. 5, as also in the Apocalypse, ayopd^m or one of its
compounds is used to signify that we have been bought from the
slavery of evil to be free to serve God as adopted sons.
| See Gal. v. 3 ; 2 Cor. v. 21 ; 1 Pet, iii. 24,

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. Ill
The Schoolmen devoted themselves principaUy to
working out the idea of satisfaction. It may be
added that our Lord is described in the New
Testament as the Good Shepherd, who giveth His
life for the sheep ; the Lamb of God, who taketh
away the sins of the world, and who was pre
destined before the foundation of the world and
slain; as our High Priest, our Advocate, our
Peace, and our Propitiation.* His atoning sacri
fice is prefigured under the Patriarchal dispensa
tion by the sacrifice and death of Abel, the sacri
fice of Noah, Abraham's intended offering of his
son Isaac, and by the offering of Melchisedec, with
especial reference to the Eucharist. The Passover
and the various oblations of the Mosaic ritual are
its types under the Law, to which the Psalms and
the Prophecies assign their Evangelical applica
tion. In the great prophecy of Isaiah, as in the
New Testament, the Divine Victim is described
under the figure of the Paschal Lamb. The last
of the Prophets announces in express terms the
coining cessation of the legal sacrifices, and the
substitution throughout the world of the pure
oblation of the Eucharist. And it need hardly be
added that the sacrificial efficacy of His death is
distinctly intimated in the words of the great
* John x. 11 ; i. 29 ; 1 Pet. i. 19, 20 ; Apoc. v. 6, xiii. 8 ;
Heb. iv. 14 ; 1 John ii. 1, 2 ; Eph. ii. 14. In Rom. iii. 25, it is
doubtful whether we should render " propitiation through faith
in His blood" (as in E.V.) or " propitiation in His Blood through
faith." See Vaughan in Joe. who adopts the latter view, as does
Alford,

112 THE ATONEMENT.
Consecration Prayer pronounced by our Lord Him
self, when He instituted the Eucharist, and in
the very form of institution, enjoining the perpe
tual oblation of His " Body which is given for you,"
and His "Blood of the New Testament which is
shed for the remission of sins."* This is of course
but the barest outline of the Scriptural treatment
of the subject. But it may serve to indicate the
main sources of the different lines of thought which
from time to time Fathers and theologians have
pursued in handling it. It wiU be my aim in the
following pages to exhibit their respective theories
in detah, and in their mutual relations with one
another and with the received doctrine of the
Church, while contrasting them with the foreign
or antagonistic systems of those beyond her pale.
Thousands and tens of thousands, I know, have
knelt in loving adoration before the Crucified, who
never attempted to reason about the crucifixion ;
they felt what it meant, though they could not
put their meaning into words, or were content to
use such words only as those of a popular English
hymn :
" I cannot understand the woe
Which Thou wast pleased to bear :
0 dying Lamb, I do but know
That all my hopes are there."
Far be it from us to blame them. Doubtless there
is more to be learnt from the crucifix than all the
* John xvii, 19 ; Matt. xxvi. 28 ; Luke xxii. 19,

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 113
wisdom of aU the theologians can teach us. Yet
the mysteries of revelation were given to be food
for the inteUect, as weU as for the heart; and,
moreover, the questionings of heresy, which have
helped to fix th^ form, have troubled the uncon
scious simplicity of our early faith. Such scrip
tural statements as that "the good Shepherd
giveth His life for the sheep," or that " the Son
of Man came to give His life a ransom instead of
many," or that "we have redemption through His
blood, the forgiveness of sins," or that " God
having sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful
flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh," or
that " as in Adam aU die, so also in Christ shaU
aU be made alivej"; "as by one man's disobedience
the many were made sinners, by the obedience of
One the many shaU be made righteous ";* — these
and the like passages contain a depth and richness
of meaning which no meditation can exhaust. But
they also suggest many difficult questions which
successive writers and schools, as well within as
without the Church, have variously answered.
Such an inquiry as the present is not, therefore, a
needless one. Only let us never forget, amid the
maze of theological speculations, the one grand
lesson of the Passion, Amor mens crucifixus est.
* John x. 11 ; Matt. xx. 28 ; Eph. i. 7 ; Col. i. 14 ; Rom.
viii. 3 ; 1 Cor. xv. 22 ; Rom. v. 19.

8

CHAPTEB II.
THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS.
As a general rule, the rise of successive heresies is
the occasion and measure of dogmatic statements
of the faith. We do not, therefore, look in the
Ante-Nicene Fathers for any elaborate discussion
of questions not yet brought into controversy.
And hence even on the central doctrines of the
Trinity and the Incarnation, we know how halting
and inadequate, to use the mildest terms, their
language frequently is, before the Arian, SabeUian,
Monophysite, and Nestorian heresies had forced
out into bolder rehef the contrary definitions of
the Church. This has been conclusively shown by
Petavius, and not disproved, though disputed, in
the Defensio Fidei Nicenai of Bishop Bull.* Neither,
again, can we reasonably expect to find in earlier
writers that precision of theological statement
which only came into vogue when theology, partly
in the conflict with error, partly through the influ
ence of Greek philosophy at Alexandria, began to
* Cf. supra, p. 81.

THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS. 115
be formed into a science. On the subject of the
Atonement, the Ante-Nicene Fathers do not, with
the exception of Irenseus and Origen, propound
any definite theory. The word " Satisfaction "
they never use, or use, if at all, of the satisfaction
of the penitent, not of Christ ;* nor was the idea,
as afterwards explained, familiar to them. But
they speak, in connection with the Incarnation,
and in general terms, often borrowed directly or
indirectly from the language of Scripture, of the
sufferings, the death, the blood, the obedience, and
the sacrifice of Christ, as being offered for us, and
being the means of our redemption. It is from
passages of this kind that we must gather their
teaching on the subject ; and, to present a clear
and consistent view of it, a fuller employment of
detaUed references and extracts wiU be needful than
in the case of more systematic writers, whose
opinions can be fairly summed up in an analysis.
I wiU do my best, however, to avoid burdening the
reader with more of lengthened quotations than is
reaUy requisite, and to select such passages only as
wUl in each case give a fair and adequate specimen
of the writer's method of handhng the question.
We shaU afterwards be in a position to draw some
inferences, as to the general drift of patristic teach
ing as a whole, and its relations to later theology.
* It is used in this sense by Tertulhan and St. Cyprian.
There is no word for it in Greek. Neander, speaking of the
teaching of St. Irenseus, says ; " Of a satisfaction paid by
the sufferings of Christ to the Divine Justice not the slightest
mention is as yet to be found." Church Hist. vol. ii. p. 385.
8 *

116 THE ATONEMENT.
First in order come the apostohc Fathers, St.
Clement of Borne, Barnabas, Hermas, St Polycarp,
and St. Ignatius ; but their writings wUl not detain
us long.
We have two Epistles of St. Clement, to the Church
at Corinth, on practical disputes which had arisen
there, only deahng quite incidentally with any
questions of doctrine. He is distinct in asserting,
that the blood of Christ is the means of bestowing
on us redemption and grace, and that by the will
and through the love of God ; " In love the Master
received us ; through the love He had for us Christ
our Lord gave His Blood for us, by the wiU of
God, and His Flesh for our flesh, and His Soul for
our souls." And again ; " Let us look then to the
Blood of Christ, and behold how precious is His
Blood to God, since being shed for our salvation,
it has offered to the whole world the grace of
repentance."* St. Clement — in common with
St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenasus, Origen, and many
of the later Fathers — makes the scarlet cord let
down by Bahab a type of the atoning Blood of Christ ;
as he also anticipates later patristic language in
calling Him " High Priest," and " the High Priest
of our oblations."! The universality of redemption,
and the death of Christ as the source of grace, are
here clearly laid down.
Let us turn to the General Epistle of Barnabas,
which, though not by the apostle of that name, nor
* Clem. Rom. Ep. ad Cor. 1, 49, 7.
t lb. 12, 58, 86.

THE ANTE-NICENE FATRERS. 117
indeed a writing of the first century, appeared
early in the second, at Alexandria.* We read, in
the seventh chapter, of Christ offering the vessel
of His Soul (i.e. His Body) as a sacrifice for our
sins ; and of Isaac's sacrifice as a type : the writer
also dweUs, as do others afterwards, on the type of
the two goats, one of which was sacrificed, and the
other made a scape-goat, being accursed, as Christ
was accursed, by the people, not by God. He
speaks again of Christ suffering that the strokes
inflicted on Him may give life to us, and " that
we may be sanctified by the remission of sins, that
is, the sprinkling of His blood," of which the
blood of the Passover was a figure. In one passage
of the fourteenth chapter, we seem to have the
first notice of the conquest over Satan, where it is
said, in manifest aUusion to Col. i. 13, " He ran
somed from darkness our souls, given over to death
and lawless wanderings "; but of this theory we
shaU have to speak later.
The Shepherd of Hermas, which used at one time
to be ranked with the New Testament Scriptures,
contains but a single reference to the redemption
wrought by Christ, occurring in a parable about a
vineyard, representing the people of God, where
His Son is set to work as a servant, and is said to
have " laboured much and suffered much that He

* The Epistle was defended as genuine by Vossius, Ham
mond, Bull, Usher, and perhaps by Pearson. — See Blunt's
Right Use of the Fathers, p. 72. It is, however, undoubtedly
spurious.

118 THE ATONEMENT.
might do away their sins," and afterwards to have
" pointed out to them the way of hfe by giving
them the law, received from His Father" ; * thus
connecting the forgiveness of sins especiaUy with
His obedience and His teaching.
In the Epistles of St. Ignatius there are several
references, in general terms, to the sufferings of
Christ for us. Thus in the Epistle to the Smyrneans
we read that Christ " suffered aU these things for
us (St" ^Ss) that we might be saved, and suffered
really as He also reaUy raised Himself"; and
heretics again are censured for denying that " the
Eucharist is that Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ
which suffered for (vn-ep) our sins, which the
Father in His goodness raised." f In the account
of his martyrdom there is a distinct reference to
the triumph over Satan by the Cross of Christ,
when St. Ignatius is represented as calling our
Lord — perhaps partly with reference to the words
of St. Paul — " Him that crucified my sin with him
who invented it, and condemned all demoniacal error
and wickedness under the feet of those who carry
Him in their heart." j He also caUs Christ " the
High Priest, entrusted with the holy of hohes . . .
the Door of the Father, through whom Abraham
and Isaac and Jacob, and the Prophets, and the
Apostles, and the Church, enter in." §
* Pastor, lib. iii. Sim. 5.
f Ignat. Ep. ad Smyrn. 2, 6.
\ Martyriwn S. Ignat. 2 ; cf. Col. ii. 14, 15 ; Heb. ii. 14,
| Ep. ad Philnd. 9.

THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS. 119
The last apostohc Father to be noticed here is
St. Polycarp. In his Epistle to the Philippians, he
says that Christ " persevered even unto death for
(inrep) our sins, whom God raised, having loosed
the pains of HeU"; and again, in language
moulded on St. Peter's, that " He bore our sin in
His own Body to the tree, who did no sin, neither
was guile found in His mouth, but He endured aU
things for our sakes (Sf ^*as) that we may live in
Him," thus connecting the gift of life with His
sufferings for us; and, lastly, that "He died for
us (wip rjp.S>v) and for our sakes (Si" ^as)."*
One more document of the first century may be
quoted, the Epistle to Diognetus, which has been
erroneously ascribed to Justin Martyr. It contains
a passage of importance, as showing that the
writer had no notion of that divergence of will
between the Persons of the Holy Trinity, which
has sometimes been so strangely imported into the
doctrme of the Atonement ; as though the mind
of the Father towards us were actually changed by
the Sacrifice of Christ. I will give it in fuU,
translating from the Greek ; " God, the Master and
Maker of all things, who created all things and
disposed them in order, was not only a Lover of
man, but also long-suffering ; and He, indeed, was
always such, and wiU be, gracious and good, and
without anger (dopy^™?), and true ; and He alone is
good, and conceived the great and ineffable design
which He communicated only to His Son." And
* Polycarp. Ep ad Phil. 1, 8, 9.

120 THE ATONEMENT.
again ; " When our iniquity was full, and it was
perfectly manifest that punishment and death were
the expected recompense . . . He did not hate or
repulse us, or think evil of us, but was long-suffer
ing and bore with us, and took our sins upon Him
(dveSe'faro) ; He Himself gave up His Son as a
ransom for us, the Holy for the unholy, the Sinless
for the sinful, the Bighteous for the unrighteous,
the Incorruptible for the corruptible, the Immortal
for the mortal. For what else but His righteous
ness could cover our sins ? by whom could we, the
lawless and impious, be justified, but only by the
Son of God ? 0 sweet change ! 0 unsearchable
work ! 0 unexpected benefits ! that the wickedness
of many should be covered by one Bighteous One,
the righteousness of One justify many sinners ! "
I wiU merely observe, to preclude a possible mis
conception, that it would be to ignore the whole
tenor of patristic theology, if we supposed the im
putation theory was intended in the concluding
words. It is clearly a real change in ourselves that
is spoken of, from sin to holiness, through the
imparted grace of Christ.*
St. Justin Martyr, the great Christian apologist
of the second century, is naturaUy led in his dis
pute with the Jew Trypho to enlarge on the death
of Christ. He does not, however, construct any
systematic theory on the subject ; but his state
ments are important as incidentally contradicting
* As this statement has been called in question, I may refer
my readers to Bahr mi lot: (see Preface) for the proof of it,

THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS. 121
some later theories. He speaks generally of
Christ being incarnated, that He might be par
taker of our sufferings, and heal them; but, in
commenting on the great prophecy of the Passion
he does not, like Luther afterwards, explain Isaiah's
words, " The discipline of our peace was upon
Him," * of Christ being punished by God for our
sins ; and, so far from understanding St. Paul to
mean that the curse of God rested upon Christ, t
he says expressly that it was by the Jews He was
accursed: "Ye maintain that He was rightly
crucified, and an enemy of God and accursed,
which is a work of your unreasonable judgment."
And again, more definitely : " The curse of the
law hes upon crucified men, but the curse of God
does not lie upon Chnst, through whom He saves
those worthy of curse"; and the Jews are re
proached with calling Him accursed whom God
willed to take our curses upon Him, meaning to
raise Him from the dead. There are other
passages to the same effect ; and the example of
the scape-goat is explained, as by Barnabas before
and Tertulhan afterwards, of the curses of the
people being laid upon Christ. Justin frequently
alludes, as do nearly all writers after Ignatius, to
the conquest over Satan as a consequence of the
Passion, and in one passage, where he speaks of
Christ having acquired possession of men (/mjo-a/tevos)
* In the Septuagint, which Justin uses, irouScta dp-qvqs rjfiwv
" disciplina pacis nostrse," Vulg. The references are to the
Dialogue ar/ainst Tnjpho, and the Apologia.
t Gal. iii. 18.

122 THE ATONEMENT.
by blood and the mystery of His Cross, he may
even seem to hint at the view of a price paid to
Satan, which we shaU have to notice later in the
writings of Irensus and Origen. He speaks of the
restoration of our fallen nature through Christ,
who suffered " to dehver us from the wickedness in
which we were born," and of His Blood " dehvering
those who beheve on Him," quoting the usual
types of the Paschal sprinkling and Bahab's
scarlet thread; and caUs Him "a chosen Priest
and eternal King," fulfiUing the type of Mel-
chisedec. St. Clement of Alexandria may be regarded as
the forerunner of that great theological school,
taking its name from his native city, of which
Origen was properly the founder. He does not,
however, speak on this question with any special
fulness or precision, and adds httle to what had
already been said by others. The sufferings of
Christ are attributed to His exceeding love for man;
He is " a Sacrifice acceptable to God," and is else
where called " the Passover sacrificed (KaWiepevOds)
by the Jews." The conquest over the serpent,
whose form is taken to symbohze sensual pleasure,
is spoken of in language which deserves to be
quoted; "How did pleasure prevail? Man, who
had been set free by simplicity, was found bound
to sins ; the Lord wished to release him again from
his chains ; and being bound to flesh (a Divine
mystery) in this He overcame the serpent, and took
captive the tyrant and death, and, what is

THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS. 123
strangest, with hands stretched out [on the cross]
showed man set free who had been led astray by
pleasure and chained to corruption. 0 mystical
wonder ! The Lord lay down and man rose ; and
he who was cast out of Paradise receives heaven,
a greater reward of obedience " [than what he
lost] .* The last words, which sound like an
echo Of the 0 felix culpa chanted in the Paschal
anthem, are the earliest distinct intimation, so far
as I am aware, of our having gained more by the
Incarnation than we had lost by the Fall. It will
be observed, that the obedience of Christ is the point
here chiefly dwelt upon, and to which the victory
over the Evil One and our redemption is ascribed.
St. Clementj again, says that He " changed the
sunset to the sunrise, and by His Cross turned
death into hfe " ; t and, elsewhere, that " the
Blood of the Lord is twofold, the fleshly, by which
we were redeemed from corruption, and the spiri
tual, by which we were anointed ";| and, lastly,
Jesus is said to pray for men as the Great High
Priest of God.
Some fragments only remain of Claudius Apol-
hnaris, Bishop of Hierapohs in Phrygia in the
second century.
He caUs our Lord, "the Great Sacrifice, the
Son of God instead of the Paschal Lamb, who was
bound and bound the strong one (Satan), who was
* Protrept. c. 11.
T ovtos Ttjv Svcriv €is dvaroXrjv ixenqyaytv, /cat rav Odvarov ds
farjv dveoTavpaxrev. lb.
f Padag. ii. 2.

124 THE ATONEMENT.
judged being Judge of quick and dead, who was de
livered into the hands of sinners to be crucified,
who poured from His Side the two things which
cleanse, water and blood, mind and spirit " (X6yov
koX wefyia). This accords, as far as it goes, with
contemporary writers, but obviously the passage is
rather rhetorical than dogmatic.
There is nothing speciaUy bearing on our sub
ject in the writings of the apologists Tatian,
Athenagoras, and TheophUus. And so we pass
from the second to the third century, and from the
Eastern to the Western Church. I have purposely
omitted Irenseus, whose treatment of the question
shaU be examined with Origen's, to which it bears
a close resemblance, at the end of this chapter.
Tertulhan was the great Latin writer of the
early part of the third century. And it may be
worth observing that, from his having before his
conversion been famous as a jurist, he, if any
one, would be likely to put forward the juridical
theory of satisfaction which at a later period com
mended itself so strongly to the legal mind of
Grotius. That he does not even aUude to it, is a
crucial evidence of its being as yet unknown. And
this is made clearer by his frequently using, and
being the first to use, the word " satisfaction "; but
always, as has been already stated, in reference to
the acts of the penitent, not the work of Christ.
On the other hand, in disputing with the Jews, he
is careful to explain the Apostle's language,* like
* Gal. iii. 18.

THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS. 125
Justin Martyr, of the curses laid on Christ by His
people, not by God. He insists that those hung
on the tree are said in Deuteronomy to be cursed
only on account of the sins for which they are
hung there, which cannot apply to Christ, who
spoke no gmle and displayed all righteousness and
hunhhty.* He says, again, that Christ was made
a sacrifice for aU nations, being led as a sheep to
the slaughter, quoting also the types of Isaac, and
the scape-goat, which latter he explains in the
same sense as Barnabas and Justin had done before
him. Moses, stretching out his arms during the
battle against Amalek, is given as a type of Christ's
triumph over Satan, and also the brazen serpent.
The Origenist notion of a ransom paid to Satan is
perhaps hinted at when it is said, "The Lord
redeemed him from the angehc powers who hold
the world, the spiritual things of wickedness, the
darkness of this world, from eternal judgment and
perpetual death "; but it may be merely a refer
ence to Eph. vi. 12. The bestowal of a new life
and restoration of the lost image of God, through
the crucifixion, is clearly laid down; "What

* Tertul. Contra Judaos 10. He elsewhere says (Contra
Prax.) that the apostle would have blasphemed, had he called
Christ cursed in any other sense. On the other hand, Luther
remarks, with characteristic bluntness, " Every one hung on
the tree is cursed of God ; Christ was hung on the tree ; there
fore Christ was cursed of God." I do not refer to the interpre
tation put upon this much controverted passage by Justin Martyr
and Tertulhan to pronounce any opinion on its exegetical cor
rectness, but as a crucial disproof of their holding the later
theory of vicarious imputation,

126 THE ATONEMENT.
plainer than the sacrament of this wood 
that what had perished in Adam might be restored
by the tree (cross) of Christ." His obedience, per
severing to the last moment of life, is dwelt upon,
and His being " the Pontiff of the uncircumcised
priesthood, after the order of Melchisedec."*
There is not much of special importance for our
subject in the writings of Hippolytus. He speaks
of Christ's priesthood and sacrifice of Himself as a
sweet-smelling savour to God ; of His perfect
obedience and fulfilling aU the righteousness of
the law ; of His enduring the cross by the con
sent (o-vyx^p-qo-d) of God ; of His priesthood and
royalty. Two passages may be given here. The
first seems to point to Irenasus' theory ; " For this
cause the God of aU things became man, that by
suffering in passible flesh He might ransom our
whole race which was sold to death ; and, working
marvels through the instrumentality of the flesh,
by his impassible Godhead, might bring it back to
His pure and blessed life from which it had faUen
by obeying the Devil, "t The other passage is a
comment on Prov. ix. 1 ; " He has given us His
Divine Flesh and precious Blood to eat and drink,
for the remission of sins."
St. Cyprian's treatment of the question foUows
Tertulhan's more closely than that of any other
writer. There is no attempt to theorize ; the word
* Tertul. Contra Judasos 13, 14, 10. De Fuga, 12. Contr.
Jud. 13. Contr. Marcion. iv. 42, v. 9.
t Hippol. De Tlieol, et Incttrn. ii,

THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS. 127
satisfaction is used, as by Tertulhan, of the peni
tent, not of Christ.* The foUowing passage ex
presses the writer's general view of the work of
redemption; " This grace Christ imparts, this gift
of His mercy He bestows by subduing death
through the triumph of the Cross, redeeming the
believer by the price of His Blood, reconciling
men to God the Father, giving hfe to the mortal
by heavenly regeneration." He speaks elsewhere
of our sins being cleansed by the Blood and the
sanctification of Christ, of His eternal priesthood
after the order of Melchisedec, and of His earthly
priests representing Him and offering a true and
full sacrifice in the Church to God the Father, in
aUusion to Prov. ix.f He quotes Moses prevailing
over Amalek as a type of our Lord's victory over
Satan, and repeatedly speaks of our being redeemed
and vivified by His Blood.
One passage shaU be quoted here from the
Homily on the Cross, by Methodius, bishop of Tyre,
who was martyred in the Diocletian persecution.
It speaks of the victory over Satan as achieved
through Christ's obedience unto death, and His
arming us to overcome him in our own persons ;
" For this cause chiefly was the cross introduced,
being set up as a trophy and terror against ini
quity, that from henceforth man might be no
more subject to wrath, having conquered back
* Cypr. Ep. vii. 5. Ad Demetrium. " Turn demum per ipsum
(Dominum) Deo satisfacere debemus,"
f lb. lxiii,

128 THE ATONEMENT.
(dvairaXaCo-avTa) what he had lost by disobedience,
and having lawfuUy overcome the powers below
and been made free of aU debt by the gifts of
God. For this the first-born Word of the righteous
God, having armed man, in whose nature He
tabernacled, put down the powers which had en
slaved us, through the form of the cross, as has
been said, and with outstretched hands set free
man who was in the bondage of corruption."*
Before proceeding to notice the special theories
of Irenseus and Origen, the only writers of this
early period who can strictly be said to have con
structed any theory on the subject, we may pause
to sum up briefly the main points of teaching on
Christ's work of redemption to be gathered from
the patristic literature of the first three centurie^
as a whole. And first, as to what it does not con
tain. There is no trace, as we have seen, of] the
notion of vicarious satisfaction, in the sense of our
sins being imputed to Christ and His obedience
imputed to us, which some of the Beformers made
the very essence of Christianity ; or, again, of the
kindred notion that God was angry with His Son
for our sakes, and inflicted on Him the punish
ment due to us ; nor is Isaiah's prophecy inter
preted in this sense, as afterwards by Luther ; on
the contrary, there is much which expressly nega
tives this line of thought. There is no mention of
the justice of God, in the forensic sense of the
* Horn, de Cruce, Fragm. 1,

THE ANTE-NICENE FATHEES 129
word ; the Incarnation is invariably and exclu
sively ascribed to His love ; the term satisfaction
does not occur in this connection at all, and where
Christ is said to suffer for us, w«p (not dvrl) is the
word always used.* It is not the payment of a
debt, as in St. Anselm's Cur Deus Homo, but the
restoration of our faUen nature, that is prominent
in the minds of these writers, as the main object
of the Incarnation. They always speak, with
Scripture, of our being reconcUed to God, not of
God being reconciled to us. On the other hand,
they are far removed from the modern Socinian or
Bationahstic view, which sees in the death of
Christ only an attestation of His teaching, or an
exalted model of heroic virtue, or a practical
evidence of the love of God. They ascribe, with
one voice, a real and most vital efficacy to the
" sacrifice " of Calvary in restoring us to life and
immortahty, but without attempting any precise
explanation of how this result is brought about.
Tertulhan says that, if His death be denied, as it
was implicitly by the Docetse (for a phantasm
could not reaUy suffer), the whole work of God
would be overturned, and the whole meaning and
benefit of Christianity rejected, f The obedience
of Christ is emphaticaUy dwelt upon, as an inte
gral part of His redeeming work, but a special
* We shall find the two, however, used interchangeably in
one passage of Irenseus, as they are also by St. Paul, in
Tim. ii. 6 ; avrOwrpav imp irdVrw. Cf. Matt. xx. 28 ; Mark x.
45.
t Tert. Contr. Marcion. iii. 8. 9

130 THE ATONEMENT.
virtue is assigned to His "death," and His "Blood,"
the latter being occasionaUy, as by Hippolytus
and Irenseus, mentioned in connection with the
Eucharistic chalice. His abiding priesthood in
heaven is continually dwelt on, whUe St. Cyprian,
with some others, insists also on its earthly reali
sation, through the ministry of His appointed re
presentatives. Barnabas and Ignatius are the
first to speak of His conquest over Satan, which
assumes an increasing prominence in subsequent
writers. In the hands of two it becomes the basis
of a distinct theory of satisfaction, and to these
we must now turn our attention.
St. Irenseus treats the question mainly in con
nection with two passages of the New Testament ;
Bom. v. 19, " As by one man's disobedience the
many were made sinners, so by the obedience of
One shaU the many be made righteous," and
Heb. ii. 14, where " destroying him that hath the
power over death, that is the DevU," is set forth
as the object of the Incarnation. And he accord
ingly makes the work of redemption consist prin
cipaUy in two points ; the restoration of our
corrupted nature through the gift of a new prin
ciple of supernatural life, and the triumph over
Satan. It is in the exposition of the second point
that his teaching goes beyond that of his contem
poraries, and contains the first exphcit statement
of an opinion which continued for a thousand years
to influence Christian theology, tUl it was finaUy
sifted and discarded by Anselm (who has been fol-

THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS. 131
lowed by later writers, with a few exceptions) on
the obvious ground that, although we had justly
incurred punishment at the hands of the Evil One,
he could have no rights over us but by the per
mission of God.* The original suggestion of this
theory came from the Gnostic heresy. Irenaeus
ascribed to the EvU Spirit that power over men,
as their seducer, which Gnosticism, of which Mar-
cion may here be taken as the representative, gave
him as their Demiurgus or Creator. They had
voluntarily placed themselves under the Devil's
power ; and, though God might have dehvered
them by force, it was more accordant with justice
to compensate, by a perfect obedience, that ori
ginal disobedience from which aU his rights over
them were derived. I wiU extract, at length, the
passage in which Irenaeus introduces his view ;
" The powerful Word and true Man reasonably
redeeming us by His Blood, gave Himself a ran
som for those who had been led into captivity.
And since the apostasy (i.e. Satan) unjustly ruled
us, and when we belonged by nature to Almighty
God, ahenated us against nature, and made us his
own disciples, the Word of God, being aU-powerful
and not wanting in justice, dealt justly even with
the apostasy itself, buying back from it that which
.jvas His own : not violently, as he (Satan) had first
gained dominion over us, by snatching greedily

* " Quamvis enim homo juste a diabolo torqueretur, ipse
tamen ilium injuste tprquebat." Cur Deus Homo, i. 7.
9 *

132 THE ATONEMENT.
what did not belong to him, but by persuasion [by
a method which convinced Satan his rights were
at an end*] as it became God to receive what He
willed by persuasion and not by force, so that
neither might justice be violated, nor God's ancient
creation perish. The Lord, therefore, redeemed us
by His own Blood, and gave His Soul for (wep)
our souls, and His Flesh for (<W) our flesh, and
poured out the Spirit of the Father for the union
and communion of God and man, bringing down
God to men through the Spirit, raising men to God
through His Incarnation, and firmly and truly
giving us incorruption in His advent, through
communion with God." t For this redemption
from Satan's mastery there was required a per
fect obedience ; " compensating our disobedience
through His obedience " ; and hence in one passage
Irenseus says, that the price of our disobedience in
Adam was paid by Christ's obedience in the Three
Temptations ; a statement which, I think, stands
alone in patristic hterature 4 This perfect obedi-
* This seems to be the obvious meaning, and not, as Dorner
explains it (Lehre von der Person Christi), vol i. pp. 479, 480, "by
persuading men." So Neander understands the words (Church
Hist. vol. ii. p. 383) as well as Baur.
+ Lib. v. 1.
| Et tertio itaque vincens eum de reliquo repulit a semet
ipso quasi legitime victum ; et soluta est en qua fuerat in Adam
pracepti prawaricatio, per praeceptum legis quod servavit Filius
hominis, non transgrediens prasceptum Dei." R>. 21. An
anonymous correspondent has called my attention to the fact
that " prsevaricatio " is a law term, having a peculiar sense,
from the time of Cicero to Ulpian, which is thus explained by
the latter, " Prsevaricatio est ejus qui falsas rei excusationes
admittit." He thinks that "soluta" may be rendered "ex-

THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS. 133
ence could only be rendered by Him who was both
God and man: "For if man had not conquered
the adversary of man, he would not have been
justly conquered. And, again, if God had not
given salvation, we should not have had it securely ;
and unless man was united with God we could not
partake of incorruption." * Hence the Incarnation
was necessary, that a perfect obedience might be
offered, but the obedience of a man. Yet this
obedience was not the means, but the condition
only of redemption ; that had to be won by the
Bedeemer's death, f But how the Devil, to whom
this death is ascribed, came to accomphsh an act
so fatal to himself ; whether^ as the Gnostics held,
it was from being deceived as to who Christ really
was, or not ; and again, what exactly was the con
necting hnk between the Bedeemer's conflict with
Satan and His death, and how this last brought
about our redemption — all this Irenseus leaves
unexplained. He certainly regards Christ's death
not as a punishment inflicted by God, but as the
work of Satan, and temporal death itself rather as
a blessing than a curse, introduced at the faU of

plained " or " settled," and thus the passage may simply mean
that " the injury done to the law by Adam was set right by the
obedience of Christ." The interpretation seems to me to be
more ingenious than natural, but I give it for what it may be
worth.
* Lib. iii. 18. 6. Cf. also V. 1. ovSi ydp r\v d\yfiu>% crapKa Kal
cu/xa ioyTqicibs, St' S>v r/fJias ifrnyopdcraro d p.rj rijv dp^atav irXda-iv tov
'A8a/x cis iavrov dve/ceipaAauucraTO.
+ " Pro nobis mortuus est et Sanguine Suo nos redemit."
iii. 16, 9.

134 THE ATONEMENT.
man, in order to limit his opportunities of sin.*
On our dehverance from death, and him who has
power over it, foUows the restoration of our cor
rupted nature ; " In His incarnation and manhood
He recapitulated in Himself the long series of
mankind . . . that we might recover in Christ
what we had lost in Adam, being made after the
image and simihtude of God." t There is no need
to dweU on those aspects of the author's teaching
which are shared by his contemporaries.
Where Irenseus had left the question in the
second century, Origen, who, notwithstanding his
eccentricities, is justly styled the " Father of theo
logy," took it up in the third ; and what before
had been an uncertain and fragmentary hypo
thesis assumes, under his creative touch, shape and
consistency. With his pecuhar views on the pre-
existence and successive metempsychoses of souls,
on the final absorption of aU bodily natures (in
cluding apparently our Lord's) J into the Divine
Essence, the extension of the efficacy of redemp-
* " Prohibuit autem ejus transgressionem, interponens mor
tem, et cessare faciens peccatum, finem inferens ei per carnis
resolutionem, quae fieret in terra." iii. 23, 6.
+ iii. 18, 1. Cf. v. 16, 1. There is an allusion to the dis
tinction drawn between the image and likeness of God ; the
former representing the perfect type of humanity, (or what the
Schoolmen call the " integrity of nature ") , the latter the super
added gift of grace, or " original justice." (See Clem. Alex.
Strom, ii. 180, and the Fathers passim.) There is also a refer
ence to the idea of Christ's predestined Humanity being the
image on which ours was modelled ; " Ad imaginem Dei fecit
hominem, scilicet Chiisti." Tertull. Adv. Pra.v. 12. Cf. Petav.
De Trim. vi. 6.
I Orig. De Princip. iii. 6, 1 ; ii. 3, 8.

THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS. 135
tion to the whole creation in heaven and earth,
and the diroKaTaorao-is, or ultimate restitution of aU
faUen spirits, human or angelic, we need not here
concern ourselves. Nor is it necessary to dweU on
those parts of his teaching about redemption which
do not materiaUy differ from what has been already
noticed in previous or contemporary Fathers. And
in deahng with so voluminous a writer, it wiU, of
course, be impossible to point out all, or nearly aU,
the passages bearing on our more immediate sub
ject ; it must suffice to refer to such critical state
ments as supply an adequate exhibition of his
manner of handling it.
Origen regards the redeeming work of Christ, as
a whole, under five aspects. It includes His
teaching, as the revelation of absolute truth ; His
works, as cleansing the temple, and especiaUy
His miracles, to which a symbohcal meaning is
attached ; His life, as the great Example ; His
sufferings and death, to which is ascribed a three
fold efficacy, in our redemption from the power of
Satan, our reconcihation with God, and the purifi
cation of our corrupted nature ; and, lastly, His
continual priesthood in heaven, which is constantly
and emphaticaUy dwelt upon, and whereby He who
on earth poured out His material Blood for us, is
said " to offer the vital virtue of His Body as a
kind of spiritual sacrifice." * Origen's views under
* Lb. In Joann. i. 2 : iavrov yap evayytki^zai 6 vlbs tou 6tov.
Horn, in Matt. xvi. 20 ; xii. 36. Contr. Cels. i. 68. Horn, in
Rom. iii. 7-21. Horn, in Levit. i. 3.

136 THE ATONEMENT.
the fourth head, as to the efficacy of Christ's death,
are what contain the speciahties of his theory on
the Atonement. He considers that death a neces
sity, both for our ransom from Satan and as a
sacrifice for sin.
Let us take each point in order. It was left
unexplained by Irenseus how the EvU One came to
undermine his own kingdom by procuring the
death of Jesus; in Origen's system this is clear
enough. It was, in fact, but part of that great
conflict between good and evU, of which this world
had from the first been the theatre, and which
found its consummation in the death of Christ.
From the Fall onwards, the dragon and his angels
had fought with man, and had seemed to prevail
against him. Again and again prophets and
righteous men had risen up, to bear witness for
truth and holiness ; and again and again the world,
at the instigation of Satan, had crucified its bene
factors. But he had over-reached himself. The
fathers slew the prophets, and the children built
their sepulchres ; the blood of the martyrs became
the seed-plot of the Church. Within and without
the immediate sphere of Divine revelation this
contest had been carried on.* The crisis came at
last, and once more the Evil One deceived himself.
He had obtained rights over men; a price, an
equivalent (di/rdXAaytia) was due to him, to free
them from his power ; and they had none to pay.
* See Contr. Cels. i. 81 ; vii. 17 ; viii. 44.

THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS. 137
" Man has nothing to give as an equivalent for his
soul " ; and therefore, " One alone was able to pay
a price for our lost souls, He who bought us with
His own precious Blood." * Origen sometimes
speaks of this as a kind of bargain with Satan ;
but he does not mean, as we shaU see, that the
bargain was made or acqepted willingly. To the
question suggested by our Lord's own saying that
He would be given up into the hands of men,f By
whom was He dehvered up ? Origen replies, " Not
all gave Him up with the same design. God
dehvered Him out of love for the human race
(Bom. viii. 32). But others dehvered Him up with
evil intent, each according to his own wickedness,
Judas for avarice, the priests for envy, the Devil
from fear, lest by His teaching the human race
should be snatched out of his hands, not perceiving
that the human race was to be still more delivered by His
death than it had been by His teaching and miracles.'''' \
Here and elsewhere Origen expressly asserts what
Irenseus had left doubtful, that Satan was deceived,
and thought by slaying our Lord to get possession
of His Soul, and secure the empire over man which
* Cf. Tom. in Matt. xiii. 581. Origen speaks sometimes of
Christ's Blood as the price paid, sometimes of His Soul, the
reality of which he was the first to bring prominently forward.
But he here distinguishes, in what sense is not very clear, the
Soul of Christ from His Spirit, which He commended into the
hands of His Father. He certainly does not mean by soul, as
Thomasius thinks (Origenes, p. 223), the blood or physical life,
for he speaks expressly of its going down to Hades. See
Tom. xvi. 8.
t Matt. xvii. 22. Cf. Mark ix. 31 ; Luke ix. 44, xviii. 82.
\ Tom. xxxv. 75.

138 THE ATONEMENT.
he thus by his own act unwittingly dissolved ; for
the Soul of Jesus he could not hold in Hades.*
This deceiving of Satan is even directly ascribed to
God, who thereby used him as the blind instrument
for destroying his own power, t But by what means
he was thus deceived, and how again this delusion
on his part agrees with the idea of a price paid and
a bargain struck with him, is left as yet unexplained.
The death of Christ is further viewed by Origen
as an atoning sacrifice, and is in this sense, too,
declared to be necessary. " It was necessary that
a victim should be provided for sin." J The ques
tion has been raised, whether he taught the theory
of vicarious satisfaction, as afterwards understood.
There are certainly scattered through his writings
expressions, which might at first sight seem like
anticipations of such a view; and, unlike earher
writers, he explains the prophecy of Isaiah, of the
discipline of our peace being laid upon Christ, of
the chastisement due to us for our discipline and
recovery of peace being laid upon Him, not, how
ever, as a retributive punishment, but a remedial
chastisement. § That chastisement, inflicted by
the hands of men, he invariably ascribes not to the
wrath or vindictive justice, but to the love of God
* Ps. xv. (E. V. xvi.) 10.
t In Matt. Tom. xiii. 9.
X In Num. Horn. xxiv. 1. Cf. Tom. in Joann. xxviii. 398.
§ Tom. in Joann. xviii. 1. <co'Wis not iraurq. That Origen
did not hold the theory of vicarious punishment is quite clear.
Compare Redepenning's Origenes, vol. ii. p. 408, sqq., andBahr's
Lehre den Kirche vom Tode Jesu (Sulzbaoh, 1832), pp. 128-128,
and 151-154, with the passages quoted.

THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS. 139
for men. Christ suffered, indeed, in our place,
and for our deserts ; but it was because His suf
fering had become the only means of securing our
reformation, and thus delivering us from eternal
death.* His sacrifice resembled in kind, though
it transcended infinitely in degree, the sacrifices
of those who have prefigured or imitated Him in
laying down their hves for their fellows. As the
first-born of Egypt died that Israel might be saved;
as apostles and martyrs have sealed their testi
mony with their blood ; so, but far more perfectly,
He who alone was sinless laid down His hfe for
sinners, the one true and sufficient sacrifice of
obedience to the wiU of God.f He suffered at
sinners' hands that temporal death, which had
been under the Law the penalty of sin, but which,
since He has consecrated by enduring it, is changed
into a salutary penance, to be wiUingly, nay, thank
fully, accepted in conformity with His example,
and as the path to eternal life. J Wherein consists
tbe especial connection between His obedience to
God and the sacrifice of the Cross, and how it is
reconciled with that other necessity of a satisfac
tion to Satan, or how again the sinless Soul of
Jesus could be a price paid to the EvU One — these
are difficulties which Origen does not solve. But
he clears up much which had been left undeter
mined by Irenasus, and gives to the death of
* Sei-m. in Matt. 904. Tom in Joann. xxviii. 393.
+ Tom. in Matt. xii. 546. In Joann. xxviii. 393.
X Horn, in Levit. xiv. 4. Serin, in Matt. 912.

140 THE ATONEMENT.
Christ, as the great act of obedience, and the cul
minating point in that struggle of good against
evU, which had marked aU along the history of
mankind, a deeper moral significance than is ex
hibited by any previous writer.
To our former summary of the teaching of the
first three centuries we must now add the Ml and
distinct enunciation of what before had been inti
mated or implied, but never systematicaUy ex
pounded, the necessity or quasi-necessity of satis
fying Satan's claim, as a matter of justice ; or, to
use the language employed by those who maintain
this opinion, of a ransom being paid to him for
the souls of men. The necessity of a sacrifice to
God is also dwelt upon by Origen, but its grounds
are left undeveloped, though clearly not under
stood in the sense of St. Anselm. The perpetual
priesthood of Christ in heaven, which occupies a
prominent place in nearly all the writings we have
examined, is even more emphaticaUy insisted upon
by Origen. And this deserves to be remembered,
because it is a part of the doctrine which has been
almost or altogether dropped out of many Pro
testant expositions of. the Atonement, whereas
those most inclining among Cathohcs to a merely
juridical view of the subject have never been able
to forget the present and living reahty of a sacri
fice constantly kept before their eyes, as it were,
in the worship which reflects on earth the unfailing
liturgy of heaven.

CHAPTEB III.

THE LATER FATHERS.

As we pass from the third to the fourth century,
from the age of persecutions and apologies to the
age of controversies and councils, of systematic-
theology and definite creeds, a change comes over
the whole literature of the Church. It becomes at
once fuller, and in some sense more exact. The
number of writers is multiphed, both in East and
West, and their works grow more voluminous.
We can no longer examine in detaU the state
ments of each Father, as during the earher cen
turies, nor is there the same reason for doing so.
Throughout the whole period, from the fourth
century to the time of St. Anselm, two tendencies,
divergent but not necessarily contradictory (for
both often appear in the same writer), manifest
themselves in the treatment of the question before
us, and the passages bearing on it may accord
ingly be grouped under one or other of two
classes. We have found both these lines of
thought exhibited in Origen's theological system ;

142 THE ATONEMENT.
succeeding writers were occupied in their develop
ment. First and chiefly, we have seen that Origen
regards the death of our Lord as a ransom paid
for our deliverance from the power of Satan ; and
the three ideas involved in this theory, and ex
pressly insisted on by him — of an actual right over
us acquired by the Devil through sin, which could
not justly be rescinded without some adequate
compensation ; of the deceit practised upon him,
by which he was made the instrument of his own
discomfiture ; and of the necessity for the death of
Christ, as the only sufficient ransom — form the
basis of its treatment by later Fathers, who labour
to harmonize what had seemed inconsistent, and
to clear up what was left uncertain in the original
statement. It was shown, on the other hand, that
Origen taught, like his predecessors, that our
Lord's death was a sacrifice offered to God, though
he does not explain why this sacrifice was needed,
or how it was at the same time a satisfaction to
the Devil. This view also is developed in the
writers who foUowed him; but the notion of a
ransom paid to Satan continues to be the common
explanation of the necessity for Christ's death tUl
St. Anselm's time, finding indeed its last express
utterance in Peter Lombard. We may proceed,
therefore, to examine the patristic literature of
this period as treating the question under these
two opposite aspects, of a satisfaction to Satan and
a sacrifice to God ; not taking each writer sepa-

THE LATER FATHERS. 143
rately, but using the testimony of all so far as it
bears on our subject. John Scotus Erigena, who
stands alone in the ninth century, isolated alike
in character and in date from the Fathers who
preceded and the Scholastic writers who follow
him, shaU be reserved for separate notice at the
end of the chapter.
Foremost among the Greek Fathers of the period
before us stands Gregory Nyssen, foremost among
the Latin stands a name, which is to Christian
theology what Plato and Aristotle are to the philo
sophy of the ancient world, a name never to be
mentioned without admiration and reverence —
though even to the greatest of human teachers we
may ascribe no infalhbility — Augustine, Bishop of
Hippo It is these two writers, and especially St.
Augustine, whom we shaU find, here as elsewhere,
the most prominent though by no means the
sohtary exponents of the theology of their age.
If I make special mention after them of St.
Gregory Nazianzen, St. Athanasius, St. Gregory
the Great, and St. Leo, in connection with our
present subject, it is by no means to the exclusion
of other and stiU memorable names. Let us pro
ceed, then, first to investigate their view of the
atonement as a ransom paid to Satan, including
the three ideas of his claim to a payment, the
delusion under which he accepted or rather ex
torted it, and its necessity.
I. It was Origen's argument, that Satan had
acquired an actual right over men through the

144 THE ATONEMENT.
FaU, for which the Soul or Blood of Jesus was
the only adequate ransom. That right is admitted
more or less distinctly by aU subsequent Fathers,
and while some, as St. Leo, call it " tyrannical,"
they do not deny it to be just.* Peter Lombard,
indeed, the latest advocate of the theory, dis
tinguishes between the justice of our bondage and
the injustice of our task-master; but he lived after
St. Anslem had pointed out the distinction, and
made it a ground for rejecting, the whole scheme, f
So late as the eighth century, the last Greek
theologian, St. John of Damascus, though, as we
shall see by and by, not ignorant of its difficulties
or willing to accept it in its entirety, asserts
expressly that the tyrant would have had ground
for complaint, if after having himself conquered
man he had been violently robbed of his prize by
God. I The same view is expounded at length by
St. Augustine, St. Gregory Nyssen, St. Gregory
the Great, Theodoret, and others, on the ground
that, as we had voluntarUy placed ourselves under
Satan's dominion, we could not justly be dehvered
from it without an equivalent being paid.§ And
that equivalent, they declare with one voice, was
the Blood of Christ. " The price is the Blood of
Christ," says St. Augustine, who may speak for aU

* Leo Serm. xxii. 8. " Jus tyrannicum vindicabat, nee injusto
dominatu premebat."
t Pet. Lomb. Sent. Lib. iii. Dist. 19.
j De Fid. Orth. iii. 18.
§ Aug. De Lib. Arb. iii. 10. Greg. Nyss. Or. Cat. xxiii.
Greg. Mag. Mor. xvii. 28. Theod. De Prov. Or. x.

THE LATER FATHERS. 145
the rest.* It is in this sense, and not with any
notion of our sins being imputed to Him, that
they understand His death as vicarious, and His
being made a curse for us. We were given in
pledge, St. Ambrose says, to.an_.eyil creditor, and
Christ " is not unjustly said to be made^in" since"
He was offered for sin"; and so St. Augustine,
"By receiving the punishment, and not the sin,
He destroyed both sin and punishment"; St.
Athanasius, " Seeing the impossibility of our
paying an equivalent penalty, He took it on Him
self" ; and Eusebius, "He took the curse upon
Him, being made a curse for us ; for what else
is this than a ransom for our souls (avrt^ov) ?"
" This solution of the evU was left," says Proclus,
"for neither man nor angel would suffice " ; and
Gregory the Great, " The Father being just dis
poses aU things justly, punishing the Just One ";f
but this language of God punishing the Son is
rarely met with, however it be explained. They
add that the payment greatly exceeded the debt ;
it was not only a fuU equivalent for aU other
things together, it was, as Gregory Nyssen says,
a higher and greater discharge. J God did more
than justice to the Evil One. " The adversary,"
* Enarr. in Ps. 95.
t_Amj>. TTeVirg jm^jul fln. JnEp. ad^Cor. ii. 5. Aug.
Serm. xxxvnTm" Luc'. Ath. In PassT~eT^JruceI)ei. Euseb. De
Dem. Ev. x. 1. Procl. Const. Horn, de Christ. Nat. Greg.
Moral, iii. 13.
X Basil. Horn, in Ps. xlviii. The references to Greg. Nyss.,
where it is not otherwise stated, are to his Catechetics,
ch. 25-28. 10

146 THE ATONEMENT.
says St. Ambrose, " rated us at a low price, as
slaves, but the Lord ransomed us for a great
price, as being made after His image and like
ness."* But why, it may be asked, was this par
ticular kind of ransom required? The answer,
already suggested by Origen, seems to be this.
Man had voluntarUy succumbed in his conflict
with Satan ; and the tyrant could claim dominion
over him tiU he had slain one perfectly righteous,
free from actual, and, as St. Augustine is careful
to add, original sin, and who had foiled him by the
use of that same free-will which man had perverted
to his ruin. Many righteous men he had in past
times striven against and slain, but none, even
the hohest of them, was perfect. One alone
could successfuUy contend with him ; and here we
see Irenseus' view of the Temptation illustrated, t
One alone could suffer a whoUy unmerited punish
ment, who as God was sinless, and as man
could die. In the words of St. Leo, the great
doctor of the Incarnation ; " Though, in the sight
of the Lord, the death of many saints was precious,
yet the killing of no innocent man was the propitia
tion of the world ; the just received crowns, but
did not bestow them ; from the fortitude of the
faithful came examples of patience, not gifts of
righteousness."| 2. But how came the price to be accepted, if
* Ambi. In LucLjn!_2.__^j>
\ Greg. MagTlw Luc. i., Horn. xvi. 2. Cf. supra, p. 132.
| Leo De Pass, Serm. xii.

THE LATER FATHEBS. 147
Satan had the option of refusing it ; or, rather,
why did he violently extort what deprived him for
the future of his empire over the souls of men ?
To this question Origen had not scrupled to answer,
that Satan was deceived, and deceived by God ;
and here he is foUowed by aU succeeding writers.
But how this was done Origen did not explain.
They do ; and their explanation is a startling one.
He was deceived, they say, by means of the Incar
nation, and they sometimes even speak as if the
main object of the Incarnation was to deceive
him. No one is more explicit on this point than
Gregory Nyssen, who dweUs on the skill and
cunning of the arrangement.* The human nature
of Christ was the veil to shroud His Divinity ;
according to Gregory the Great, it was the bait
whereon the Evil One was to be caught and
pierced, as a fish on the hook; it was a net to
catch the- bird in, according to Isidore of Seville ;
the Cross, adds Peter Lombard, was a mousetrap,
baited with His Blood, f One passage shaU be
quoted from Gregory Nyssen, where this view is
stated in fuU : "It was impossible for him (Satan)
to look on the bare form of God without seeing
in Him something of flesh, which he had already
subdued through sin. For this cause the Godhead was
veiled in flesh, that looking on Him according to
what was of kindred nature (on His humanity) he
* to <ro<pbv koI rexyiKov r>)s oiKOVo/uas.
t Greg. Mor. xxxii. 7. Isid. Sev. Sent. i. 14. Pet. Lomb.
Sent. ii. 19, 10 *

148 THE ATONEMENT.
might not dread the approach of superior power,
and after seeing His power quietly shine out more
and more through his miracles, might think He
was rather to be coveted [as a victim] than to be
dreaded." St. Leo speaks in much the same
sense."* Not that Satan was supposed to be
ignorant that Christ was the Son of God, or that
He was incarnated for our redemption, but ignorant
of the means destined to accomphsh it, and there
fore persuaded that, if he could kill the Bedeemer,
he could also retain Him in his power, and frus
trate His design, f It is obvious that this view is
very difficult to reconcUe with that of a bargain
struck and price paid, which yet is equally main
tained by Gregory Nyssen under the term used
before by Origen (dvrdXXayp.a). Others, as Gregory
the Great and St. Leo, dweU less on this aspect
of the matter and insist more exclusively on the
deception. It was necessary, for this end, that
Christ should be born (His miraculous birth Satan
knew not) and pass through the ordinary stages of
childhood, youth, and manhood, as the introduc
tion to His Crucifixion, by which Satan finally
over-reached and defeated himself. On the difficul
ties of this theory something shaU be said presently.
Meanwhile, let us pass on to the third point in
cluded in it.
3. AU, from Irenaeus downwards, who have
advocated the notion of a payment made to Satan,
* Leo Serm. xxii. 4. t Greg. Moral, xxxiii, 7.

THE LATER FATHERS. 149
state or imply that it was necessary as a matter of
justice. But was the necessity an absolute one ?
The Fathers are unanimous in replying that it was
not ; and when they speak of it as necessary, they
must be understood as meaning that it was neces
sary, if an adequate price was to be paid at aU.
Gregory Nyssen asks why God does not of His
own mere will do what He purposes, and answers
that we cannot teU. Gregory Nazianzen says that,
as He made all things by His word, He might
have saved us by His will ; Athanasius, that He
might by a mere word have loosed the curse ;
Theodoret, that He might have dissolved the
power of death by His will only. Gregory the
Great, St. Leo, and St. Cyril of Alexandria say
the same.* St. Augustine is even more out
spoken ; ' • They are fools who say, the wisdom of
God could not otherwise dehver man than by
taking human nature and being born of a woman,
and suffering aU things at sinners' hands ; but if
He did otherwise, your foUy would be equally dis
satisfied." He says elsewhere that the method
chosen was good and congruous to the Divine
dignity, and no other could be more convenient,
but that others might have been found. + It was
this congruity, as matter of justice towards Satan,
that led God, according to the Fathers, to choose
¦'- Greg. Xyss. Or. lot. 17. Greg. Naz. Or. 9. Atli. Cont.
Arian. Or. ii. 08. Theod. Contr. Gnrcas Disj: 6. Leo Scrm. i.
De Xiitir. (.ireg. Moral, xx. 26. Cyril Alex. De Ineani. See
for other authorities Petav. De Incarn. ii. 13.
t Aug. De Agoin Christi. 10 ; De Trin. xiii. 10.

150 THE ATONEMENT.
the method He did choose ; some add, as Athana-
sius and Augustine, that it was also chosen as the
most beneficial to man, by ehciting his affections
and his hopes. We see, then, what they mean by
speaking, in this connection, of a necessity for the
Incarnation and the Cross.
As I began the account of this theory with a
quotation from its first author in the Church, St.
Irenseus, it may be closed with the following pas
sage from its latest advocate, Peter Lombard ;
"He was made, therefore, mortal man, that by
death He might conquer the Devil. For unless
He were man who overcame the Devil, man would
seem to be violently, not justly, dehvered from
him to whom he had voluntarily subjected himself.
But if man overcame him, he clearly lost aU right
over man, and, for man to conquer, God must be
in him to make him free from sin. For if he were
mere man, or an incarnate angel, he might easuy
sin, as we know both natures have faUen by
themselves. Therefore the Son of God assumed a
passible humanity, in which He tasted death for
us, and by which He opened heaven to us, and
redeemed us from the service of the Devil, that is
from sin (for the Devil's service is sin) and from
punishment."* It is obvious to remark, that this method of
regarding the Passion and death of Christ brings
out certain aspects of truth with conspicuous
,;: Pet. Lomb. Sent. iii. 19.

THE LATER FATHERS. l5l
clearness. It exhibits that mighty contest be
tween good and evil which has been waged inces
santly, since the mystery of iniquity began to
work, in the world, in the Church, and in each
separate soul, but which reached its culminating
point when the Tempter strove with the human
Soul of Jesus, through every avenue of sense or
spirit, through the lust of the flesh, the lust of the
eye, and the pride of hfe, and prevailed not. All
possible mahce of all possible temptations was
gathered up and concentrated in that last bold
act of rebelhon, and all was staked upon the issue.
If the Evil One conquered then, he conquered all;
if he failed, all was lost. The pledge of our vic
tory was assured when the Soul of the Bedeemer
passed beneath his fiery touch, shrinking, indeed,
in all but intolerable anguish no tongue may utter,
no heart of man conceive, from that close ap
proach of defilement, yet passed unscathed, as the
three Holy Children through the fiery furnace of
Babylon. Till then he had seemed to triumph ;
the righteous suffered, and their blood was spUt
upon the earth. They were scourged, or stoned,
or sawn asunder, or burnt; or crucified, and the
world was glad at their departure. In the fulness
of time God sent His Son, who did no sin, neither
was guile found in his mouth, and because of His
perfect hohness men rose up against Him and slew
Him ; but his death was the life of the world.
The woman's Seed had crushed the serpent's head.
The representative wickedness of mankind, all the

152 The atonement.
darkest sins that stain our corrupt humanity, were
collected, during that Paschal week, within the
circle of the apostate city. Pride, impurity, hy
pocrisy, cowardice, cruelty, falsehood, the bitter
ness of malice, the meanness of jealousy, the
devihsh hatred of superior goodness — aU met to
gether there. There were united in a strange and
unhallowed federation the incestuous Herod, the
coward judge, who bartered right for interest, ¦
the traitor apostle, the hypocritical priesthood,
the frenzied, fanatical multitude. There was the
horrible determination to put down an opponent
by foul means, if not by fair; if evidence were
wanting, false witnesses could be purchased; if
violence were dangerous, the end could be attained
by fraud. The odium of judicial murder coxud be
thrown on the GentUe, but the voice was the
voice of the Jewish Sanhedrim, though a Boman
governor pronounced the sentence, and Boman
soldiers fulfiUed it.* If, then, that crowning ini
quity could be pardoned — and it is a pious tradi
tion in the Church that all who had a hand in
crucifying Jesus are now before His throne in
heaven — none need despair of forgiveness. In the
redemption of His murderers we read the promise
of our own.
With sacrifice the tale of our misery had begun,
and with sacrifice it was to end. In the dim
twilight of human history, when strife was first

#

Sta %apwv di'o'/Mur -pou-Tn'^mrcs dra'Aere. Acts ii. 23.

THE LATER FATHERS. 153
breaking in on the harmony of that fair creation,
which the All-Merciful had blessed because it was
very good, there is revealed the form of a mother,
struck with anguish, weeping over the fierce
iniquity of her first-born and the beautiful corpse
of her martyr-boy ; martyred, it would seem, in
that very act of sacrifice which is the crea
ture's rightful homage to his Maker and his God.
Thousands of years rolled by, and the Second
Eve, "the Mother of aU living," pierced with a
sword of many sorrows, stood beneath the noon
day starlight on the mount of death, where the
Blood which speaks better things than the blood
of Abel flowed, and that cry rose up from the
darkened Cross, whose echo dies not day nor night
before the throne in heaven, and the altars of the
earthly Church ; " Father forgive, they know not
what they do." Henceforth the law of suffering,
to which the Incarnate Son had voluntarily sub
mitted, was turned from a curse into a beatitude ;
self-sacrifice became the royal road of redemption,
the baptism of blood was for remission of sin. The
kingdom of Satan, like the kingdom of God, is
within us, and he is then most near the sons of
God when they come to present themselves before
the Lord. Therefore He came, in whom alone the
Prince of this world could have no part nor lot, to
break the chains of that bondage of corruption,
and bid the slave go free.
In this sense, the speculations of the Fathers
on the relation of the Incarnation to the Evil One

154 THE ATONEMENT.
have left an abiding heritage to the Church. But,
on the other hand, the theory of a ransom, if
literally understood, is beset with difficulties, both
intellectual and moral, of the gravest kind. First,
it is not coherent ; for how can the notion of
Satan being deceived, which forms an integral
portion of it, be reconciled with the notion of a
bargain struck and a price paid to- satisfy a claim
of justice ? If he was tricked into forfeiting his
just rights by grasping at . rights where he had
none, how is compensation made to him ? Then,
again, how can the Blood, or Soul, or death of the
Bedeemer be an equivalent to him at aU for the
empire which he lost, when it gave him no real
power over Him who died only to rise again from
the dead, whose Soul was not left in Hades, and
whose Flesh knew no corruption ? And if the
theory labours under these logical difficulties, the
moral and rehgious objections are stiU more
serious. What is meant by God deceiving the
Devil, and by the paraUel so elaborately drawn by
many writers between the deceit which ruined
man and the deceit which redeemed him ? When,
for instance, Gregory Nyssen says, that the one
wrought his deceit for the corruption of our nature,
but the Just and Good and Wise used the counsel
of deceit for the salvation of that which was cor
rupted,* is not this like saying that the end justi-

* He proceeds, oil p.6vov rbv d7roA(i)\oTa iSia. rovrcov tvepyeriiv,
dXXo. xal avrbv tov aTrtakdav xa$' rjp.S>v ivcpyqo-avra, which seems

THE LATER FATHERS. 155
fied the means, that deception was the chosen
instrument of the God of truth? A modern
writer, viewing the whole question from the inde
pendent stand-point of impartial unbelief, adds a
further objection, that the Incarnation being thus
introduced for an illusory purpose is in danger of
being itself regarded as a phenomenal illusion, and
the Docetic heresy brought back by a side-wind
into the Church.* That, however, seems an over-
refinement of criticism. Those who insist most
strongly on this object of the Bedeemer in taking
human nature, insist also on the necessity of His
actual death, which required a real, not merely a
phenomenal, body ; not to repeat here an obser
vation made before, in a different connection, that
the Fathers recognise many other objects of the
Incarnation which certainly involve its reality.
It is more to the purpose to remark, what indeed
did not escape the notice of many advocates of the
theory, that there is something shocking to natural
reverence in the Blood of the Holy One becoming
the prize of Satan. More than that, the whole
theory carried with it the original sin of its Gnostic
parentage. The essentially dualistic notion of
two independent powers, set over against one
another, of a kingdom of light and a kingdom of
darkness, with jurisdictions mutually limited by

to imply his agreement in Origen 's belief of the restoration of
the fallen angels. But his language on this subject is not
always consistent. See Catholic Eschatology, p. 114.
f Baur, Von der Versohnung, pp. 82, 83.

156 THE ATONEMENT.
conflicting claims, lies inevitably at the root of
any system which treats evU as other than a tem
porary and accidental interruption of the divine
order, or ascribes to the EvU Spirit rights of what
ever kind, and though acquired through the wilful
breach of their true aUegiance by his captives, as
against the supremacy of Him who is infinite in
holiness as in power and love. An unjust victory
could confer no claims, nor wrong, because it was
successful, become the ground of an immoral right.
This radical flaw of the Origenist system had not
been unfelt from the first, while its inadequacy as
an explanation of the great mystery of redemption
had prevented it from ever being held alone. We
have seen that Origen himself combined with it the
idea of a sacrifice offered to God, though without
attempting to harmonize the two, which indeed
was scarcely possible. Nor was this idea ever lost
sight of by succeeding writers. It is suggested in
antagonism to the dominant theory, as early as the
fourth century, by Gregory Nazianzen. To the
question, To whom was Christ's Blood paid as a
ransom ? he replies : " If to the Evil One, shame
upon the insult, that the robber should not only
receive a ransom from God, but receive God Him
self, a payment so much exceeding in value his
own tyranny, on account of which it was just that
we also should be spared. But if it was paid to
the Father, first, how ? For it was not by Him we
were held captive. And next, for what reason should
the Blood of His only-begotten Son please the Father, who

THE LATER FATHERS. 157
would not receive Isaac when being offered up by
his father, but changed the victim and gave a ram
instead of the human sacrifice ? Or is it clear that
the Father receives it, ivithout having asked or needed
it, but on account of the dispensation (oiKovop.iav)
and its being fit that men should be sanctified by
that which is mortal in God, that He might dehver
us Himself, having conquered the tyrant by vio
lence, and bring us back to Himself through the
mediation of His Son, who disposed this too to
the honour of the Father, to whom He seems to
concede aU things ? " * This was to assert that it
was fitting a sacrifice should be presented to the
Father, but to reject particular theories about the
necessity of satisfaction as doubtful or superfluous.
Another passage will be noticed further on, where
St. Gregory speaks of the sufferings of Christ as a
point on which we are free to speculate, for though
not without advantage to hit the mark, it is not
dangerous to miss it. f Four centuries later, John
of Damascus, who repeats almost the very words
of Gregory as to the price being paid to the tyrant,
though in an earlier chapter of the same book he
had acknowledged a certain claim of justice on
Satan's side, decides, against Gregory, that the
" ransom " was paid to the Father because we had
sinned against Him.]: It is remarkable that
Gregory, while discarding the idea of a payment to
* Greg. Naz. Or. 42.
t lb. Or. 27, [33] . Cf. infra, p. 165.
} De Fid, Orth. iii. 27. Of. supra, p. 144.

158 THE ATONEMENT.
Satan, yet retains one of the strangest features of
that theory, saying that he who had deceived us
with the hope of Godhead was himself deceived
by the veil of flesh.
This idea of a sacrifice offered to the Father, or
rather to the whole Trinity,* is stated or imphed
by the great body of patristic writers, though not
made the basis of any particular scheme of satis
faction, and usuaUy held in connection with the
notion of a ransom paid to Satan. St. Athanasius
speaks of Christ offering a sacrifice for aU ; St.
Augustine traces out the essential obhgation of
sacrifice, even antecedently to the conviction of
sin, as the outward expression of the supreme
homage (Xarpda) due to God ; Eusebius refers to
the sacrifice of Abel, which he says was accepted
in preference to Cain's because it was an animal
sacrifice ; St. Cyril of Alexandria says, " This was
the goat sent ahve into the wUderness, the goat
that was offered to the Lord as a victim for the
propitiation of sins, and made a true propitiation
for the peoples who beheve on Him " ; St. Leo
speaks of an offering to God, though he dweUs
chiefly on the necessity of a ransom from the power
of the EvU One ; St. Gregory the Great says, that
the Son of God offered a sacrifice for us, and
insists that a victim for man must himself be man,
but to cleanse them from sin must be sinless, f
* Fulgent. Contr. Arian. ii. 4. Cf. Ans. Car Deus Homo. ii. 18.
t Eus. De Don. Er. i. 10. Aug. De Cir. Dei, x. 19 ; Contr.
Faust, xx. et passim. Cyril In Lev. x. Greg. Mag. Mor,
xvii. 46.

THE LATER FATHERS. 169
The only attempt, if such it can be caUed, to
mediate between these theories is in the view
dwelt upon in St. Athanasius' treatise on the In
carnation, of a sinless victim being needed to
undergo the sentence of death, incurred by man,
as an obhgation or kind of debt, at the Fall, and
from which God could not otherwise release him
without being untrue to His own word. The
writer sometimes speaks of an equivalent (kotoAA^Aov),
sometimes of a debt owed (6<buX6p.€vov ™ Oavd™)
or a full satisfaction to death ; and he thus illus
trates the two natures of our Lord, who must be
man to die, and more than man not to be under
the obhgation of dying. He is said to have taken
to Himself a body, whichbeing united with the Word
who is over all may suffice for death in the place of
aU, but through the indwelling Word may remain
incorruptible.* The same view is expressed by St.
Ambrose, when he says that our Lord underwent
death in order that the sentence might be fulfilled
and the decree satisfied. \
At the root of all these theories, whether of a
ransom paid to Satan, or a sacrifice to God, or a
fulfilment of the sentence pronounced on Adam's
sin, lay two ideas, which became afterwards the

* Ath. De Inc. 9. to Svvdp.evov aTrodavtiv iavrio AayuySdVei
crcojua, \va tovto tov IttI irdvrwv Xoyov p.eraXaf3ov dvrl trdvrwv
iKavbv yevqrai Tta davdno, /cat Si'a rbv lvoiKfjo~avra Xoyov ddtOaprov
hui.fx.dvrj. t Ambr. De Fug. Sac. " ut implereter sententia et satisfieret
judicato." Here we have the word " satisfy," but in reference to.
the sentence pronounced on Adam, not to the justice of God.

160 THE ATONEMENT.
two factors of the Scholastic theory of satisfaction,
and which were brought into prominence by the
controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries, in
the East on the Godhead and Incarnation of the
Eternal Son, in the West on the extent of man's
natural faculties and the doctrines of grace. These
ideas are, on the one hand, the infinite value of the
human acts and sufferings of the Bedeemer,
through the hypostatic union ; on the other, the
exceeding sinfulness of sin, and the need of Divine
grace to supplement the weakness of a corrupted
wiU. The latter point assumed a new importance
and distinctness in St. Augustine's controversy
with the Pelagians. St. Athanasius, in his first
and second Orations against the Arians, is led
constantly to argue that only. One who is Himseh
God could mediate between God and man, could
restore to us the hohness we had lost, make us
partakers of the Divine nature, sons of God, and
heirs of eternal life. A mere man, he urges, might
have preached forgiveness, he could not have reaUy
removed the barrier between man and God."'1 St.
Cyril, in his tenth anathema, is stUl more exphcit ;
he says again ; " One would not have been equi
valent to all, had He been mere man ; but if He
is understood to be God incarnate and suffering in
His own flesh, the whole creation is little as compared to
Him" ; + as little, says St. Chrysostom, as a tiny

* Ath. Contr. Arian. i. 19, 87, 49 ; ii. 14, 20, 68, 69, 70, 77.
t Cyril. Alex. De Recta Fide, lb. Contr, Nestor, iii, 2,

THE LATER FATHERS. 161
drop to the boundless ocean.* St. Cyril of Jeru
salem says similarly, that the iniquity of sinners
was not so great as the righteousness of Him who
died for them, who was not mere man or angel, but
Incarnate God.f Thus the whole doctrine of
Bedemption was seen to hinge on a right behef
about the Person and natures of the Bedeemer, and
therefore also about the Holy Trinity. Only One,
who was God and Man, could bring man again into
communion with God. But it is rather His as
sumption of our nature in aU its fulness than His
death alone that the Fathers dwelt upon. He is
the Bepresentative Man, the Second Adam, the
Head of the Body, who recapitulates in Himseh,
as they are fond of expressing it, the whole human
race, and imparts to them, through the union of
their nature with His, a new principle of life, in
whose death aU die, in whose resurrection aU are
made ahve. This is St. Athanasius' great argument
against the Arians ; so, too, St. Augustine says,
" That nature was to be assumed which had to
be dehvered." HUary of Poitiers had said before
him ; " Bte took on Himself the nature of aU flesh,
by which, being made the True Vine, He contains
in Himseh the race of aU the progeny of flesh,"
that is, He is to the new creation what Adam was
to the old. And St. Leo says, after him, that the
Son of God is one and the same Christ in all His

* Chrys. Horn. x. in Ep. ad Rom.
f Cyril. Hier. Cat. xiii. 33. 11

162 THE ATONEMENT.
saints, that on the cross is celebrated the oblation
of human nature.*
Enough has been said to show, from what point
of view the Fathers were wont to regard the
Bedeemer's office and work, and that their whole
teaching hinged on a right understanding of His
consubstantiality with the Father by virtue of His
Eternal Generation, and with us by His Conception
in Mary's womb. In bringing out the need of a
reconcihation between God and Man, divided by
sin, and the infinite dignity of the Person of Christ,
they laid a basis for future speculation on the
atonement ; but their own theories, whether of a
ransom paid to Satan, or a sacrifice offered to God
upon the Cross, were kept subordinate to their
reiterated and many-sided exhibition of the as
sumption of our nature by the Incarnate Word, the
Corner Stone who makes both one, the Man whom
holy Job sought and found not, who could arbitrate
between him and his Maker, because He laid His
hand on both.f The Incarnation itself they regard
as " a kind of perpetual sacrifice," in which the
whole human family is offered up to God; and this
begins from the first moment of the Conception.

* Aug. De Vera Rel. 30. Hil. De Trin. ii. 24. Leo Serm.
lxvi. 4 ; De Pass. iv. It is a strange perversion of this idea
when Strauss says, " True philosophy substitutes for Jesus the
abstract term Humanity. Humanity dies, rises again, and
ascends up on high. The individual Jesus is of little moment,
saving in so far as He may have served to bring out the idea."
We may reply, in the words of Bousseau, " L'inventeur en serait
plus etonnant que le heros." (Emilc, 54, 4.)
t Job. ix. 88.

THE LATER FATHERS. 163
" By the mystery of His humanity," says Gregory
the Great, " He offers an everlasting sacrifice." *
He is Priest and Temple, Altar and Victim, aU in
One. But they never imagined, let it be distinctly re
peated, that the Incarnation or the Cross effected
a change in the mind of God towards us, or im
phed a division of wiU between the Father and the
Son. The sacrifice of Calvary, however explained,
they looked upon as part of an eternal purpose,
not a device to avert the wrath of the Father, but
the utterance of His unfailing love. The Lamb
was slain from the foundation of the world, though
offered once for aU in blood on the Cross, offered
continuaUy, till time shaU be no more, in the
heavenly Jerusalem and on the altars of the
earthly Church. I quoted a writer of the first
century who lays down this principle. Let me add
here the testimony of the greatest doctor of his
own or any age of Christian history. The passage
is too remarkable to be curtaUed ; " What means
this, ' reconcUed by the death of His Son ? ' Is
it, that when the Father was angry with us He
looked on the death of His Son for us and was
appeased ? Had the Son, then, been so com
pletely appeased aheady, that He even vouchsafed
to die for us, but was the Father stUl so incensed
that He would not be appeased unless the Son

* Greg. Mor. i. 19. See Thomass. De Inc. x. 8, 9, and the
passages there quoted. 11 *

164 THE ATONEMENT.
died for us? And what is it, which the same
teacher of the GentUes says elsewhere ; " What
then shaU we say to these things ? If God be for
us, who is against us ? He, who spared not His
own Son but delivered him up for us all, how has
He not with Him given us all things ? ' Would
the Father, unless he had been already appeased,
dehver up His Son for us, not sparing Him ? Do
not these statements seem to contradict each
other ? In the former the Son dies for us, and the
Father is reconciled to us by His death ; but in the
latter the Father, as though He first loved us,
Himself does not spare His Son for our sakes,
Himseh dehvers Him up to death for us. But I
see that the Father loved us before also, not only
before the Son died for us but before He created
the world, as the Apostle himself testifies, saying,
' As He has chosen us in Him before the creation
of the world.' Nor was the Son dehvered up for
us, as it were, unwillingly when the Father
spared Him not, since it is said of Him also, ' who
loved me, and gave Himself for me.' The Father,
therefore, and the Son, and the Spirit of Both,
work aU things at the same time, equaUy and
harmoniously ; yet we are justified in the Blood of
Christ, and reconciled to God through the death
of His Son."* This shows how little a change in
the Divine Mind, or a division of will in the Per
sons of the Trinity was thought of. " One," says
* Aug. De Trim. xiii. 11.

THE LATEB FATHEBS. 165
St. Leo, "is the kindness of Their mercy as the
sentence of Their justice, nor is there any division
in action where there is no diversity in wiU."*
And St. Cyril of Alexandria almost repeats the very
words, already quoted, from the Epistle to Diog-
netus ; " God was and is good by nature, ever
full of mercy and pity, and did not become this in
time, but was shown to be such towards us."t It
was we who changed ; His mercies had not faUed.
With Him, who knows no shadow of vicissitude,
the grace of redemption was involved in the pre
vision of sin. J
And now we are in a position to answer the
question which may perhaps have occurred to the
reader, as to why we find so little of definite
theory on the Atonement among the Fathers,
whUe one of the greatest of them has been under
stood to say that it does not greatly matter whether
our theories about it are right or wrong, § and the
* Leo. Serm. iii. De Pent.
\ Cyr. Alex. adv. Nestor, iii. 2.
| Thus Campbell ; " If God provides the atonement, then the
love of God must precede atonement ; and the atonement must
be the form of the manifestation of the forgiving love of God,
not its cause  the Scriptures do not represent the love
of God to man as the effect, and the atonement of Christ as the
cause, but — just the contrary — they represent the love of
God as the cause, and the atonement as the effect. " God so
loved the world, that he gave His only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in Him might not perish, but have everlasting
life." Nature of Atonement, pp. 18 — 20.
§ St. Gregory Nazianzen. Cf. supra, p. 157. But in the pas
sage referred to (Orat. Theol. 1. Or. xxvii. [xxxiii.] ) he is speaking
simply of " the sufferings of Christ," and it is, to say the least,
gratuitous to interpret his words of theories about the Atone
ment. Both wording and context point rather to speculations

166 THE ATONEMENT.
view of a ransom to Satan, which most of them
maintained, has since then completely passed away.
Was their faith in Christ uncertain, or were they
ashamed of the foohshness of the Cross ? The
f answer is not far to seek. To them, as to the
I Church in aU ages, it was not the Atonement but
\ the Incarnation which was the centre of Christian
faith as of Christian life ; the Incamahis est de Spi-
ritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine was the key-note of then
creed. The difference between their way of look
ing at the matter and that which came in with the
Beformation may be shortly described as foUows.
By the Reformers, the incarnation and earthly life
of Christ is regarded only, or chiefly, as the
/ necessary introduction to His atoning death ;
I while the Fathers see in His death, not an isolated
I act, or even an isolated sacrifice, but the natural
: consummation of that one great act of self-
j devotion whose unbroken energy stretched from
\the Conception to the Cross. The Blood that
flowed on Calvary was indeed the price of redemp
tion, but it could not be thought of apart from the
Bedeemer's hfe ; it was not so much the blood as
the wiU of Him who shed it, that was the real
oblation.* His work of mediation was summed
up but not exhausted in the act of dying ; He was
on the mental and bodily sufferings of the Passion. Moreover,
as the Benedictine editor observes, Siafxaprdveiv may just as
well mean failing to convince your adversary, as erring from
the truth.
* Thus St. Bernard said afterwards, in reply to Abelard,
" Non mors sed voluntas sponte morientis placuit."

THE LATEB FATHEES. 167
anointed for His priesthood in Mary's womb ; He
is still a Priest in Heaven. In aU the stages of
that life, as in the closing sacrifice, the behever
was to be associated, I might almost say identified,
with his Lord; " on the Cross was celebrated the
oblation of our common humanity," as the faithful
unite the oblation of themselves with the abiding
sacrifice of the altar. In the words of a modern
writer, " as the Atonement is the development of
the Incarnation, so is Christianity a development
of the Atonement." The whole life of Christians
was to be, like His who died for them, an act of
hfe-long crucifixion, but also a risen hfe, for aU
rise with him.* Over aU that touched His Per
son the Church kept jealous watch, for in Him
she hved and moved and had her being, and on
Him through successive ages was fixed her deepen
ing gaze. He had assumed man's nature, with aU
its sinless infirmities, and by the very act of as
suming had restored it, and bridged over the chasm
which divided the creature from his Creator. In
that nature He died for us. Fathers and doctors
might weU be suffered to use their own judgment
in explaining the efficacy of His death, or to abstain
from explanations, so long as the reahty of the
* Thus Bobertson says : " Beal human life is a perpetual
completion and repetition of the Sacrifice of Christ, — ' All are
dead ' ; the explanation of which follows, ' to live, not to them
selves, but to Him who died for them, and rose again.' "
Eobertson's Sermons, vol. iii. p. 114. The author adds, " This
is the truth that lies at the bottom of the Bomish doctrine of
the Mass." Bather, it is part of that doctrine, for *' the Mass
is the compendium of the Gospel."

168 THE ATONEMENT.
great Sacrifice, and the truth of His Person and
natures, on which all its efficacy rested, was held
fast. And in this the Church did but carry out
the intimations of Scripture, which does not dwell
exclusively on the death of Christ, but exhibits in
the four Gospels the facts and words of His earthly
ministry, even as the Apostle's words, "Forthisend
was the Son of God manifested, that He might
destroy the works of the DevU," seem to point
immediately rather to His hfe than to His death.
By His victory over the Tempter, by His miracles
of mercy, by His perfect obedience, by His pure
teaching, by the vocation of His Apostles, by the
institution of His Church, as weU as by the crown
ing act of self-devotion on Calvary, He broke the
power of the Evil One. And hence in the Litany
we plead the mystery of His holy Incarnation,
His Advent, Nativity, Baptism, and Fasting,
before we come to His Cross and Passion. When
again, He says of Himself, " I am come that they
may have hfe, and that they may have it more
abundantly," He speaks not so much of the forgive
ness of sin as of the engrafting in our nature of a
new principle of hfe through union with His own,
who took root, according to the Prophet's saying,
as a tender plant in the dry and thirsty soU of
our corrupted humanity.
It was when all this was coming to be forgotten,
when the Incarnation itself was thrust into the
background, the sacraments which are its appli
cation shghted, and the Sacrifice of the Altar which

THE LATEB FATHEES. 169
perpetuates it reduced to a mere symbohc form, that
arbitrary theories about the Atonement were made
into articles of a standing or falling Church, and
became, for those who had lost the true key for
interpreting it, a source of manifold miscon
ceptions. When the hfe of Jesus was treated as
a biographical record, men began to wrangle about
the meaning of His death. One further remark
may be added here. A modern writer, whose pro
fessed object is " to show the truth and necessity
of Christianity," and who avows an ardent behef
in its indestructible vitality, at the same time
assures us that, if it depended on " the story of
the magical birth and resuscitation of Jesus," it
"would dissolve."* It wUl be plain, from what
has just been said, what the Fathers would have
thought of such a notion ; to them it must have
appeared not merely profane, but unintelligible.
They could as httle have understood a Christianity
with the doctrine of the Incarnation left out as an
arch without its key-stone. And those who advocate
such a Christianity now wiU admit, if they are
honest, that it has nothing in common, except the
name, with the Christianity of the early Church, t
I make no apology for closing this summary of
patristic teaching with words which express its
spirit far better than any I could hope to frame

* See Preface to God and the Bible, by M. Arnold, pp. xiii,
xxxiii, xlviii.
t See Excursus vi. " On Strauss's Estimate of the Belief of the
Early Church."

170 THE ATONEMENT.
myself; "The Son of God then took our nature
upon Him, that in Him it might do and suffer
what in itself was impossible to it. What it could
not effect of itself, it could effect in Him. He
carried it about Him through a life of penance.
He carried it forward to agony and death. In Him
our sinful nature died and rose again. When it
died in Him on the Cross, that death was its new
creation. In Him it satisfied its old and heavy
debt; for the presence of His Divinity gave it
transcendent merit. His presence had kept it pure
from sin from the first. His Hand had carefully
selected the choicest specimen of our nature from
the Virgin's substance ; and, separating from it aU
defilement, His personal indwelling haUowed it
and gave it power. And thus, when it had been
offered up upon the Cross, and was made perfect by
suffering, it became the first-fruits of a new man ;
it became a Divine leaven of hohness for the
new birth and spiritual life of as many as should
receive it."*
From the death of Gregory the Great, " the last
of the Fathers," at the beginning of the seventh
century, tiU St. Anselm came forward, at the close
of the eleventh, as the pioneer of Scholasticism,
the theology of Western Christendom slept, it has
ben said, her winter sleep — a sleep disturbed rather
than broken by the strange apparition in the ninth
century of John Scotus Erigena, one of the most
* Newman's Paroch. Sei-m. vol. vi. p. 79.

THE LATER FATHEBS. 171
original thinkers of his own or any age, as of one
born out of due time.* He belongs, however,
more to the preceding than the subsequent period,
and must therefore be noticed here. Christian
theology, as has been observed before, took its rise
at Alexandria, the home of Neo-Platonism, in the
third century ; its later scholastic form was based
on the study of the other great master of ancient
phUosophy, Aristotle. Erigena, who drew his
inspiration chiefly from Maximus, the last but one
of the Greek theologians, and the works composed
during the fifth century under the name of Diony
sius the Areopagite, is the latest and most syste
matic exponent of a Neo-Platonic theosophy of the
Gospel. With the part he took in the controver
sies of his own day, on the Procession of the Holy
Ghost, predestination, and the Eucharist, we need
not meddle here. Nor can I do more than give a
brief sketch of his teaching on sin and redemption,
as gathered from his work on the Division of Natures. \
It would he beyond my present scope to enter into
any lengthened discussion of it, or to trace its con-

* He was a Scotch or Irish monk, and is said to have visited
Athens in his youth. He certainly knew Greek, for he trans
lated the works of Dionysius. It was his aim to reconcile Plato
and Aristotle, in whom he professed an equal behef. Milman
thinks he " not improbably became a pantheist." (Lat. Christ.
vol. hi. p. 89). Ozanam (Hist. Civil, vol. i. p. 33), speaks more
cautiously of his "halting on the very brink of pantheism."
The more charitable verdict is also the likeliest to be the right
one, and is alone consistent with the devotional language of his
works, but Neander rightly insists that pantheism is the logical
outcome of his system.
+ De Divisione Natararum Libri v. Diu Desiderati. Oxon. 1681.

172 THE ATONEMENT.
nection in detail with other parts of his system, which
in regarding the Divine nature as incomprehensible
ahke to itself and to every created intellect, as not
something but nothing because exceeding every
thing, not itself being, but the source of being to
others,* is not easy to reconcUe with God's revela
tion of Himself, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
His explanation of the faU and restoration of man,
translated into the simplest language it wiU bear,
may be stated thus. The Creator is properly one
with His creation, for He contains in Himseh the
primordial ideas or archetypes on which it is
formed ; man, His chief work, is the middle point
of creation, combining in himseh the opposite
poles of creaturely existence, the sensible and
the intellectual, f He fell, not in time and in the
earthly paradise, but in himseh, and before the
temptation of the Devil, for it is incredible that,
had he ever stood in contemplation of eternal
peace, he should have faUen at aU. J By this faU
he not only lost his original union with God, but
suffered an internal division in himself into male
and female, which was healed by the resurrection
of Christ, who rose, not in bodily sex but simply
as man, for in Him is neither male nor female. §
* De Divisione Naturarum, ii. p. 78.
t lb. ii. p. 48.
X lb. iv. p. 196. " Datur intelligi quod homo prius in se
ipso lapsus est quam a diabolo tentaretur, non enim credibile
est eundem hominem et in contemplatione seternas pacis stetisse,
et, suadente femina, serpentis veneno corrupta, corruisse."
§ lb. ii. p. 49 ; cf. p. 52. " Adunatio totius creaturaa quse in
primo homine fieret si non peooaret, in Christo resurgente ante

THE LATEE FATHEES. 173
Man retained, however, in his faU the mind, in
which chiefly consists the image of the Creator,
and by which we understand Him, and did not
whoUy desert the Author of his existence, for. in
Him we hve and move and have our being.* But
there was need of reconciliation. Therefore the
Word of God took upon Him human nature, and
in doing so took upon Him the nature of every
created substance, visible or invisible, that He
might save and restore all by saving and re-uniting
after an ineffable manner the outward products to
the original causes or archetypes, which existed
eternaUy and immutably in His own Divine nature ;
and thus, by His Incarnation, He gives to men
redemption, and to angels knowledge of Himself,
for before this incarnation or theophany He was
incomprehensible to all created natures alike.
The restoration of man is fulfilled in His death, for
the dissolution of the body is the end of our
destruction and is rather a benefit than a penalty,
though it be the penalty of sin, and is not to be
regarded as the perishing of our substance, but as
a wonderful and ineffable return into the former
state which man had lost by sin, that state of pure
contemplation in which nothing remains but what
is spiritual and intellectual, for the substance of
the body is itself inteUectual.
omnes per omnia facta. Non enim in sexu corporeo sed in
homine tantum surrexit ex mortuis, in ipso enim nee masculus
nee femina erat."
* lb. ii. p. 48 ; v. p. 230.
t lb. v. p. 252, 232.

174 THE ATONEMENT.
The Platonic element in this scheme is obvious
enough. We have the tSc<u and the ^awo/Aeva. The
Word of God is incarnated in visible form to
re-unite the ideal with the actual, .the One with
the many, the figures traced on the waU of the
earthly cave with the eternal archetypes whose
reflection they are, but from which they have been
unnaturally divorced by sin. The Incarnation and
Besurrection are dwelt upon almost to the exclu
sion of the Passion, and the death of the cor
ruptible body is felt to be not so much a
punishment as a release, the rending asunder of the
material veil interposed between the spirit of man
and the spirit of God. Erigena' s theory exhibits
forcibly the abnormal division between man and
his Maker, wrought by sin, and the need of One
who shares the natures of both to become the
Bepairer of the breach. But it is not equaUy easy
to reconcUe its primary assumptions with the
doctrines of the Gospel, or even with the principle
of theism. He has rather galvanized than revived
the Alexandrian theology in this last attempt to
harmonize faith with reason through the forms of
Neo-Platonism, and in his own day he found few
to understand or appreciate it. For two centuries
yet the trance of theological science remains
unbroken ; but sleepers dream before their
awakening.

CHAPTEB IV.
ST. ANSELM AND THE SCHOOLMEN.
The transition from the period we have been hitherto
considering to the scholastic era is a more com
plete change than can easUy be expressed. We
seem at first sight to have passed from a world of
reahties to a world of abstractions, where the
forms of language or of logic have taken the place
of substantive ideas. The Fathers stand to the
Schoolmen something in the relation of Plato to
the Alexandrian Neo-Platonists, or Aristotle to his
Latin copyists of the days of the Empire. The
very difference of name, "Fathers" and "Doc
tors," serves to mark their difference of position.
The whole patristic age was a life and death
struggle with enemies of the faith, first with
heathenism, then with heresy ; it was no time for
subtle distinctions, and ingenious outreasoning of
artificial objections by equaUy artificial rephes.
The Fathers were engaged in building up and
developing the fabric of Cathohc dogma, chiefly
on the Trinity and Incarnation, against opposite

176 THE ATONEMENT.
errors, and bringing home the truths of Chris
tianity to the conscience and convictions of a
corrupt but highly civilised world. Through the
whole scholastic period there were no great doc
trinal controversies. The Church's foes were of
her own household, not the heretic or the sophist,
but the fierce half-converted barbarian, or the
mail-clad baron who professed aUegiance to her
laws. The eleven general CouncUs, from the first
of Lateran to that of Florence, were occupied with
disciplinary questions, as of investitures, or heal
ing the schism of the anti-popes, or suppressing
the Templars ; and were only indirectly, when at
aU, concerned with doctrine, as in the discussion
of the Double Procession and Purgatory at Flor
ence, with a view to the reconcUiation of the
Greeks. The Schoolmen, accordingly, were not
employed, hke the Fathers, in elaborating and
fixing particular dogmas, but in reducing the
whole existing body of doctrine to what they con
sidered a rational and consistent inteUectual sys
tem. Their ambition was to construct a philosophy
of behef, or, as a modern writer phrases it, "to
inaugurate a supernatural rationalism in the
Church." With a few, like Abelard, this meant
testing the doctrines themselves by a phUosophical
standard, and accepting nothing as matter of
belief which could not be comprehended by the
reason. With the majority it meant educing from
the received creed of the Church, iUustrated lat
terly by the physical and metaphysical principles

ST. ANSELM AND THE SCHOOLMEN. 177
of Aristotle, and with the aid of definition and
syUogism, a kind of cyclopaedia of revealed and
ethical truth. They wrote for the learned few who
alone could understand their language and method,
whereas Sermons and Homilies held a prominent
place in patristic literature. St. Chrysostom, St.
Ambrose, St. Augustine, and St. Leo were among
the greatest preachers of the Church.
The scholastic age, of which St. Anselm is the
pioneer, attained its zenith in the thirteenth cen
tury with the seraphic and angelic doctors, as
they are called, Bonaventure and Aquinas, and
may be said to last till the Beformation, though it
has no great names to show after the close of the
fourteenth century. That was a period when his
tory, criticism, and science were almost unknown.
Latin was the common tongue of the learned, and
for the most part they understood no other, ex
cept their own. They had little critical knowledge
of the past experience of the Church, or anticipa
tion of what future was in store for her,* nor
had they yet learnt to cultivate introspective habits
of thought. AU this was indeed no fault of theirs,
but was nevertheless a serious drawback to theo
logical inquiry. On the other hand, the whole
speculative inteUect of Europe was concentrated
* Peter Lombard, the Master of the Sentences, Gratian, the
compiler of the Decretum, and Peter Comestor, who wrote an
Ecclesiastical History from the Creation to the birth of Christ
— all authors of the second half of the twelfth century — were
long regarded, according to Pleury, as forming a complete
theological library. 12

178 THE ATONEMENT.
upon it, and that in an age of keen inteUectual
activity, for as yet it had no rival in the world of
thought ; and such a concentration of labour could
not but lead to a great expansion and development
of theological ideas within a certain range, and be
productive of permanent results. But it foUowed
also from so large an expenditure of inteUectual
energy on so narrow a field, and from the one-
sidedness of its analytical method, that many
trifling or incongruous questions would be mooted,
there would be much mere playing with edged tools,
and many an elaborate edifice would be reared on
the sand which the advancing tide of sounder
knowledge must inevitably sweep away. It is no
disparagement to the moral or inteUectual greatness
of the Schoolmen to admit what was an inevitable
result of the circumstances in which they found
themselves. But very few, who care at aU for theo
logical study, or have any real acquaintance with
the subject, wUl be prepared to endorse Mihnan's
sweeping assertion that " of those vast monuments
of [Scholastic] theology which amaze and appal
the mind, the sole remnant to posterity is that
barren amazement."* Critics differing so widely in
opinion from the Schoolmen and from each other
as Hegel, Humboldt, Von Baumer, Coleridge, Mill,
and Shirley have pronounced another and far
juster verdict. Yet we cannot help feehng, with
the last-named writer, that "it is impossible to
* Milman's Lat. Christ, vol. ix. p. 118.

ST. ANSELM AND THE SCHOOLMEN. 179
take up a volume of some great Schoolman without
being aware that, if it exhibits intellectual quali
ties of no common order, it seems separated from
the rest of literature by some impassable barrier."*
The doctrines iUustrated by the Schoolmen re
main equaUy true for us, but our methods of illus
tration and many of our opinions are necessarUy
different. Still, with whatever shortcomings, it
must always be remembered that Scholasticism is
an important chapter in the history of the human
mind, and has left permanent traces on the develop
ment of doctrine. If the then condition of European
society imposed restrictions on the progress of theo
logical science, which were not the fault but the
misfortune of its votaries, if some of those who
pursued it were httle better than triflers or sophists,
we must never forget that it also, commanded the
service of the acutest intellects and the devotion of
the most saintly hearts. The Summa of St. Thomas
has not lost its dogmatic value, though much of the
Aristotelian phUosophy on which it is based may
have since become obsolete, and he has also made
lasting contributions to the science of Christian
* Shirley's Lecture on Scholasticism, p. 8. The writer adds,
not untruly; "We seem almost at times to be reading the
philosophy of another race of beings." But he also says ;
" Those vast tomes of the Schoolmen, which we regard with
so distant a respect, not only bespeak an amount of literary toil,
rare in the most cultivated times, but give evidence of a pre
cision of thought and a subtlety of logical analysis which may
challenge comparison with the best works of the best ages of
philosophy." See also on the strength and weakness of Aquinas,
as " the great representative of mediaeval theology," Mozley's
Predestination, pp. 285, 236, 259. 12 *

180 THE ATONEMENT.
Ethics ; whatever, again, may be thought of the
supplementary details of St. Bonaventure's Life of
Christ, none wiU dispute the spirit of ardent piety
which breathes in every page.
For our present purpose it wiU be convenient to
divide Scholastic theology into the earher and
more unsystematic period, which is about co
extensive with the twelfth century, and includes
the names of St. Anselm, who may be caUed the
father of Scholasticism, and his immediate fol
lowers, Abelard, St. Bernard, Hugh and Bichard
of St. Victor, Bobert PuUeyn and others ; and the
later period, when it took a more systematic shape,
and numbers among its celebrities Alexander of
Hales, St. Bonaventure, Aquinas, Duns Scotus,
and Wichffe, branching out into the two great
schools since known as the Scotist and Thomist,
of which the Franciscan and Dominican Orders are
the traditional representatives.
Few names are so dear to the student of eccle
siastical history, especiaUy if be be an Enghshman,
as that of the great and good Archbishop of Can
terbury, who is the model at once of a recluse and
a ruler, a student in the cloister and a hero in the
strife.. He surely was no common man who fought
out, almost single-handed, the great battle of in
vestitures in England, who confronted by mere
force of saintly character the brute strength of the
rough-handed Bufus, and foiled the cunning king^
craft of his courtly successor by no other weapons
than the nobleness of Christian simphcity. The

ST. ANSELM AND THE SCHOOLMEN. 181
injustice he met with in life has been atoned by
an exceptional unanimity of posthumous homage.
The name of Anselm comes down through twenty
generations, wreathed with a halo time has not
dimmed; his memory is honoured, the very prayers
he composed are stiU repeated, by many even of
those who do not accept his creed. A modern
author calls him " the profoundest and most ori
ginal writer that had appeared in the Latin Church
since St. Augustine,"* and certainly the appear
ance of the Cur Deus Homo forms an epoch in the
history of Christian doctrine. The theory of a
ransom paid to Satan by the death of Christ, which
had prevailed for nearly a thousand years in the
Church, and on which the Fathers had grounded
the necessity for the Atonement, is here for the
first time expressly and unreservedly rejected.
There is no minute discussion of details ; it is
repudiated on the broad principle, so strangely
overlooked before, that it contradicts the omni
potence or the goodness of the Creator to suppose
that He can recognise any right of evU and injus
tice in that universe which is His own. It is not
denied that there was a certain fitness in the Devil
being overcome by the wood of the cross, as he had
overcome men by the wood of the tree of life, just
* See Essays and Reviews, by R. W. Church (London, 1854),
p. 125. The essay on St. Anselm, since republished in the
Sunday Library series, contains an admirable sketch of St.
Anselm's career in England. Is it vain to hope that the gifted
author of this interesting volume will give us some further •
results of his singular capabihties for the illustration of mediaeval
Church history ?

182 THE ATONEMENT.
as there is a fitness in the Bedeemer being born
of a woman, as the first man was deceived by a
woman ; but these " congruities " are " a kind of
pictures " that may be offered for the persuasion
of unbelievers, not the ground of any sohd theory.
We belonged not to the Devil, but to God ; and
the " handwriting against us " was not, as St. Leo
had imagined, a compact with Satan, but the
decree of God who aUowed him to punish us when
we became the slaves of sin. " There was no need
for God to come down from heaven to overcome
the EvU One, or to make a compact with him for
the delivery of man ; but God required of man
that he should overcome the Devil, and satisfy by
righteousness the God he had offended by sin.
For God owed nothing to the Devil except punish
ment, nor man anything but to conquer him by
whom he had been overcome ; whatever was re
quired of man he owed to God, not the DevU."*
But Anselm at the same time insisted, not only on
the congruity but the absolute necessity of man's
redemption, and on the death of Christ as the only
possible means of effecting it, innovating in both
respects on the teaching of former theologians. t
His explanation of the positive side of his system
is scattered over the two books of the Cur Deus Homo,

* Cur Deus Homo, xi. 19, ad fin. Cf. i. 7, throughout, also
3 and 4.
+ The question appears at that period to have occupied the
thoughts not only of theologians, but of Christians generally.
He says, " De hac qusestioue non solum literati, sed etiam
illiterati multi quterunt, ac rationem ejus desiderant." lb. i. 1.

ST. ANSELM AND THE SCHOOLMEN. 183
mixed up with incidental notices of many collateral
questions, as of- the primitive state of man, the
bodily resurrection, the relations of human redemp
tion to the faU of the angels, and the fitness of
Christ's birth of a virgin. We must confine our
selves here to a statement of the theory itself, as
he has laid it down.*
It is impossible that mankind, as a whole, should
fail to attain the end for which they were created,
because it is inconsistent with the being of God to
suffer any rational nature to perish completely and
thus fail to perfect the work he Has begun, f Not
that in speaking of necessity, though absolute, we
are to view it as a power external to Him, like
the dvdyKr) of Greek mythology which limited and
constrained the wiU of Zeus. Bather it is impro
perly caUed necessity, for it is part of His own
nature, it is that immutabihty which belongs to
His holiness, that supreme justice which is one
with Himseh. I But man has forsken his true end

* It would be troublesome and confusing to the reader to
give separate references for each statement. They shall be
given where there is any special reason for it. The chapters
from which the system is chiefly to be gathered are i. 11, 12, 13,
20, 21, 23, 24, 25 ; ii. 4, 5, 6, 11, 14', 19, 20.
t The author adds a reason, borrowed from St. Augustine,
that men were created to supply the place of the fallen angels
(i. 16-18), but this is immaterial to the coherence of his system.
The necessity of man's restoration is maintained on indepen
dent grounds.
{ lb. ii. 5. " Quae scilicet necessitas non est aliud quam
immutabilitas honestatis Ejus, quam a Se Ipso et non ab alio
habet, et idcirco improprie dicitur necessitas." Cf. i. 18.
" Summa justitia quae non est aliud quam Ipse Deus." Cf.
ii. 18. a.

184 THE ATONEMENT.
by sin, and can only be restored to it by redemp
tion. By sin he has robbed God of what was due
to Him from human nature, and has, so far as was
possible, deprived Him of a part of His honour
(Deum exhonorat) ; he has committed an evU which,
if not actually infinite,* is yet so great that the
preservation of the universe would be too dearly
purchased by the commission of even the shghtest
sin. And therefore he has incurred a debt which
can only be paid by something greater than the
whole universe, greater than ah that is outside
God.f But he has -nothing to pay it with him
seh, for aU that he has and is he aheady owes to
God as his Creator, without any reference to the
compensation of sin. And this very inabihty to
pay the debt is not an excuse, but is itself a sin,
being caused by his own fault, and therefore is not
a ground of free forgiveness. Nor, indeed, is free
forgiveness possible. God cannot suffer anything
to mar the perfect order of His kingdom. The
sinner must either make adequate satisfaction to
God, according to the measure of his sin, or
endure the penalty. This satisfaction, to be equal
to the sin, must be greater than anything outside
God, and therefore only God can supply it ; but it

* In one place it is called " infinitum," but as being so great
that it could not lawfully be committed to preserve an infinite
number of worlds from destruction. lb. ii. 14.
t Cf. Ans. De Concep. Virg. et Pecc. Orig. 21. "Deus non
exigit ab ullo peccatore plus quam debet, sed quoniam nullus
potest reddere quantum debet, solus Christus reddidit pro
omnibus plus quam debetur."

ST. ANSELM AND THE SCHOOLMEN. 185
must be paid by man, or it is not man's satisfac
tion. " The debt was so great that none but God
could pay it, and none but man owes it, therefore
One must pay it who is God and Man." Hence the
necessity for the Incarnation. But the Incarna
tion would not suffice of itself. The perfect obe
dience of Christ, as Man, could be no satisfaction
for sin, for obedience is due to God from every
rational creature. But His death was not due, for
death is an obhgation incurred by sin ; and His
death accordingly, as a voluntary offering, is the
sufficient and only possible satisfaction, which not
only equals, but infinitely exceeds, the payment
owed for the sins of the whole world. For this
death, freely offered, He deserved a recompense
from the Father. But He needed none for Him
seh, and could receive nothing that was not
aheady His. He claimed, therefore, and justly
received from the Father, as a reward, the salva
tion of those for whom He died. And thus mercy
and justice are reconciled. For what more merci
ful than that the Father should say to the sinner,
who has nothing whereby to ransom himself from
eternal punishment, " Beceive My Only-begotten,
and give Him for thyself," and the Son say, "Take
Me and ransom thyself?" What more just than
that He who receives a payment far exceeding
the debt should remit the debt ?
Such is a summary of the Anselmic theory of
satisfaction. Its whole force hinges on the as
sumed impossibihty of any incongruity (incon-

186 THE ATONEMENT.
venientia) being tolerated by God. Deum non decet
aliquid in regno Suo inordinatum dimittere. Both in its
negative and positive aspects it differs widely from
the patristic conception of the subject. The ne
cessity for the death of Christ becomes for the
first time absolute, not indeed any longer as a
compensation due to Satan for the power over
men acquired by their sin which he was to lose by
their redemption, but as a satisfaction to God for
the honour of which sin had robbed Him. Not
that Christ's death is regarded by St. Anselm, any
more than by earher writers, as a punishment in
flicted on Him by the Father for our sins, but
as a voluntary payment of the debt incurred by
us when we could not pay it ourselves ; on this
voluntary character of His obedience and of His
death special stress is laid. It was essential to
the justice or holiness of God that sin should be
either punished or atoned. Only the God-Man
could make adequate reparation, and He only by
His death, for that alone He did not, in His
human nature, owe to God.
It is obvious that the Cur Deus Homo, if taken,
as the title might seem to imply, for an exhaustive
account of the objects of the Incarnation, would
be a very defective one ; and there are, in fact,
many indications in the book itself that such was
not the intention of its saintly author. We cannot
doubt that he, like those before him, saw more,
far more, in that mystery of love than the mere
payment of a debt. But even in the restricted

ST. ANSELM AND THE SCHOOLMEN. 187
sense, which it is clearly meant to bear, of an ex
planation of the death of Christ, his argument is
open to very serious criticism. With the negative
side of his theology, his rejection of Satan's sup
posed rights, we certainly need not quarrel, and
here his judgment haslbeen fuUy endorsed by the
common instinct of the later Church. But, as
regards his positive theory, even admitting the
assumption (contradicted as it is by the whole
course of previous theology) of a debt incurred to
God, which it is absolutely impossible for Him
freely to remit, the account given of the payment
is, in more than one point, at issue with itself. I
pass over the extreme difficulty of admitting a
necessity, though explained as part of the Divine
Nature, which seems to hmit omnipotence, and
goes far to assimilate the external operations to
the immanent acts of God. But the statement of
a necessity for the Incarnation is obviously incon
sistent with making it also a free exhibition of
love. For if God's honour necessarily required re
paration, and it could only be made in one way,
then it was not for our sakes, but for His own,
that He sent His Son into the world to die. Nor
can it be replied that, according to Anselm's
teaching, the honour of God is not reaUy increased
or diminished by anything external to Him, and
cannot, therefore, be affected in itself by sin ; for
it is distinctly said to be essential to His honour
that the order of the universe should be preserved,
and that this can only be done by the punishment

188 THE ATONEMENT.
of the sinner or by an equivalent for the sin.*
That order, as we have seen, is broken if His
object in the creation of man is frustrated, and
therefore adequate satisfaction is an internal ne
cessity of His own nature. The author's only
attempt to meet this difficulty in fact admits its
force. t When it is urged, that God in creating
man foresaw both his faU and his redemption, but
did not therefore shrink from the obligation He
voluntarUy assumed in creating him, this of course
may show that creation was an act of love ; but it
imphes that, creation once premised, the Incarna
tion was an act of necessity. It was at least not
a separate act of love. There is another inconsis
tency to be noticed. It is essential to the theory,
that the death of Christ should be something He
did not owe to God. But if satisfaction for sin was
absolutely necessary for the Divine honour, and
His death alone could supply it, it foUows, surely,
that, as Man, He was moraUy bound to die, and
thus His death ceases to be a voluntary oblation.
This difficulty is more than once indirectly touched
upon, but is never really answered. \
There was reason for dwelling thus at length
on the argument of the Cur Deus Homo, because its
author is the founder, or rather harbinger, of the
whole scholastic method, and is also the first to
explain the death of our Lord by a theory of satis-
* See especially Cur Deus Homo, i. 13, 14.
+ lb. ii. 5.
X lb. i. 9, ii. 18, b. See on this point Petav. De Incarn. ix. 8.

ST. ANSELM AND THE SCHOOLMEN. 189
faction which refers it immediately, not to any
rights acquired by the EvU One, but to inherent
necessities of the Divine nature. The principal
succeeding writers of this earher period may be
contrasted according to their relations, whether of
agreement or difference, with him. Conspicuous
among them stand the names of Bernand, abbot
of Clairvaux, the last of the Fathers, as he has
been not inaptly designated, and Abelard, who
may with equal propriety be termed the first of the
Schoolmen. The positive side of the Anselmic
system is rejected by both. Abelard's exposition
of the grounds of the Incarnation and sufferings
of Christ is given in his Commentary on the Romans,
chiefly with reference to the famous passage about
God being just, and justifying the behever in
Jesus.* He not only assents to Anselm's denial
of aU rights in the DevU, but goes beyond him,
arguing that man would rather have a right to
punish the seducer who had betrayed him by a
promise of immortality he had no power to fulfil.

* Bom. iii. 26. This verse has been sometimes taken to
imply the necessity of Christ's sacrifice, as a matter of justice,
for our forgiveness. But if so, we must read naiirep instead of
koI. It clearly means, " that He who is (essentially) righteous
(and the Source of righteousness) might bestow sanctification on
believers." Since the first edition of this work appeared, I
have met with the following apposite confirmation of this view
in Robertson's Letters (vol. ii. p. 58) ; " The Evangelical scheme
of reconciling justice with mercy, I consider the poorest effort
ever made by false metaphysics. They simply misquote a
text. That He might be just (and yet) the justifier, whereas
St. Paul says, the just and the justifier, i.e. just, because the
justifier."

190 THE ATONEMENT.
The elect alone, he adds, were released by Christ,
and they never belonged to Satan in this world or
the next ; this is proved by a strange apphcation
of the parable of Dives and Lazarus. Moreover, if
no injustice was done to the DevU by the assump
tion of a sinless humanity, how could injustice
have been done him by the far lesser grace of a
free forgiveness ? Some other reason must be
found. To Anselm's view of an aU but infinite
debt, and the need of a corresponding equivalent,
Abelard rephes that Adam's sin, however great,
could not be atoned by the yet greater crime of
those who murdered Christ. And further, as
Gregory Nazianzen had said before him, how could
the blood of an innocent Victim be an acceptable
ransom to God, to whom, if to any one, the ran
som must be paid ? Abelard therefore seeks the
ground of the Incarnation, not in the justice, but
the love of God, who might indeed have pardoned
us without it, but selected this method as the
most effectual for ehciting our love. The spec
tacle of Christ's spotless hfe and obedience even
unto death, endured for us, was the most persua
sive argument for withdrawing us from the service
of sin and making us meet to receive His grace.
He is said, therefore, to have died for us, because
in His Crucifixion He bore the penalty of our sins
and by His death drew us to Himself, commend
ing His charity towards us by dying for us while
we were yet sinners, and implanting love in our
hearts through faith in Him. This includes the

ST. ANSELM AND THE SCHOOLMEN. 191
case of the old Patriarchs who looked for His
coming, though it apphes stiU more to those who
have hved since, as it is written, " Those who went
before, and those who came after, cried Hosanna
to the Son of David." And thus by grace we are
pardoned on our repentance, its defects being sup
plied by the intercession of Christ, who, as Man,
is bound by the law of charity to pray for us and
whose prayer, from His perfect hohness, cannot
but be heard. Hence the need for His Incarna
tion. This theory seems to place the ultimate
ground of the Atonement, not in the nature of
God but of man, who required such a revelation
of Divine charity to recaU him from sin.
St. Bernard,* I need scarcely remind the reader,
was engaged in frequent controversy with Abelard,
chiefly about the doctrine of the Trinity, on which
his language was, to say the least, difficult to
reconcUe with orthodox behef. It was natural,
therefore, that on other subjects also bis teaching
should be received with suspicion ; and his lan
guage about the Atonement certainly betrays a
defective sense of the mahgnity of sin. St. Ber
nard attacks his explanation of the doctrine partly,
as he assaUed the behef in the Immaculate Con
ception, on account of its novelty ; partly, as con
travening the testimony of the ancient Fathers
* Morison's Life and Times of St. Bernard (London, 1863)
gives a very interesting biography of him, about half consisting
very properly of translations from his Letters. The author
does not dwell at any length on his character as a theologian,
and is evidently not so familiar with that part of the subject.

192 THE ATONEMENT.
on the rights of Satan — a charge which it shared
with St. Anselm's. To Abelard's objection about
the murderers of Christ he rephed, in words
already quoted, that it was not His death, but His
voluntary acceptance of it, that was pleasing to
the Father. He did not, however, any more than
his opponent adopt the Ansehnic theory of a debt
incurred to God which could only be paid by the
death of His Son. On the contrary, he faUs back
on the older opinion, which both Anselm and
Abelard had rejected, ofthe claim of Satan, to whom
therefore the price was paid ; though he so far
modifies it as to admit, that it was only by God's
permission the DevU could have any rights. He
adds, that Christ made satisfaction as the Head of
the Body, representing its members. The work of
salvation includes three things ; the humility by
which God emptied Himseh, the love which per
severed even unto death, and the " sacrament of
redemption," by which in dying He destroyed
death. This last Abelard is accused of denying
by denying the rights of Satan, and of making the
teaching and example of Christ the sole benefits of
the Incarnation.* But he had not said so, and he
distinctly asserts, in his Apology, that " the Son of
God was incarnate to deliver us from the bondage
of sin and yoke of the Devil, and to open to us by
His death the gate of eternal hfe." And St. Ber
nard himself, in this very Epistle, expressly denies
* Bern. Ep. 190 ad Innoc.

ST. ANSELM AND THE SCHOOLMEN. 193
any absolute necessity for the method of redemption
chosen, and suggests a reason for it not so very unlike
Abelard's. " Who denies that the Almighty could
have found other means of our redemption, justifica
tion, and deliverance ? But that does not prejudice
the efficacy of the method which He chose out
of many. And perhaps that method is the best,
whereby in a land of forgetfulness and sloth we
might be more powerfully and vividly reminded of
our faU, through the so great and so manifold suf
ferings of Him who repaired it." Elsewhere, when
not speaking controversially, he says still more
plainly; "Could not the Creator have restored
His work without that difficulty ? He could ; but
He preferred to do it at His own cost, lest any
further occasion should be given for that worst and most
odious vice of ingratitude in man."* What is this but
to say, as St. Augustine had said before, that He
chose to redeem us by the method most effectual
for eliciting His creature's love ?
Our countryman, Bobert PuUeyn, a teacher at
Oxford and contemporary of St. Bernard and
Abelard, follows the latter, whose intimate friend
he was, both in adopting Anselm's denial of the
claims of Satan, and in rejecting the notion of
an absolute necessity for the Atonement, t He
* Bern. Serm. xi. in Cant.
t B. Pulleyn Sententiarum Libri viii. His wide divergence
from the old theory is marked by his representing the dream of
Pilate's wife as sent by the Devil, to hinder the death of Christ.
Satan, therefore, was neither compensated nor deceived. Pul
leyn was distinguished for Biblical learning. See Newman's
Office and Work of Universities (Longman, 185G), p. 258. 13

194 THE ATONEMENT.
regards the sufferings of Christ as giving us an
example of patience and steadfastness, and being,
in some sense not accurately defined, requisite for
our redemption ; and His blood, not as a ransom
paid to the Evil One, which would be a renuncia
tion of His Godhead, but as a sacrifice offered to
the Father. Hugh of St. Victor, another writer
of the same date, tries to harmonize all the pre
vious systems. He recognises in Satan a certain
right of dominion acquired over man, though not
any rights as against God. From this dominion
man cannot free himseh, except by God's assist
ance ; but — and here the Anselmic notion comes
in — God was Himseh angry with man, and re
quired to be propitiated by a perfect obedience to
compensate Adam's apostasy, and by an adequate
punishment to atone for the dishonour done to
Himseh. Man had neither to offer : therefore,
what man owed, God gratuitously supphed in the
Incarnation and death of His Son. Yet the author
expressly denies any absolute necessity, and gives
a reason for the Incarnation elsewhere, differing
httle if at all from Abelard's, saying that Christ
gave us in His Passion a motive of love, in His
resurrection a pledge of immortahty, " that He
may be the Way by His example, the Truth by
His promises, the Life by His reward." * Bichard
of St. Victor has sometimes been represented as
accepting in its entirety the argument of the Cur
* Hug. de S. Vict. De Sarram. 4, 10.

ST. ANSELM AND THE SCHOOLMEN. 195
Deus Homo, which he has undoubtedly made great
use of in his treatise on the Incarnation. But his
language does not imply anything more than that
the death of Christ was necessary, if an adequate
satisfaction were to be made at all. He says it
was required for full satisfaction, that " there
should be as great humUity in the expiation as
there had been presumption in the sin "; but this
does not exclude other methods of satisfaction, or
free forgiveness.*
The last writer of the twelfth century to be
noticed here is Peter Lombard, Bishop of Paris,
the Master of the Sentences. That he retained
the Patristic theory of the Devil's rights we have
aheady seen (in chap, iii.), and his statement of it
need not be repeated here. It was natural that, as a
compUer of the opinions of the Fathers, he should
do so. Yet in his hands it had lost much of its old
technical meaning, and even where most distinctly
stated, as in the passage quoted above, seems
little more than a way of expressing our release
from the power of sin. Thus he says that Christ
came into the strong man's house, that is into our
hearts where the T)&ti\ ruled, " and so by Christ's
Blood, who 3>aysjfchalfHe had not taken, we are
redeemed irrjmsin, and thereby from the Devil. For
he did not hold us, except by the bonds of our

* " Sine satisfactione hominem ad plenum reparari non posse,
ad plcnitmlinem autem satisfactionis oportuisse, ut tanta esset
humiliath in expiationc quanta fuerat prsesumptio in praevarica-
tione." Kic-h. S. Vict. A' Jnc Verb!. 8. 13 *

196 THE ATONEMENT.
sins ; those were the captive's chains." Here the
idea receives a nobler and more spiritual interpre
tation. The writer also includes in our release
from Satan our release from a debt or penalty
incurred, in so far as Christ bore in His Body the
chastisement of our sins, and won for us by His
cross a plenary remission in baptism, a partial
remission in penance, of tbe temporal chastise
ments of sin. For thus overcoming Satan's power
the incarnation of the God-Man is required, who
alone is sinless.* Elsewhere he says that God had
decreed not to admit us to His presence, tUl there
had been found as great humility in man as there
had been pride in our first father ; and this perfect
sacrifice Christ alone could bring. He is careful
to add, that God might have found other ways to
save us.f But where the Master speaks out most
clearly the positive side of his theology, it is sub-
stantiaUy accordant with Abelard's, in placing the
need of reconcihation on the side of man, not of
God. " The death of Christ justifies us by ex
citing His love in our hearts." And he pointedly
insists, as was natural in a student of antiquity, on
the principle which Cyril, Augustine, Leo, and
other Fathers had laid down before him, that we
are not to understand the Atonement as though a
change were effected in the mind of God, and He
began to love, when He had before hated us, as

* Pet. Lomb. Sent. iii. 19, A. D.
t R>, iii. 18, E.

ST. ANSELM AND THE SCHOOLMEN. 197
one enemy is reconciled to another. " We were
reconciled to God, when He already loved us. For
He did not begin to love us from the time we were recon
ciled to Him. by His Son's Blood, but before the world,
and before we existed. How then were we recon
ciled to God when He loved us ? On account of
sin we were at enmity with Him, who had love
toward us, even while we showed our enmity
against Him by working iniquity .... Christ,
therefore, is caUed a Mediator, because standing
between men and God He reconciles them to God.
But He reconciles them, by taking from the sight
of God what offends in man, that is, by destroy
ing sins which offended God and made us His
enemies." And again ; " He reconciled aU
behevers by His death to God, since all were
healed of their iniquity who by believing loved
the humility of Christ, and by loving imitated
it."* So far, then, the positive side of St. Anselm's
theory finds no support from succeeding writers.
His rejection of the Devil's claim is graduaUy
adopted, though not without occasional protest.
But his notion of an absolute necessity on God's
part for the Incarnation and death of Christ is
repudiated alike by all. Peter Lombard and Hugh
of St. Victor, who in language seem at times to
come nearest to him, are in fact the most widely
removed from him. * 16. iii. 19, A. P. G.

198 THE ATONEMENT.
In passing from the twelfth to the thirteenth
century, we approach the more systematic period
of Scholasticism, based on a study of Aristotle,
and occupied, in great part, in drawing up
elaborate commentaries on the Sentences of Peter
Lombard, which are expanded into an intermin
able series of wire-drawn and often unprofitable
distinctions. It would, of course, be impossible
to examine in detaU this voluminous literature.
But, before proceeding to compare the two great
leaders of the opposite schools of Scotists and
Thomists, it wUl be weU to take as a specimen one
of the principal Commentators, and analyse his
treatment of the question before us. No better or
more favourable example can be selected than St.
Bonaventure, who foUows to a great extent the
system of St. Anselm, but deserts him in the point
essential to its internal coherence, the theory of
an absolute necessity. He considers the question
under six different heads.* 1. Was it fitting for
human nature to be restored ? which is of course
answered in the affirmative. 2. Was " satisfac
tion " the most fitting method of restoring it ?
3. Could a mere creature make satisfaction for the
whole human race ? 4. Could any man, assisted
by grace, make satisfaction for himseh ? 5. Was
God bound to accept the method of satisfaction by
Christ's Passion? 6. Could He have saved the
human race by any other method ?
* S. Bonav. Opp. torn. v. (Lugd. 1688) in lib. iii. Sent,
Dint. 20.

ST. ANSELM AND THE SCHOOLMEN. 199
Let us take in order the rephes given to these
last five questions. 2. What method is most
fitting must be considered in reference to the
righteousness, omnipotence, wisdom, and majesty
of God. Tested by this standard, the method of
satisfaction is declared to be most consistent with
His justice and mercy ; His justice in requiring,
His mercy in Himself supplying it ; it is also most
suitable for men, that they should procure their
restoration through the means of satisfaction and
merit, repairing by endurance of punishment the
dishonour done to God by sin. It is then added,
in reply to objections, that it would not be more
fitting for God to display His mercy by a free
forgiveness, because His mercy does not exclude
His justice ; that it is not to meet any want in
God that satisfaction, any more than obedience, is
required, but from regard to us ; that it cannot be
said He would have shown His omnipotence more
fully by pardoning with a mere word, for in this
work it was most essential to reveal His goodness
and His justice ; that mere forgiveness would not
have been so constraining a claim on our thankful
ness and love, because it is a far greater thing to
die for men than only to forgive them ; nor would
it have set us a better example, for punish
ment belongs to God, though not to man, and
moreover by satisfaction God gave us a more
perfect model; lastly, that it is a property of
the Highest Good to employ, where possible, the
co-operation of the creature in His noblest works,

200 THE ATONEMENT.
and this was possible in redemption though not
in creation.*
3. The next question is a favourite one with the
Schoolmen. Could any mere creature make satis
faction for the whole human race ? The author,
in replying, first divides satisfaction into that made
for the injury, and that made for the loss. It is
clear that no mere creature could make satisfaction
for the injury done to God, on account of His
greatness. But neither could he for the loss. No
mere man could give an equivalent to God for the
loss He suffered by Adam's sin, which extended
over the whole race. Still less could a creature of
some other order of being, as an angel, do so, for
his satisfaction could have no relation to the sin of
man. 4. As to whether a mere man, with the
assistance of grace, could make satisfaction for his
own sins, it is replied that he might make a partial,
* So too the great Catholic poet :
Ma perche l'opra tanto e phi gradita
Dell' operante quanto piii appresenta
Delia bonta, dell cuor' onde e uscita,
La Divina bonta che '1 mondo imprenta
Di proceder per tutte le sue vie
A rilevarvi suso fu contenta :
Ne tra 1' ultima notte e 1 primo die
Si alto e si magnifico processo
0 per 1' una or per 1' altro fue o fie ;
Che piu largo fu Dio a dar se stesso
In far 1' uom sufficiente a rilevarsi
Che s' egli avesse sol da se dimesso,
E tutti gli altri modi erano scarsi
Alia giustizia, si '1 Figliuol di Dio
Non fosse umiliato ad incarnarsi. Dante, Farad, vii,

ST. ANSELM AND THE SCHOOLMEN. 201
but not a plenary, satisfaction for actual, none for
original sin; because original sin involves depra
vation not only of will but of nature. For this last
none could make satisfaction who was not himself
free from it, and who did not possess grace to be
the Second Adam, or Head of the renewed race
(gratiam communem, hoc est gratiam Capitis). Hence
Christ alone could atone for original sin, and He
by doing so won grace for men, whereby they are
enabled to make satisfaction for their own actual
sins. His Passion, therefore, acts more fully in
the sacrament of baptism, which remits original,
than in the sacrament of penance, which remits
actual sin.
5. To the fifth question St. Bonaventure answers,
that the most fitting method of satisfaction for God
to accept was the Passion and Death of Christ,
because it is the noblest that can be conceived, and
that on four grounds. It was the most acceptable
for appeasing God, the most suitable for curing the
disease of sin, the most effectual for attracting the
human race, and the wisest for overcoming the
enemy of man. It was the most pleasing to God,
because, as St. Anselm said, the hardest, and there
fore most precious, free-will offering man can make
in token of entire self-sacrifice, is voluntary death.
As man had sinned through pride, lust, and dis
obedience, the fittest cure was humility, pain, and
fulfiUing of the Divine law. In no other way could
God so effectuaUy ehcit the love of men as by
dying for them on the Cross ; and without winnin

202 THE ATONEMENT.
their love He could not save them, for He would
not force their free-wiU. FinaUy, as Satan over
came man by treachery, so Christ overcame Satan
by prudence, " drawing Leviathan with a hook."
Objections are then stated and answered. It may
be said that Christ's life is more precious than His
death ; but the greatest satisfaction is the most
painful, and to be wilhng to die for God's honour
is a more heroic act of perfection and charity than
to be willing to hve for it. It may be objected
again, that the sin of Adam cannot be atoned by
the greater sin of the murderers of Christ. But the
Atonement is made by Him, not by His murderers ;
and it is a conspicuous evidence of Divine wisdom
to draw good out of evU, nay, to draw the highest
good. If it is further urged, that Christ should
then have suffered twice, once for Adam's sin, once
for the greater sin of those who slew Him, it is
replied, that the merits of His sufferings exceed
infinitely the guilt of the traitor Judas, of the Jews
who instigated His death, and the GentUes who
accomphshed it.
6. The last question concerns the necessity of
this method of satisfaction. And here Bonaventure
is in direct colhsion with Anselm. He admits,
indeed, that on man's side no other method was
possible, but with God all things are possible. To
the objection, that no method but satisfaction con
sists with the Divine justice, and that only the
death of the God-Man could make adequate satis
faction, he replies, first, that God might, had He so

ST. ANSELM AND THE SCHOOLMEN. 203
wiUed, have saved us by way of mercy and not of
justice, and still nothing would have been left
disordered (inordinatum) or even unpunished in the
universe, for sin brings its own punishment with it;
secondly, though Christ's death was the most fitting
satisfaction, any, the very shghtest, suffering of
His would perhaps have been sufficient, for, as it is
written, " with Him is plenteous redemption."*
St. Bonaventure concludes by expressing bis firm
behef, that the human race could have been delivered
by other methods, but wUl not pronounce whether
or not it could have been otherwise redeemed, f No
one will be disposed to quarrel with the conclusion,
but it is not very easy to reconcile with aU that has
gone before. If penal satisfaction was so demon
strably the method most becoming the attributes
of God and the condition of man, it is difficult to
conceive any other being adopted ; and if sin would
in any case have adequately punished itself, the
argument for a penal satisfaction being requisite is
undermined. The Cur Dens Homo is more consistent
here. Alexander of Hales, and Albert the Great, come
nearer to Anselm's view. Alexander begins, it is
true, by admitting that according to that justice
which is identical with His Being, and therefore

* Ps. cxxix. (E. V. cxxx.) 7.
+ " De liberatione enim firmiter credo, quod alio modo potuit
liberari, de redemptions vero nee nego nee audeo affirmare, quia
temerarium est, cum de divina potentia agitur, terminum
praefigere ei. Amplius enim potest quam nos possumus
cogitare."

204 THE ATONEMENT.
with His power, God could have saved man without
satisfaction, though according to that justice which
goes by congruity of merits He could not. But the
admission does not go for much. For he after
wards decides, with Anselm, that, had God used His
absolute power to pardon man, He would have left
something disordered (inordinatum) in His kingdom,
which is as impossible as for Him to do evil ; and
no satisfaction could be adequate but that of the
God-Man.* Albert the Great comes to a similar
conclusion, on the ground that original sin could
only be remitted through One who was the second
Head of the race, and, as it would be monstrous to
have two heads in the natural order, the second
must be in the supernatural order ; or, in other
words, must be Christ, who, as God, can alone
impart grace to the mystical body.-j-
We come now to the founders of the two great
schools of Thomists and Scotists, which have
existed from that day to this in the Church ; and
we shall find them differing, as on other points, so
also in their view of the Atonement ; a difference
partly grounded on their opposite views of the
motive of the Incarnation. With the Thomist
doctrine of grace, and aU the controversies that
have been raised upon it, we are not concerned
here. The reasoning of Aquinas on the Atonement
is contained in four Questions of the Simma, from
which I will extract the points most deserving of
* Alex. Hales Summa, Pars iii. Q. i. 4, 7.
f Alb. Magn. Comment, in Sent. iii. 20, art. 7.

ST. ANSELM AND THE SCHOOLMEN. 205
notice.* He treats in order the sufferings of Christ,
their efficient cause, and their results. As regards
the question of necessity, taking the Aristotelian
division of internal necessity and external coaction,
he denies that in either of these senses the Passion
was necessary. It was only necessary, assuming
the prevision and predestination of God to redeem
man in that manner, and in no other ; nor would
He have acted against justice in forgiving without
any satisfaction offences committed only against
Himseh. He was not (as Grotius afterwards repre
sented the case) in the position of a civil ruler
who cannot lawfully remit the penalty of offences
committed, not against himseh personally, but
against the common weal. At the same time, how
ever, the Passion of Christ was the most suitable
method of redemption, as revealing the love of
God, giving us an example of obedience and aU
other virtues, and a strong incitement to purify
ourselves from sin after being redeemed at so great
a price. Moreover, Christ not only freed us from
sin, but won for us grace and glory, and it was
fitting that by death He should overcome the power
of death; but His death need not have been a
violent one. The greatness of His pains, above all
others in this life, is inferred from His suffering at
the hands of such various classes of persons, such
various kinds of pain, both of soul and body, and in
every part of His Body, and from the peculiar
* Summa 1>, Thorn. Aq. Pars iii. Q. 46-49,

206 THE ATONEMENT.
capabilities for suffering of His mental and bodily
organization, as it is written ; Ego in flagella paratus
sum. The manner in which His sufferings take
effect on us is fourfold; by merit, satisfaction,
sacrifice, and redemption. As Head of the mys
tical Body, He imparts to aU His members the
grace He had merited for them. His satisfaction
for the same reason is apphcable to them, and is
not only sufficient but superabundant, from the
greatness of His dignity, His sufferings, and His
love. Satisfaction is defined, as giving to the
offended party something he loves as much as he
hates the offence, or more. The Passion of Christ
is also the most perfect sacrifice, that is, the highest
act of homage ever offered to God, of which the
Jewish sacrifices were types. Lastly, it ransoms
us from the bondage and punishment of sin.
Under all these four aspects the Passion of Christ
benefits us; and its fruits are apphed to us by faith,
not a dead faith, but faith working by love (fides
formata), and through the sacraments. In baptism
we are conformed to the image of His death, by
dying to original sin ; we must be conformed to
Him by acts of penance for sins committed after
baptism, but such acts gain all their efficacy from
His superabundant satisfaction, for no mere man
can satisfy adequately for himself. His Passion,
then, has reconciled us to God, both as being the
most acceptable sacrifice, and as removing the "sin
which caused our separation, and thus it has opened
to us the gate of heaven The idea of a vicarious

ST. ANSELM AND THE SCHOOLMEN. 207
satisfaction seems to be more prominently exhibited
here than before, and the means of applying Christ's
merits through a living faith, and the sacraments
of faith, is more exphcitly and fuUy laid down.
Before making further comment, it will be weU to
state briefly the Scotist theory, so that we may be
in a position to compare the two.
In his Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lom
bard, Duns Scotus conntradicts much of the
Thomist, and the whole Anselmic view of satis
faction.* The merit of Christ, as depending upon
His finite human nature, is itself finite, and has
no inherent claim to be accepted by God, as infinite.
But the value of meritorious acts is measured by
God's acceptance, not His acceptance by their
value ; as the goodness of creatures depends on
His love, not His love on their goodness. And
there is a certain congruity, from the dignity of
Christ, which there would not lse be, in God
accepting bis merits for any, even infinite, number
of persons to whom they may be apphed. His
Passion, therefore, suffices for so many, and so
great sins, as God is pleased to accept it for. But
neither is it true, that sin is formaUy in its own
nature an infinite evil, though in a certain sense it
may be so caUed (sortilur quamdam denominationem
extrinsecam), as being a departure from the Infinite
Good ; just as the love of a Saint or of the arch
angel Michael may be caUed infinite, from its being
* Joann, Duns Scoti In Sent. Pet. Lomb. iii. 19, 20,

208 THE ATONEMENT.
directed to an infinite object. It follows, that the
punishment due to mortal sin is in no other sense
infinite, than as being of infinite duration, so long
as the wiU remains fixed in sin ; God might, with
out injustice, punish it for a single day only, and
then annihilate the soul. There was no necessity
either for the restoration of the human race at aU,
or for the method of restoring it by the satisfaction
of Christ, except as consequent on Divine predes
tination, for aU God's external operations are free.*
Adam might have made satisfaction for his sin by
a greater act of love ; nor is it true to say, with
Anselm, that the sin was infinite, and the love
offered in reparation must be infinite too. The
act of conversion to God is not in its formal nature
greater than all creatures, nor was even the love of
Christ. A good angel, or a mere man conceived
without sin by the power of the Holy Ghost, could
have made satisfaction for the whole race, had God
chosen to accept it ; nor wUl Anselm's objection hold
good, that we should have been more bound to him
than to God, for all the merit would have been
derived from God, as is all the merit of the Blessed
Virgin and the Saints. Christ suffered for righte
ousness' sake, seeing the sins of the Jews and their
ill regulated and perverted affection for their law,

* See Fater's Precious Blood, p. 225. " It (the Precious
Blood) is a magnificent price for sin, because it is infinite ; and
sin is only infinite by a figure of speech, or an invention of the
mind. We did not therefore require an infinite redemption ; though
on the side of God's sanctity there may have been a propriety.
looking to us like a necessity, for an infinite expiation."

ST. ANSELM AND THE SCHOOLMEN. 209
so that they sacrificed its moral to its ceremonial
precepts. " Therefore, desiring to withdraw them
from error by His works and discourses, He pre
ferred dying to keeping silence, for then the Jews
had to listen to the truth ; and thus He died for
righteousness' sake." He offered His Passion to
the Father for us, and we are not the less, but the
more indebted to Him for doing so, since he might
have redeemed us without it. It is clear how this
part of the Scotist system, which was substantially
adopted by the Franciscan, Wilham Occam, and
the Nominalist school generally, cuts at the roots
of the Thomist, and stiU more of the Anselmic
conception of the question. For an infinite merit
it substitutes a voluntary acceptance, while the
denial of an infinite debt removes any plea for the
necessity of an infinite satisfaction. There are
certainly parts of the scheme which are difficult to
reconcUe with the inherent distinction of good and
evU, and look as if morahty had no independent
existence, but was an arbitrary creation of the
Divine will. Nor is it consistent with the reality
of the hypostatic union to ascribe an only finite
character to the human, or, as they are sometimes
caUed, " theandric " actions of the God-Man.* At
the same time, the Scotist view, as a whole, is more
consistent than the Thomist, which rejects tbe
necessity of the sufferings of Christ, while laying
so predominant a stress on the idea of satisfaction.
* The Bull of Clement VI. Unigenitus (1343) condemns this view
which also falls under the 19th condemned proposition of Baius.
14

210 THE ATONEMENT.
But there was in fact another, and far more fun
damental, difference between the "subtle" and
" angehc " doctors, in their way of regarding the
Atonement, which, if it did not at the time exercise
so perceptible an influence over their modes of
expression, could not but make itself in the long
run more deeply felt ; for it materiaUy affected the
relative importance and bearings of the whole
question. I refer to their opposite views, noticed
in a previous chapter, on the primary motive of the
Incarnation. This, according to Aquinas, was the
redemption of faUen man. If there had been no
sin, Christ would not have come in the flesh ; in
the prevision of His Conception was included the
prevision of His Cross. Against this Duns Scotus
urges, that His human nature was predestined
antecedently to the FaU, and was the model on
which ours was formed ; and that Christ would, in
any case, have come to be the Second Adam and
Head of the mystical body.* He considers this
view most congruous to the honour of God ; most
accordant with the testimony of Scripture,
especially in such passages as the first chapters of
the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians ; and
not inconsistent with the language of the Fathers,
who need not mean more, when they seem to con
tradict it, than that Christ would not have come in
a passible body, if we had not sinned.

* Joann. Duns Scoti Summa., Pars III. Quaest. i. Art. 8. (0pp.
torn. iv. Eomae, 1787).

ST. ANSELM AND THE SCHOOLMEN. 211
To enter on a detaUed discussion of the scriptural
argument would be out of place here. It is suffi
cient to observe, that the hne of interpretation
suggested by Scotus certainly opens out to us a
deeper meaning in many passages of Holy
Writ, both in the Old and New Testament ; while
such statements as that of our Lord Himself, that
He is come " to seek and to save that which is
lost," and the noble supplication of the hymn
founded upon it,* miss none of their constraining
force, even if it be true that He would have come
to be our Brother, though we had needed no
redemption. As regards the Fathers, an opinion
has aheady been expressed, that the Scotist view
of the Incarnation is most consistent with the
general spirit of their teaching : but the question
never came directly before them for adjudication.
The greater number of passages quoted by advo
cates of the opposite side, such as Thomassin and
Petavius, though not all of them, may be under
stood as stating the purposes for which Christ
actuaUy did come, after we had fallen, or as refer
ring to the altered conditions under which He
came, in a passible and corruptible body, or as
meaning that but for our sins He would not have

* " Eecordare, Jesu pie,
Quod sum causa Tuae vise,
Ne me per das ilia die.
" Quaerens me sedisti lassus,
Bedemisti crucem passus ;
Tantus labor non sit cassus." 14

212 THE ATONEMENT.
died on the Cross.* Neither, indeed, if it could
be shown that some or most of the Fathers express
or imply the reverse of an opinion, which in their
day had never been put forward, would it at aU
foUow that the opinion was not in fact a legitimate
development of their behef. What is certain is,
that they attach to the " sacrament" or "economy"
of the Incarnation, considered in itself and apart
from the Passion, a significance quite dispropor
tionate to what it bears in many later schemes of
doctrine. And more, whUe most of them regard
the death of Christ as a ransom paid to Satan,
none hold such a payment to have been necessary
for our redemption. The Anselmic notion of its
exclusive, or almost exclusive object being the dis
charge of a debt to God, incurred by sin, and stiU
more the Lutheran idea of a hteral punishment of
our sins inflicted vicariously by the Father on His
spotless Son, are foreign to their whole habit of
thought. On the contrary, their way of looking
at the matter seems to imply a behef, that in any
case the predestined method for perfecting our
nature, and bringing us into fuh communion with
God, was the Incarnation of His Son. We have
seen, again, how some of the greatest Fathers,
like St. Augustine, are specially careful to point
out the priority of the idea of sacrifice to the idea

* This seems also to meet the argument sometimes drawn
from such passages as John iii. 16 ; Gal. iv. 4, 5 ; and the
"propter nostram salutem " of the Nicene Creed. See
especially, on the other hand, Col. i. 15-20 : Eph. i. 10.

ST. ANSELM AND THE SCHOOLMEN. 213
of sin, and in this they are foUowed by later
Cathohc divines. Sacrifice is the spontaneous
expression of the homage due from the creature to
his Creator, and the purest Heathen sacrifices
were those which simply expressed this idea. "All
devotional feeling," it has been truly said, " requires
sacrificial expression." Sin impressed on it, as on
aU human acts of devotion, an additional character
of reparation. But from the beginning it was not
so. If man had never faUen, the most perfect, or
rather the only perfect, sacrifice would stUl have
been offered to the Eternal Father in the human
hfe, though not in the death, of Jesus ; for it is
the wiU that consecrates the outward act. Oblatus
est quia Ipse voluit. To repeat once more the memor
able words of St. Bernard, Non mors sed voluntas
sponte morientis placuit. Without the faU there
would have been no Passion ; perhaps, but only
perhaps, there would have been no Eucharist.
The earhest recorded type of Holy Communion is
the tree of life in Paradise, the great prefigurement
of the Christian sacrifice is the bloodless offering
of Melchisedec, and that was not a sacrifice for sin.
It is anyhow beyond dispute, that the Incarnation
need not presuppose the Fah.
A few words wiU suffice to indicate the bearing
of the Scotist theory — which, though by no means
universaUy accepted, has obtained the general suf
frage of the later Church — on our way of regarding
the Atonement. The very title of the Cur Deus
Homo loses its meaning in the sense in which the

214 ' THE ATONEMENT.
author apphed it. Theories about ransom and
satisfaction, though not therefore rejected, sink into
subordination to a higher truth, when the Incarna
tion is no longer looked upon as a merciful after
thought, to remedy man's corruption and make
reparation to the wounded majesty of God, but as
the fulfilment of an eternal purpose, modified in
deed, but only modified, by sin into a deeper act of
love. Bethlehem and Calvary are transfigured with
a more exceeding brightness, yet the brightness
of a sunshine all our own, when they are seen
to reveal, under the conditions of time and the
pathetic incidents suited to our faUen state, the
unutterable yearning of a Love which knows no
change, to win our hearts, and make our natures
His. The full extent of the difference between these
two theories did not, as has already been remarked,
make itself felt at once. We sometimes find
St. Thomas using language that would seem rather
to belong to the opposite school,* nor is it to be
imagined that so great a mind as his would rest in
any exclusive system. In their view of the satis
faction of Christ the Nominalists and Franciscans
for the most part foUowed Duns Scotus, while the
Dominicans naturally ranged themselves under the
banners of Aquinas, but not without exceptions or
modifications on either side. Thus the Dominican,
Durandus of St. Pacian, denies that Christ satisfied
* Thus, e.g. he calls our Lord, " similitudo exemplaris totius
naturae." Summa, Pars iii. Quaest. i. Art. 8.

ST. ANSELM AND THE SCHOOLMEN. 215
in strict rigour of justice, because aU He had, as
Man, was already owed to God ; Baymund LuUy,
the Franciscan, goes beyond or rather against
Scotus, in maintaining the necessity of the Incar
nation, assuming the creation of man, as the per
fection and crown of human nature. But we need
not examine in detail the later Scholastic writers,
who add httle new to what the great masters had
said before them. It is worth while to observe that
Wicliffe, the precursor of the Beformation, recurred
to the Anselmic view of an absolute necessity for
the Incarnation, as the only adequate satisfaction
for Adam's sin, though his argument differs in some
respects from that of the Cur Deus Homo.* He
gives a strange reason why Satan cannot be saved.
As it was needful for the Second Person of the
Trinity to be incarnated for man's redemption,
who had sinned against the Wisdom of God, the
Third Person must have been incarnated for the
redemption of Satan, who had sinned the sin
against the Holy Ghost, which is therefore unpar
donable, because no such Incarnation can possibly
take place.
To sum up the Scholastic period ; we have found,
at its commencement, the idea of an absolute
necessity for the Incarnation and death of Christ,
as the only possible means of restoring faUen man,
put forward for the first time by St. Anselm, but
* John Wicliffe Trialog. iii. 25 ; " De Necessit. Incarn. Christi."
He considers all God's external operations, and the Incarnation
among them, absolutely necessary.

216 THE ATONEMENT.
very generaUy rejected by subsequent writers of
whatever school. On the other hand, the doctrine
of satisfaction first distinctly enunciated by him
becomes the subject of elaborate discussion, and
branches out eventuaUy into the two opposite
theories of a superabundant satisfaction which had
an inherent claim to be accepted, and a satisfaction,
sufficient indeed, but relying for its efficacy on a
free acceptance from the mercy, not the justice, of
God. Meanwhile, underlying these notions, two
opposite views of the motive of the Incarnation
develope themselves, destined to exercise an influ
ence on the course of later theology which only the
next great epoch in Church history wiU adequately
reveal. We shaU then find the more rigid and
technical notion of satisfaction, aheady adopted
by Wicliffe, assuming a critical importance in the
Lutheran and Calvinistic systems, where the Scotist
view of the Incarnation could have httle meaning ;
while, as that viewgraduaUy spreads among Cathohc
theologians, the broader and nobler idea of sacrifice
predominates within the Church.
Two writers of the fifteenth century may be
briefly noticed in conclusion, who, though foUowing
to a great extent scholastic opinions, can hardly
be reckoned among the Schoolmen, because then
method is entirely different — the Spanish Baymund
of Sabunde, and Cardinal Nicolas of Cusa. The
former has composed a Theologia Naturalis, (which,
I need hardly remind the reader, does not mean
what we understand by Natural Theology), designed

ST. ANSELM AND THE SCHOOLMEN. 217
to exhibit in detaU the conformity of Christian
doctrine with our natural anticipations, and the
eternal fitness of things. His results do not greatly
differ from those of St. Thomas ; but he foUows
the reasoning, and not unfrequently uses the lan
guage, of the Cur Deus Homo, rather than of the
Summa. Man owed to God a natural debt of perfect
obedience, as His creature, and since the FaU he
owes a second debt of satisfaction for sin. Merit
is measured by the person towards whom an act is
done ; and as obedience to God deserved an infinite
recompense, the enjoyment of Himseh, disobedience
incurred an infinite debt. This no man could pay,
being himseh involved in the guilt, and no angel,
who himseh is finite ; God alone can pay what only
man owes, therefore He who pays must be God
and man. To restore man, against the resistance
of his corrupt will, is a greater work than to create
him out of nothing. But aU the requisite con
ditions meet in Christ. His death is necessary,
because that alone He does not owe as man to
God ; but He cannot kiU Himself, and must there
fore suffer at the hands of others, whose sinful life
is rebuked by the unfailing holiness of His teaching
and example, and whom Satan instigates to slay
Him. The merit of His acts is doubly infinite,
both from His own nature and from that of God,
to whom they are offered, but He needs and
can receive no reward for Himseh, and therefore
accepts as His reward our redemption ; and thus
mercy and justice are reconcUed. His death was

218 THE ATONEMENT.
necessary for the satisfaction of sin, and it is
against the wisdom of God for aU mankind to
perish. There is much in this to remind us of
St. Anselm, but the treatment is partly different,
and there is no such stringent statement of the
absolute necessity of satisfaction.*
Nicolas of Cusa has not written a system of
Theology, but he deals with several detached
questions, partly metaphysical, partly theological.
In speaking of the mystery of Christ's death he
dweUs chiefly, hke the Fathers, on His human
nature containing in itself that of aU men, and
thus atoning for aU, as aU are baptized into His
death, and united with Him in His resurrection.
Elsewhere he refers with approval to the Cur Deus
Homo, though somewhat modifying its statements.
But he does not treat the question at length, or
in a systematic way.f
* Bairn, de Sabund. Theol. Nat. Sohsb. 1852, Pars. vi.
pp. 412, sqq.
t Nic. de Cus. Opp. Basil. De Doct. Ignor. iii. pp. 50, 51 ;
Exercit. iii. 418, 419.

CHAPTEB V.
THEOEIES OF THE EEPOEMATION PEEIOD.
We have now reached the period of the Beforma
tion, and it therefore becomes necessary to exhibit
at some length the views of the Atonement put
forward by the various Protestant leaders, in so
far as they are based on an acceptance of the
traditional behef of Christendom about the Person
of our Divine Lord. Where that is rejected, as by
the Socinians and later Bationahsts, the terms for
a comparison are wanting, and we should be led
aside from our proper subject into the wide ques
tion of the hmits and nature of revelation. More
over Socinianism, hke its Arian prototype, has
never been able to construct a theology for itself,
as was sorrowfully confessed not long since by its
greatest representative in this country, whose own
pubhshed Sermons, I may venture to add, suffi
ciently attest its faUure to satisfy such minds as
his.* On the Socinian view, the benefits of
* " I am constrained to say that neither my intellectual
preference nor my moral admiration goes heartily with the
Unitarian heroes, sects, or productions of any age. Ebionites,

220 THE ATONEMENT.
Christ's incarnation are necessarUy limited to His
proclamation of the divine promises, the perfect
example of His life, and stiU more of His death,
and His pure utterance of the moral and spiritual
law ; and they even included in this last His
revelation of the Lord's Prayer, forgetting that it
was at least composed of petitions aheady in use
among the Jews.* His teaching and example
were guaranteed by His death and resurrection,
which also gave a pledge of ours, and He is hence
forth to be adored as a glorified Man, our King
and High Priest in heaven, f But there could be
Arians, Socinians, all seem to me to contrast unfavourably with
their opponents, and to exhibit a type of thought far less worthy,
on the whole, of the true genius of Christianity. I am con
scious that my deepest obligations are in almost every department to
writers not of my own creed. In philosophy I have had to unlearn
most that I had imbibed from my early text books, and the
authors most in favour with them. In Bibhcal interpretation I
derive from Calvin and Whitby the help that fails me in Crell
and Belsham. In devotional literature and rehgious thought I
find nothing of ours that does not pale before Augustine,
Taylor, Pascal. And in the poetry of the Church it is the Latin
or German hymns, or the lines of Charles Wesley or of Keble,
that fasten on my memory and heart, and make all else seem
poor and cold  I cannot help this. I can only say I
I am sure it is no perversity ; and I believe the preference is
founded on reason and nature, and is aheady widely spread
among us." — Bev. J. Martineau's Letter to Macdonald (London,
1859), quoted in Christian Remembrancer, Jan. 1864, pp. 204, 205.
* M. Guizot is less happy than usual, when he says (Medit.
vol. iii. 127); "Non seulement Jesus Christ s'eleve contre les
Scribes et les Pharisiens, qui placent dans ces actes toute leur
foi et leur piete ; il fait plus ; il enseigne a ses disciples la sim
plicity vivante de l'Oraison dominicale." The half clause, " As
we forgive them that trespass against us," is the only one that
may perhaps be new.
f This account of Socinian doctrine is summarised from Mohler's
Symbolism, pt. ii. ch. v. sec. 69 (Bobertson's Translation).
It is notorious that modern Unitarianism has gradually shed its

THEORIES OF THE EEFORMATION PERIOD. 221
no room for a real mediation between man and
God, where there was no real union of the Divine
and human natures in the Person of the Incarnate
Word. The specific objections of Socinus, how
ever, are mainly directed against the moral and
theological aspects of the system originated by
the earher Beformers, as to satisfaction, imputed
righteousness, and justification by faith ; and are,
many of them, perfectly just. We shaU have occa
sion to refer to them again in this connection by
and by.*
It has been aheady observed, that there was
httle of direct controversy raised between Cathohc
and Protestant writers on the doctrine of the
Atonement, as such, nor did any fresh definitions
on the subject emanate from the Council of Trent.
The Tridentine Catechism, though not possessing
direct dogmatic authority, t is universaUy accepted
traditional or quasi-dogmatic elements, till it has lapsed, by a
very inteUigible and indeed inevitable process, into a phase of
opinion indistinguishable from simple theism. Harriet Marti-
neau's Autobiography records the successive stages of this perfectly
legitimate development of Unitarian training in her own case,
down to its deplorable but logical result in undisguised Atheism.
* Socinus' system on the Atonement is to be gathered from
his Pralectiones Theologica, De Jesu Christo Servatore, Brevissima
Institutio Christiana Religionis, and Refutatio Sentent. Vulg. de
Satisfact. Christi.
f When the controversy on grace and freewill (De Auxiliis)
was under discussion before the Boman tribunals, the Jesuits
protested against the Catechismus ad Parochos being appealed
to as having a symbolic character, and their objection was
admitted. Cf. Mohler Symb. Introd. pt. 2. But it possesses
the highest sanction as a Catechetical manual. Cardinal New
man says of it (Apologia, p. 280) ; " I rarely preach a Sermon,
but I go to this beautiful and complete Catechism to get both
my matter and my doctrine,"

222 THE ATONEMENT.
and used in the Church, as containing a clear and
luminous exposition of Christian doctrine on the
Creed, Sacraments, Decalogue, and Lord's Prayer.
In commenting on the fourth article of the Apos
tles' Creed, on which — in accordance with St.
Paul's words — the Christian faith is declared to be
based,* it recounts the " benefits merited for us
by the Passion of Christ," which are summed up
under the four heads of deliverance from sin —
original and actual — and from its penalty, rescue
from the tyranny ofthe devil, reconcUiation.to the
Father, and the opening to us of the kingdom of
heaven. Its efficacy is explained to consist in its
being a full and entire and superabundant satis
faction, offered "after a certain admirable manner"
to the Father, a most acceptable sacrifice to God,
and a redemption from our vain conversation ;
while it also gives us a bright example of patience,
humility, charity, obedience, meekness, and con
stancy even unto death. No definitions are added
of points disputed among the Schoolmen, or stirred
at the Beformation. The expression on which
some of the Reformers so strenuously insisted,
that the death of Christ reconcUed God to us, is
not used at all in the Catechism, which confines
itself to stating, in the language of Scripture, that
He reconciled us to God.f It is further explained
* " Hoc enim articulo veluti fundamento quodam Christiana
religio et fides nititur, eoque posito reliqua omnia recte consti-
tuta sunt." Cat. ad Par. Pars i. Cap 5. Q. 5. Cf. 1. Cor. ii. 2.
t " Patri nos reconciliavit, Eumque nobis placatum et pro-
pitium reddidit." lb. Q. 14. The Augsburgh Confession (Art. 3)

THEORIES OF THE REFORMATION PERIOD. 223
that He was delivered up both by the Father and
by Himself, that His death was voluntary, and
that He suffered in His human nature the ex-
tremest pains both of soul and body, " the Creator
for His own creatures, the Lord for His servants."
For the chief and most detaUed prophecies of the
Bedeemer's Passion we are referred to the Psalms
and to Isaiah, and the special types of it cited from
the Old Testament are the murder of Abel, the
sacrifice of Isaac, the Paschal lamb, and the brazen
serpent lifted up by Moses in the wilderness.
But if no issue was raised on what may be
called the objective side of the doctrine of the
Atonement, its subjective side, in all that concerns
the application of its efficacy to ourselves, or, in
other words, the doctrines of original sin and
justification, formed, I need hardly say, matter of
prolonged and vigorous controversy, and ehcited
from the Council of Trent a fuU and elaborate
statement of doctrine. Part . of the fifth, and the
whole of the sixth Session, was occupied with this
subject. It is here accordingly that we must look
for the speciahties of the Beformed systems, and
it is in this connection, in accordance with their
exclusively subjective spirit, that they treat the
says, " ut reconciharet nobis Patrem," as does also the second
of the Thirty-Nine Articles. On this Bp. Forbes remarks :
" The expression, which is not a Scriptural one, must be taken
metonymice, just as we find human emotions, e.g. repentance
and change of purpose, frequently in the Old Testament attributed
to God. The Scriptural expression is always the other way.
The change is on the part of man." Explan. 39 Art. vol. i,
p. 42.

224 THE ATONEMENT.
Atonement ; but of course differences on the one
point imply differences on the other too.* The
imputation, for instance, of our sins to Christ, and
His righteousness to us, are only opposite sides of
the same idea.f
The two great Confessions inaugurated by Luther
and Calvin are agreed in their rejection of the
Cathohc doctrine on the primitive state of man,
the FaU, justification, and the need of personal
satisfaction for personal sin — which last imphes,
under whatever name, the notion of a purgatory.
But they differ in some respects from each other,
and therefore require separate examination. We
wUl afterwards notice the later Protestant develop
ments, which had their origin, for the most part,
in a recoil from the extreme views of Luther and
Calvin, and manifest, amid many grave errors, a
decided tendency on these points to recur to a
healthier tone. This is shown even in the Socinian
protest against Luther's illogical ascription to faith
of a merit he denies to obedience. J
For understanding rightly the point of departure

* Luther accordingly, in the Smalcaldic articles, classes not
only justifying faith, but redemption, among the doctrines at
issue between Protestantism and " the Papacy, the Devil, and
the world."
t Our view of the Atonement is of course necessarily deter
mined by our view of original sin. It is with perfect consis
tency, therefore, that an able critic of Newman's Apologia in
the Westminster Review for Oct. 1864, after asserting that "man
has undergone no terrible aboriginal calamity," adds that " there
has been  no need for a Sacrifice of Blood."
X Socin. De Jesu Ch: Servatore, iv. 11. " Quasi vero major
dignitas in ista fide, quam in hac obediential reperiatur," et sqq.

THEORIES OF THE REFORMATION PERIOD. 225
of the Beformed systems, it is necessary to indicate
their relations to the Cathohc doctrine on the state
of innocence and the Fall, for here the root of all
further differences wiU be found to he. Coleridge
does not go at all too far, when he says that
"without just and distinct views respecting the
article of Original Sin, it is impossible to under
stand aright any one of the pecuhar doctrines of
Christianity."* I must, therefore, before pro
ceeding further, claim my readers' indulgence for
what I fear they may consider a somewhat dry and
technical exposition of doctrine ; it shall be made as
brief as is consistent with clearness of statement.
That God " made man upright " was agreed on
all hands ; but Catholic theology distinguished
between that integrity of nature, in which Adam
was created after the image of God, with the
body subject to the mind, and aU the inferior
faculties and instincts under perfect control of
the reason, and the gift of supernatural grace
(oiiginalis justitia) superadded as a crown to the
endowments of his unfaUen nature, which raised
him to communion with his Maker, and fitted him
to be the heir of a blessed immortahty. This
gift, called in Scripture the likeness of God, was
held to be bestowed on man at his creation, or
shortly afterwards — a point left open purposely by
the CouncU of Trent — but must in either case

* Aids to Reflection,]). 215 (11 ed. 1866). His own account of
the matter cannot, however, bo considered an adequate or
consistent one, 15

226 THE ATONEMENT.
be carefully distinguished from the perfection of
nature.* By sin man lost this ght of original
righteousness, and marred, though he did not lose,
his natural faculties for good. He was deprived
of his supernatural and wounded in his natural
powers ; or, to adopt the language of BeUarmine,
he lost the simihtude, but retained the image of
God.f Original sin consists, formally, in the loss
of that supernatural gift, materially in the disorder
of his natural faculties which foUowed on its
withdrawal, and, as some maintain, would have
occurred sooner or later, had the gift never been
bestowed. This disorder, or concupiscence, is not
itself sinful, being involuntary, but is certain,
when uncontrolled by grace, to lead men into sin.}

* The later scholastic theology, of which Cajetan and Suarez
may be taken as exponents, distinguishes a state of pura natura
as possible, though never actual, in which our various natural
faculties would exist, but without being duly harmonised ; the
state of integra natura, in which many suppose Adam to have
been actually created and to have awhile remained, where ah
the lower faculties are perfectly under control of the reason,
and the soul is capable of knowing and loving God ; the state
of originalis justitia, to which man was supernaturaUy raised by
grace, either at or after his creation, and whereby he became
holy and pleasing to God ; the state of lapsa natura, in which all
men are born since the FaU, when this gift is lost, and the
natural faculties disordered ; and, lastly, the state of redempta
natura, wherein grace is restored, but the conflict between the
higher and lower faculties (conatpiscentia) remains, making us
liable to sin. See on this whole subject Kuhn's Die chmtliche
Lehre von der gbttlichcn Gnade, Tubingen, 1868. Bp. Bull
defends at length the Catholic doctrine in his Primitive State of
Man, with copious extracts from the Fathers. It is in reference
to this treatise that Card. Newman says (Letter to Pusey, p. 47),
" This is Anglican doctrine as well as Catholic."
| De Grat. Primi Hominis, c. 2.
| James i. 15.

THEORIES OF THE REFORMATION PERIOD. 227
FreewiU was impaired, but not destroyed at the
FaU, and man was therefore able to co-operate
with grace, when offered, but unable of himself to
do any acts pleasing to God and deserving eternal
life. This deprivation of supernatural grace, with
its moral and natural consequences, implying
further the loss of his claim to supernatural beati
tude, our first parent transmitted to his posterity;
but not, of course, his personal guilt, or as was
strangely imagined by the Beformers, any positive
evU quahty. Their inherited condition is variously
described by early writers as one of " apostasy,"
" captivity," " original vice," " corruption,"
"death," and they could only be restored by
the merits of Christ to the state of grace which
Adam had forfeited.* Man cannot merit or obtain
restoration for himseh, but he can and must co
operate freely with the grace of God calling him
to repentance, and this is sometimes termed in
scholastic language " merit of congruity." On his
true repentance he is forgiven, and with remission
of sin the love of God is infused into his heart —
ordinarily through the operation of the sacraments,
— and he is thus not only accounted but made
righteous, and enabled to do works pleasing to
God and deserving eternal life. Justification and
sanctification are different names for the same
thing, accordingly as it is viewed in its origin or
its nature, except that, in ordinary language,
justification is used for the initial act on the part
* Bom. v. 12, 14, 18, 19. 15 *

228 THE ATONEMENT.
of God in a process of which sanctification, in its
fuUest sense, is the graduaUy accomphshed result ;
they stand to each other in the spiritual hfe, as
birth in the natural life to the gradual advance
to maturity. The sinner is justified, not by a bare
acquittal, or by some juridical fiction of a transfer
of Christ's merits, as though they were his own,
but by the ght of inherent righteousness, or in-
dweUing of the Holy Ghost, bestowed (primarily
in baptism) for the merits of Christ. That gift
though not of him is in hin, and he is thereby also
sanctified, not in name but in reahty. Hence aU
merit, properly speaking, is ultimately derived from
that of the Bedeemer, and in crowning our merits
God crowns His own gifts.*
And now let us turn to the Lutheran idea of
the primitive state of man and of original sin,
which shaU be described, as concisely as the case
admits, before we proceed to notice the views of
the Atonement based upon it in the Protestant

* The reader may consult for a fuller account Canones Cone.
Trid. Sess. vi., especially cap. 7 ; Mohler's Symbolism, pt. i.
ch. 1-3 ; and the appendix to Newman's Lectures on Justification
(2nd ed. London, 1840), where the views of several writers, as
well Catholic as Protestant, are given and discussed. See also
Neander, Church Hist. vol. viii. pp. 217, sqq. It is a strange
misapprehension when a modern German writer (Baur, Von
der Versohnung, pp. 350, 351) insists that the Catholic Church
before the Beformation always taught (the Pelagian doctrine
of) an independent and co-ordinate merit of man in the work
of justification. The Church, then as now, taught the
co-operation of the human will in the process, and the reality
of human merit in the works of those already justified,
which are wrought by grace, and therefore arc acceptable to
God.

THEORIES OF THE REFORMATION PERIOD. 229
formularies.* Luther denied the supernatural
character of man's original sanctity, and considered
it part of the essence of human nature, wherein
both the capabihties and the acts of virtue are
implanted by God. It followed, of course, that
there could be no real freedom of wiU, since our
acts are simply God's, and Luther accordingly
asserts this in the strongest terms in his work,
De Servo Arbitrio, expressly sanctioned by the
Formulary of Concord ; so also did Melancthon at
first, though on this, as on other points, he
afterwards recoiled from his master's teaching.
As original righteousness was part of man's nature,
he lost an integral part of his nature at the Fall.
In the strange language of the Augsburg Confession,
he is " born with sin, without fear of God or con
fidence in Him " ; in the language of the Formulary
of Concord, he had lost all, even the shghest,
capacity and aptitude and power in spiritual
things ; he had lost the natural faculty of knowing
* The main authorities for the Lutheran doctrine, besides of
course the writings of Luther himself and the chief Lutheran
divines, are the Augsburg Confession (1530) with Melancthon's
Apologg, Luther's Smalcaldic Articles (1537), the Formulary of
Concord (1577) including the Epitome and Solid Declaration, and
Luther's two Catechisms, called the " Bible of the Laity," to
which may perhaps be added Melancthon's Loci Theologiri, as
containing a clearer and more consistent exposition of Lutheran
tenets than is always to be found in the works of the Beformer
himself. Where no reference is given, my statements of
Lutheran doctrine are derived from these som-ces. Cf. also
Kuhn's Lelire von der gottlkhen Gnade, § 22. It need hardly be
observed, that many of the more repulsive features of the
system have practically dropped out of the religious belief of
those who still profess to accept the Lutheran formularies.
Some evidence of this will be given further on in the volume.

230 THE ATONEMENT.
God, and the will of doing anything whatever
good; he could neither begin, nor operate, nor
co-operate, more than a stock or a stone ; he had
not the smallest spark of spiritual powers, and the
image of God, or the whole spiritual part of his
nature, was utterly obliterated. These statements,
and they might be multiphed indefinitely, seem
strong enough, but this is not all. For that
positive part of his nature which man had lost
there was substituted a positive quality of sin, what
ever that may mean. Sin, according to Luther,
is of the essence of man. Original sin, transmitted
from father to son, is not, as the Church taught,
the loss of supernatural grace with the consequent
disorder of natural faculties ; it is not even simply
the loss of an integral portion of human nature ; it
is something born of father and mother — the clay
of which we were formed is damnable, the foetus
in the womb is sin, man with his whole nature
and essence is not only a sinner but sin. Such
are the expressions of Luther, endorsed by Quen-
stedt. Melancthon and the Formulary are equaUy
exphcit. Man receives from his parents a con
genital evil force, a native impulse to sin ; there
is substituted in the place of the image of God
an " intimate, most evU, most profound, inscrut
able, ineffable corruption of our whole nature,
and all its powers," which is implanted in the
intellect, heart, and will ; man is whoUy evil.
Actual sin is not distinct from original, but is one
phase of it, for original sin is an " actual corrupt

THEORIES OF THE REFORMATION PERIOD. 231
cupidity." Concupiscence is not simply the result of
disordered faculties, but a positive evU quahty, and
is itself sin.
The results of this view, as regards the whole
condition of the Heathen world, and the gradual
preparation of mankind for the Incarnation —
that Divine " dispensation of Paganism," as it
has been termed — on which both Scripture and
the Fathers, especially St. Clement of Alexandria,
so strongly insist, contradict of course alike the
witness of history and the instincts of our moral
nature.* And these consequences are openly
proclaimed. The kingdoms of this world have
become the kingdom of the Devil and his angels.
Heathen virtues are scarcely even " splendid
vices." Melancthon caUs them " shadows of
virtues " ; he says that aU men's works and all
their endeavours are sins, that the constancy of
Socrates, the chastity of Xenocrates, the tem
perance of Zeno, are vices : and with perfect
consistency he denounces the study of Aristotle
and Plato. Luther himseh says that men's works,
however specious and good they may appear, are
* Thus e.g. Justin Martyr (Dial. c. 2) calls philosophy
" indeed a very great possession, and most honourable to God."
Clement of Alexandria calls it " a divine gift bestowed on the
•Greeks" ; " especially given to the Greeks by God, as a covenant
peculiar to them" ; " given by Divine Providence as a preparatory
discipline for the perfection which is by Christ." Strom. 1, 2;
vi. 8, 17. And he speaks of Plato in the well-known passage
of the Republic cited above (supra, p. 91) as " all but predicting
the economy of Salvation," i.e. the Incarnation. Strpm. v. 14.
Origen again speaks of " the knowledge of truth coming by
Divine revelation to the Greek sages." In Rom. i. 16.

232 THE ATONEMENT.
probably mortal sins, and that the works of the just
would be mortal sins, unless they so regarded
them themselves from fear of God.* Calvin
clenches the matter by observing that from man's
corrupted nature comes only what is damnable, f
That Luther and his associates were laudably
desirous to exhibit the depth of human sin and
Divine compassion, and that they failed adequately
to appreciate the real drift of their teaching, I am
quite ready to beheve. But we cannot wonder if
the inteUect and conscience of mankind, in its
recoU from so horrible and repulsive a system, was
tempted into the opposite extreme of denying the
very existence of original sin. It is obvious what
bearing the Lutheran view of it must have on the
doctrine of justification. Man cannot co-operate,
for he has no free-will, and no natural faculties for
good ; the whole work must be something external
to himself. And so it is. Terrified by the preach
ing of a law he is powerless to obey, he hstens
to and grasps at the merits of Christ, whom he
apprehends by faith (that is by a " fiduciary appre
hension," as Gerhard expresses it), and thus he is
justified. His repentance, such as it is, is founded
on fear, not on love. Obedience, indeed, and
sanctification ought to foUow, but justification is

* " Opera hominum ut semper speciosa sint, bonaque
videantur, probabile tamen est ea esse peccata mortalia 
justorum opera essent mortalia, nisi pro Dei timore ab ipsismet
justis ut peccata timerentur." — Heidelberg Propositions, 1519,
quoted in Hallam's Introd. to lAt. of Europe, vol. i. p. 299.
f Calvin. Inst. ii. 8.

THEORIES OF THE REFORMATION PERIOD. 233
distinct from these results and independent of
them. Justification, according to the Formulary,
is simply acquittal from sin and its eternal penalties
" on account of the righteousness of Christ, which
is [not imparted but] imputed to faith," and that,
whUe by reason of their corrupt nature men stiU
remain sinners ; for original sin is not extirpated;
but only weakened in the regenerate, being part of
then nature, and concupiscence, even when resisted,
is itself sin. The justified do so much good and
for so long only as the Spirit of God impels them.
It is admitted in words, that men may resist the
Spirit, though they cannot co-operate ; but the
distinction is unmeaning, for God draws aU and
only those whom He intends to convert. From
this view of original sin and justification the
Lutheran view of the Atonement is a logical
sequence, and it has been already in part antici
pated. That righteousness of Christ, which of
mere grace is imputed to the behever, is described
in the Formulary, as " the obedience, Passion, and
resurrection of Christ, whereby he satisfied the
law for us, and expiated our sins." On account of
this whole obedience in act and suffering, and
through faith (fiducia), God remits our sins, accounts
us (reputal) just, and rewards us with eternal hfe.
For this the Incarnation of Christ was required,
because His Divinity alone could not discharge
the office of Mediator, nor could humanity alone
satisfy the eternal and immutable justice of God.
The absolute necessity of an infinite satisfaction

234 THE ATONEMENT.
for an infinite debt was borrowed from St. Anselm's
system, but in many points the Lutherans both
exceeded and changed it. They derived from
Catholic tradition the infinite value of the Be
deemer's acts through the communicatio idiomatum,]
and the value of his obedience as weU as His
death ; but this last idea received in thei hands,
as we have seen, a starthng but very characteristic
development. The obedience of Christ was the
substitute for ours. According to Chemnitz (one of
the compUers of the Formulary so often quoted),
God could not and would not pardon us without
the intervention of some real righteousness ; but
this it is impossible, on Lutheran principles, for
man himself to offer, and therefore "the law is
transferred to the Mediator." f Quenstedt is even
more exphcit, when he says that Christ made
satisfaction for sinners in two ways, by fulfilling
the law in their place, and by enduring the curse
and penalty of the law. It was not, as had often
been taught before, that His obedience was an
acceptable sacrifice to God, and gave its meaning
and efficacy to His death, but that it was accepted by
God instead of ours, which, with a nature so hope-
* There was, however, a certain difference here. • Catholic
theology teaches that our Lord is Mediator, as the God-Man,
but by virtue of acts done in His human nature only ; the
Lutherans made Him Mediator by virtue of both natures ; while
Stancarus said He was Mediator only as Man, a view which
Bellarmine justly censured as Nestorian. Cf. Pet. De
Incarn. xii. 8, 4. See also Bellarm. Disp. torn. i. De Christo v. 1.
t " Facta igitur est translatio legis in Mediatorem." Chem.
Loci 'I'hcolog. ii. 818. Cf. Thomasius, Dogmat. de Obed. Christi
Actirtt Hist., Eiiang. 1846.

THEORIES OF THE REFORMATION PERIOD. 235
lessly corrupted, we could never pay ourselves.
His death was now, moreover, for the first time
viewed as a vicarious punishment, inflicted by the
Father on Him instead of on us. He was punished
and accursed of God, in our place. Quenstedt
maintains, against the Schoolmen, that for God to
pardon us without satisfaction is against His nature,
His veracity, His sanctity, and His justice ; yet he
explains that, " by a certain kind of relaxation of
the law," another person is substituted for the
debtor.* In other words, though it is matter of
indispensable justice to punish the sin, it is imma
terial whether or not the punishment be endured
by the sinner. It was but the natural and logical
inference from this strange notion of vicarious
substituted punishment, that Christ endured in His
Passion the pains of Hell ; and this blasphemous
coroUary is distinctly put forward by. Quenstedt,
Gerhard, and Calvin, as a necessary part of the
idea of satisfaction. Well might BeUarmine caU
it a new and unheard-of heresy ! f It is not too
* Quenstedt, Theol. Didact. Polem. (Wittemberg, 1669),
pp. 327, 351, 354.
t Frank, a modern Lutheran divine, in a tract, De Satisfact.
Christi. (Erlangen, 1859), argues against this inference. But cf.
Quenst. ut supra, p. 354 ; Gerhard Loci Theol. xvii. 2, 54 ;
Calvin. Inst. Rel. Chr. ii. 16, 10 ; Bellarm. De Christo, iv. 8.
Mr. Campbell, after quoting the above passage (Nature of Atone
ment, p. 408), observes that the language (of St. Anselm) about
Christ paying a debt to the Divine justice, and the earlier
(patristic) idea of a ransom paid to Satan, had prepared the
way for this revolting doctrine of the Beformers. No doubt
such notions may have helped to suggest the inference to them,
but both Fathers and Schoolmen would have shrunk from it
with horror ; and, while St. Anselm's theory never obtained
general acceptance, the notion of a ransom to Satan had long

236 THE ATONEMENT.
much to say that the Lutheran view of the Atone
ment, with whatever occasional simUarities of
language, is a complete innovation in ah its
essential points on that previously held, and in a
sense directly calculated to discredit the whole
doctrine in the eye both of reason and rehgion.*
Dr. Pusey very justly observes that " the Lutheran
and the Cathohc belief are as like two different
religions as any can be, wherein the behef as to
the adorable Trinity and the Incarnation is the
same. The whole doctrine of the apphcation of
the merits of Christ to faUen man, and the condi
tion of man in consequence of the FaU, is radicaUy
different." f

since passed away. Moreover, it is the very characteristic of
heresy to base itself on an exaggerated or distorted presentation
of the truth.
* It does not fall within the province of this Inquiry to
compare Luther's doctrine with St. Paul's, on which it was
professedly founded. Some striking points of contrast between
the Apostle's and the Beformer's way of looking at the matter
will be found in the Dissertation, " On Bighteousness by Faith,"
in Jowett's Epistles of St. Paul (London, Murray, 1855), vol. ii.
pp. 446, 447. I may be pardoned for adding, that the author
seems to have somewhat misconceived the Catholic doctrine of
justification, which he, rather oddly, sums up in the formula of
" justification by works." See also Newman's Lectures on Justifi
cation, pp. 386, 387. Mr. Campbell's account of the teaching
of Luther (Nature of Atonement, ch. ii.) appears to me a highly
idealized one. His extracts from the Commentary on the Galatians
either fail to bring out with sufficient distinctness, or omit
altogether, the most characteristic, and, I may add, most
offensive, features of the Lutheran system. For some further
remarks on this point, I must refer to the Preface. Cf. a
learned work on the Pauline doctrine of justification by Canon
Cholmondeley, The Passage of the Four TAP, Williams and
Nor gate.
|- See Introductory Essay by Bev. E. B. Pusey D.D. to
Essays on the Reunion of Christendom (London, Hayes) p. lvii.

THEORIES OF THE REFORMATION PERIOD. 237
Calvin, who in some points was greatly Luther's
inferior, was his superior in learning and in clear
ness of mind; and, accordingly, the system he
founded has for the most part a rigid logical
coherence, in which the Lutheran is conspicuously
deficient. We have seen that absolute predestina
tion was reaUy involved in Luther's denial of
In a subsequent passage (pp. lxxii. sqq.), well worth the atten
tion of their Anglican apologists, the learned author exposes the
absurdity of claiming for the Lutheran Swedish Episcopate —
what they have too much sense to claim for themselves — the
grace of Apostolic succession. It is shown in the first place
from their form of ordination — which may be conferred by " deans "
as well as " bishops " — that they have abolished both the
diaconate and priesthood, and substituted in their place "the
holy office of preacher," and this of itself would settle the question,
as those alone are capable of receiving the episcopal character
who are already priests. But it is further shown that the form
of episcopal consecration, or rather admission to " the office of
bishop in N. diocese " — which is bestowed, avowedly, not by
Divine authority, but by virtue of commission from "the con
gregation " and " the king " — is not less glaringly invalid than it
is foolish, heretical, and profane. It is true that copes and some
other externals of the old Pontifical are retained, as the mass
vestments are retained in their Communion Service, though
there is no consecration of the elements. But the full rite of the
Boman Pontifical, administered by real bishops to one who had
not first been ordained priest, would be an empty form. The
Swedish Lutherans have as much claim to a true priesthood and
hierarchy as the Scotch Presbyterians, or the English Methodists,
and no more. Whether Petrus Magni, or Bothrid were or
were not consecrated three centuries ago — of which, however,
no decisive evidence seems to be producible — matters little,
when it is clear that the forms used from that day to this are
absolutely invalid. For further information on the funda
mentally heretical character of the Swedish doctrine and ritual,
and the utter nullity of the ordinal, see an article in Christian
Remembrancer for April 1847, vol. xiii. on the " Swedish Church."
Dr. Pusey is clearly right in thinking that nothing could more
fatally compromise the claim made by the Church of England
to a valid succession, 01 her prospects of re-union, than any
attempt on her part to fraternise with the heretical pseudo-
episcopate of Sweden,

238 THE ATONEMENT.
free-will, but he shrunk from pressing this inference,
and his followers expressly repudiated it ; nor is it
ever fair to make a writer responsible even for a
logical inference from his principles, which he
disclaims. Calvin, however, with more consistency
asserted the irresistible efficacy of grace, and the
absolute predestination of the elect, with its inevit
able correlative, the absolute reprobation of aU
who are not elect. From this it foUows, even if
denied in words, that God is the Author of sin.
Calvin expressly maintains, that man commits sin
"by the just impulse of God," and that the faU
was not simply foreseen, but predestined by Him.
Beza adds, that He created certain men in order
that they may be the instruments of sin, and
Zwingle defends this horrible doctrine on the
ground that, as the law is not made for the just,
God is above law, and therefore breaks none in
causing men or angels to transgress, as when he
was the author of David's adultery.* The object
and justification of this predestining of evh is,
that He may manifest His mercy in the gratuitous
salvation of the elect, His justice in the damnation
of the reprobate. But the wilfulness of Adam's
sin is maintained, as in the Lutheran system/by
the distinction (which in this case is certainly
without a difference) between necessity and coac-
tion. Calvin however, approaches more nearly

* Calvin. Inst. iv. 18, 2, ; iii. 24, 3 ; Beza Aphor. 22 ; Absters,
Calumn, lies/i. contr, Calvin; Zwingl. De Prta: 5,

THEORIES OF THE REFORMATION PERIOD. 239
than Luther to Cathohc language, if not to Catholic
behef, about original sin. The Divine image in
man, though grievously deformed, was not utterly
destroyed by sin ; some sparks of religious know
ledge survived among the Heathen, but then this
is perversely said to be allowed in order that they
might not have the excuse of ignorance, and might
be condemned out of their own mouth. The wUl
had a certain, though very subordinate, part in
the work of regeneration, and the beginnings of
repentance were due rather to the preaching of
the Gospel than the terrors of the law. In this'
point, again, Calvin's teaching is an improvement
on that of the earher Beformer. Both kinds of
conversion find their prototype in Scripture, but
the comparison is not in favour of the Lutheran
view. There are two forms that hover in an agony
of repentance round the closing scenes of the
Bedeemer's earthly ministry ; one represents the
remorse of terror, the other the contrition of
love. Both repented, but both were not forgiven.
Ere the blood of Judas was dry on the field of
Aceldama, the soul of the pardoned robber was
sun-flushed with the brightness of the uncreated
Vision, and sphered within the emerald of the
rainbow that circles the everlasting throne.
If we except his predestinarian doctrine, that
Christ died only for the elect, and the subjective
assurance of salvation, on which he insists more
consistently than Luther, Calvin's language on the
Atonement comes much nearer on tbe whole than

240 THE ATONEMENT.
Luther's to that of Cathohc theology. The value
of Christ's death is derived, with St. Bernard, from
its voluntary character. The new ideas of a sub
stituted obedience and punishment are, however,
retained in their fulness, and Calvin seems to
regard the condemnation and execution of Christ
by a regular legal tribunal as essential for this
end. He expressly asserts, that our obligation of
punishment and the curse of sin were transferred to
the Son of God, and does not, as we have aheady
seen, shrink from the terrible consequence of this
view, that He suffered in His descent into HeU
the actual torments of the damned.* On the
other hand, Calvin denies the absolute necessity
of the Incarnation, but regards it as the best
method for restoring fallen man, and even main
tains that, if we had never faUen^ the mediation
of the God-Man would have been needed to
bring us into intimate communion with God and
make us His chUdren. He, moreover, in his
treatise on the Sacraments, ascribes a life-giving

* Calvin Inst. i. 15, 4 ; 12, 18; ii. 3, 6 ; 16, 5. " Hsec nostra
absolutio est quod in caput Filii Dei translatus est reatus qui
nos tenebat pcense obnoxios  Peccati vim abolebat Pater,
cum in Ghristi carnem translate) est ejus maledictio." lb. ii. 16, 6, 7.
Cf. ii. 16, 10. For the logical connection between the theory of
literal substitution and the Calvinist notion, that Christ died
only for the elect, because it would be unjust that any whose
punishment He really endured should be themselves punished,
see Campbell's Nature of the Atonement, ch. iii. It appears from
an extract given (p. 58) that Edwards taught explicitly, in the
last century, that our Lord "underwent the pains of HeU";
but the opinion has been suffered to drop out of later Calvinist
theology.

THEORIES OF THE REFORMATION PERIOD. 241
power to the flesh of Christ, not only as having
suffered for us once, but as still infusing hfe,
derived from the fountain of Godhead, into those
who are engrafted in His mystical body. This
is said partly in connection with the Eucharist, on
which Calvin held a much higher behef than
Zwingle's. And he even admits, in one passage,
when replying to Osiander, who taught a higher
doctrine than his own, that "we participate in
the righteousness of Christ, not by an external
imputation, but because we put on Christ, and are
inserted into His body, and He has vouchsafed
to make us one with Himself."* So far, then,
Calvin's system is a reaction in the Cathohc direc
tion. With his distinctive theory of absolute
predestination we are not further concerned here.
It may suffice to observe that, in not shrinking
from the full statement of what it imphes, he
shows more consistency, let me add more rever
ence also, than do those who put forward one side
of the doctrine, while seeking through some paltry
trick of language to veil its naked deformity by
concealing the other. But this is all that can be
said for him. The more thoroughly the dogma
itself is realised, the more clearly will it be seen to
be subversive of the first principles of morahty, and
therefore imphcitly of theism. It has, indeed, been
modified, in some later Calvinist systems, by the
* l~b. ii. 12, 1 ; iii. 11, 10. Defens. Orth. Doct. de Scccram.
Opp. t. viii. p. 658. Hallam observes (Lit. of Europe, vol. i.
p. 300) that " the Calvinistic Churches generally make a better
show in this respect," of morality, than the Lutheran. 16

242 THE ATONEMENT.
admission that Christ died— objectively so to say
— for all men. But as His death is only supposed
to profit those who are predisposed to receive its
benefits by the sovereign grace of God, which is
confined to the elect, the distinction is practically
without a difference.
A writer whose name has just been mentioned,
Osiander, deserves a passing notice here. Though
himself a professed Lutheran, and not the founder
of any new system or sect, he was one of the first
to protest against Luther's characteristic tenet,
that justification means, not " reaUy and truly to
make just, but only to account and pronounce a
man just," which he calls a forensic and sophis
tical theory, contrary to Scripture and verging on
blasphemy. For this the strict Lutherans accused
him of tramphng under foot the Passion and death
and precious Blood of Christ. He says expressly
that God justifies by imparting to us His righteous
ness.* After making due allowance for some con
fusion, both of language and thought, it seems
most probable that he meant by the substantial
indwelling of Christ's Divine nature something
different from the Cathohc doctrine, as being a
righteousness imputed and external to us (though
in a different sense to Luther's) and not an actual
renewal of our nature, making us righteous. StiU
his protest against the Lutheran error of con-
* Conf. Andr. Osiandri. Begiomonte, Prussise, 1551,
pp. 42, 189 ; Theses de Jmtif. 120. There is some difference
between DoUinger (Die Reforniation) and Mohler in their way of
understanding him,

THEORIES OF THE REFORMATION PERIOD. 243
founding justification with redemption, and its
antinomian results, is important. In a separate
treatise, specially devoted to the inquiry whether
the Son of God would have been incarnated, if
there had been no sin, he adopts and defends at
length, on Scriptural grounds, the Scotist opinion,
and insists that the predestined Humanity of
Christ was the image on which ours was formed.*
Another Lutheran divine, Karg of Ansbach, about
ten years later, protested against the doctrine of
vicarious obedience to the law, but afterwards
retracted. At the close of the century, John
Piscator elaborately discussed and condemned the
notion, making justification consist simply in the
remission of sin for the sake of Christ's sufferings,
after which the imperfect obedience of the regene
rate is accepted, and its imperfections condoned
through the Blood of Christ, as long as it is
sincere. f His views, however, were vehemently
opposed among the Beformed, and the tenet he
rejected found a place in the Formula Consensus
Helvetica of 1675.
The treatise of Grotius on the Satisfaction of
Christ, written early in the seventeenth century
against Socinus, deserves a more extended notice,
both from the author's high reputation and from

* An Filius Dei fuerit incarnandus si peccatum non introivisset in
mundum? Monteregio, Prussise, 1550.
t John Piscat. Thes. Theol. Herborn, 1618. For a similar
recoil from Lutheran doctrine in the English theology of the
seventeenth century, see Excursus vii. " On Baxter's View of
Imputation," 16 *

244 THE ATONEMENT.
his having struck out a theory of his own on the
subject. It will be convenient, therefore, to
reserve it for separate examination further on.
MeanwhUe we may glance at the teaching of the
principal sects which branched off from the original
Lutheran or Calvinistic stock, so far as it bears
on the Atonement ; and, as their systems were
partly shaped by historical circumstances, it will
be best to take them in chronological order.
The earhest organised protest against the new
doctrine of justification came from the Anabaptists,
who insisted on the necessity of good works ; and
this, as Justus Menius truly enough observed, in a
Befutation published with a preface by Luther, is
inconsistent with the doctrine that faith alone saves.
It was only, however, in then second stage, as
" Mennonites,"* that the community can be said to
have had any definite creed. ' In a Confession, drawn
up in 1580, original sin and justification are
described in language substantiahy accordant with
that of the Council of Trent ; free-will is expressly
affirmed to have survived the FaU, and justification
is ascribed to the " effusion or infusion " of real righ
teousness through Christ by the co-operation of the
Holy Ghost, while justifying faith is said to be that
which works by charity, the fides formata of Cathohc,
as opposed to the fides informis of Lutheran theology.
* So called from Menno Simonis, a Catholic Priest of Fries-
land, who joined the sect in 1586. I need scarcely remind the
reader, that they must not be confounded with the English
" Baptists," who came into existence as a distinct community
in 1688.

THEORIES OF THE REFORMATION PERIOD. 245
The next great movement among the Beformed
was a still more direct and vehement recoU from
received opinions, confounding in an indiscriminate
hatred the original Christian dogma with the newer
glosses which had been put upon it. If Luther
maintained, in his Commentary on the Galatians, that
Christ only accidentaUy discharged the office of a
Teacher and Law-giver, that the blindness of
Papists alone had fashioned out of the Gospel " a
law of love," and that so far from coming to
authenticate the moral law the Saviour came to
abolish it, Socinus woild hardly admit any object
of the Incarnation but that of instruction and
example ; if Luther's ubiquitarian theory absorbed
the Humanity into the Divinity of Christ, Socinus
rejected His Divinity altogether; if original sin
was interpreted by the Beformed in a sense which
outraged alike the verdict of history and of
common sense, its very existence was, with equal
disregard to facts, denied by their new opponents.
No place was aUowed to the human wiU in the
Lutheran scheme of justification, therefore no
room is left for Divine grace in the Socinian ; the
Wittemberg theologians could scarcely endure
the very name of reason, and their Itahan assaU-
ants were almost as intolerant of faith. It has
already been remarked, that their conception of
Christ's Mediatorial office was necessarily moulded
on their humanitarian conception of His Person,
and falls therefore beyond the scope of this treatise.
That they approximated moro closely than their

246 The atonement.
predecessors among the Beformed to some detahs
of Catholic behef is true, but their denial of a
false supernaturalism was, in fact, ultimately based
on a negation of the whole principle, though it of
course took time for the seminal ideas of the system
to attain fuU development.
Yery different in character was the almost
simultaneous revolt against Calvinistic orthodoxy
named from Arminius, a theological Professor at
Leyden, who died in 1609. On the whole question
of justification, Arminianism was reaUy though
not professedly httle else than a simple recurrence
to Cathohc doctrine.* Efficacious grace was said
to be determined by its voluntary acceptance, not
by its intrinsic nature, and the notion of irresistible
grace, however explained, was absolutely rejected.
But the Arminians taught, almost in the very
language of the Council of Trent, that Divine
grace must prevent, accompany, and complete
every good work.f The views of Grotius, the
chief ornamemt of that body, will be examined
presently. Two other writers may be noticed here,
Curcelkeus, and Limborch.| Both agree in insist
ing chiefly on the death of Christ as a sacrifice,
which is a different idea from the payment of a
* Accordingly the Caroline school of divines in England were
frequently stigmatized by their Puritan opponents as Arminians.
t See the Confessio sire Declaratio Pastorum. Herdervici,
1622-24. It is an indication of their theological tendencies, that
Grotius at the time of his death had it in contemplation to
become a Catholic.
J Cureell. Inst. Rel. Christ. Amsterdam, 1675 ; Limborch
Theol. Christ. Amsterdam, 1730.

Theories of the reformation period. 24?
debt ; they deny that Christ in any sense endured,
as the Lutherans taught, eternal death and the
wrath of God. If He had strictly and fuUy suffered
the punishment of our sins, our pardon would be
matter not of mercy but of justice; CurceUseus
adds that, if His satisfaction, righteousness, and
sanctity are imputed to us, there is no further
ground for our observing the moral law, nor can
God justly demand either faith or obedience from
us. The efficacy of the sacrifice offered for the
sins of aU mankind is ascribed by Limborch to the
wiU of God in freely accepting it for that end, and
to the dignity of the Person who offered it. The
imputation of His righteousness can in no other
sense be true than that God, for His sake, is pleased
to accept our imperfect obedience as though it
were perfect, for He cannot regard us as other than
we reaUy are. The Lutheran antithesis of faith
and works is unmeaning ; both alike are in one
sense our own, in another sense the gift of God.
The object of faith is not simply the Atonement,
but the whole Person and office of Christ, Prophet,
Priest, and King. There is a double protest in
these writers, against the extravagances of Beformed
doctrine, and the Socinian negations to which they
had given birth.
The next system calling for notice here is that
of the Quakers, founded in this country, about the
middle of the seventeenth century, by George Fox.
Bobert Barclay is their great theologian.* This
* Bob. Barclay, Theologitevere Christiana: Apologia. Lond.1729.

248 the atonement.
scheme of doctrine is directly opposed to historical
Christianity, but, unlike most of the Protestant
Confessions, is remarkable for its internal cohe
rence. We may regard it as the natural term in a
series of mystical developments, provoked by the
exoteric and unspiritual nature of the Lutheran
scheme of justification, which began with Schwenk-
feld and Wiegel, and found a more distinct
utterance in the writings of Jacob Bohme. WhUe
discarding all technical terminology not sanctioned
by the language of Scripture, the Quakers taught
that a " seed of sin " was transmitted from Adam
to aU his posterity, though only imputed to those
who have actuaUy sinned. The remedy is to be
sought in the " inward hght " or grace emanating
from Christ, the Light that hghtens every man,
and this is offered to aU but forced on none ; for
Calvin's doctrine of predestination is declared to
be most injurious to God, and to make Him the
Author of sin. This " objective revelation,"
whereby God speaks to every man, does not super
sede Scripture, but is superior to it, and constitutes
the primary source of knowledge and rule of faith.
The inward light is also the source of regeneration ;
and here the Quakers, in fact, touch on the confines
of Cathohc doctrine. The Lutheran denial of the
necessity of good works is explicitly condemned ;
justification is described as the formation of Christ
in us, producing righteousness and holiness, and
this is its formal cause. The merit of good works
is asserted and vindicated, and the obligations of

THEORIES OF THE REFORMATION PERIOD. 249
the moral law are insisted upon. Justification and
sanctification are practically identified, as in the
Catholic system. And, although as time went on,
a Docetic tendency to ignore or depreciate the
historical manifestation of Christ not unnaturally
developed itself in the teaching of his followers,
Barclay himself distinctly ascribes justification to
" the sacrifice and propitiation " of our Lord. But
their extreme dislike of all theological dogma and
repudiation of sacraments combined with other
elements of the system to induce a disparagement,
leading ultimately to a denial, of objective
Christianity altogether.*
The last, and in some respects most remarkable,
of these organized protests against the principles
of the original Beformers was inaugurated, in the
eighteenth century, by Emmanuel Swedenborg, the
* It may be remembered that Tom Paine was brought up a
Quaker, and what he himself teUs us, in the first Part of the
Age of Reason, would alone suffice to prove how largely he was
indebted to his earlier training for the conclusions, both religious
and political, at which he ultimately arrived. The exclusive
reliance on " the inward light " and contemptuous rejection of
all external authority, which are characteristic of the Quaker
system, reappear in the first principles he starts from ; " My
own mind is my own Church " ; "It is a contradiction in terms
to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second hand,
either verbaUy or in writing." He further tells us how, from
the time he was capable of thinking, he " either doubted the
truth of the Christian system or thought it to be a strange
affair " ; and how, at seven or eight years old, having heard a
sermon read on redemption by the death of the Son of God,
he forthwith " revolted at the recollection of it." He adds,
what is quite intelligible, that he considers " the religion that
approaches the nearest of all others to true Deism is that pro
fessed by the Quakers," only he thinks it too gloomy and
severe.

250 THE ATONEMENT.
son of a Swedish Lutheran bishop. His profound
hostility to the Protestant notion of justification,
as subversive of morality and most pernicious to
all Christian life, may be said to have given its
distinctive character and aim to the peculiar
system of belief he founded, which is stUl professed
by some few of our own countrymen.* This is
not the place to enter on a general examination
of his theology, but I may observe that in its
ulterior developments it has exploded almost every
distinctive tenet of the Christian faith, t A
prophet who claimed to. derive his message by
direct revelation and visions from on high —
and of Swedenborg's sincerity there cannot be a
shadow of reasonable doubt — was not hkely to be
careful about conforming its contents to the
traditional behefs of Christendom, least of aU
* See True Christian Religion, containing the Universal Theology
ofthe New Church. By E. Swedenborg. London, 1819.
t An Expository work by a Mr. Noble was lent me some
years ago by a member of the sect, in which I found every
article of the Apostles' Creed, except the first, directly or
indirectly denied. The correctness of the account of Sweden-
borgian doctrine given here has been called in question by the
Bev. A. Clissold, with whom I had a correspondence on the
subject in the Guardian, between Aug. 24 and Nov. 22, 1865,
to which the reader may be referred. So far, however, from
shaking my previous estimate of the doctrine, his letters have in
every respect confirmed it ; and I found fresh corroboration in
the perusal of his own work on the End of the Church, where he
expressly says, moreover, (p. 80) that from the Council of Nice
downwards there has prevailed " under the semblance of a
Catholic apostolicity a Catholic Apostasy." There is no lack,
however, of English works on Swedenborg and his teaching,
and those who doubt the accuracy of my statements can easily
Verify them. Mr. Clissold has defended his own view in a work
of four volumes, entitled The S2'iritiutl Exposition of the
Apocalypse,

THEORIES OF THE REFORMATION PERIOD. 25l
when the first impulse to his supposed inspirations
arose from internal revulsion against the behef
in which he had been brought "up. His vision of
the various states of Purgatorial or more hopeless
suffering, in which the principal Beformers were
expiating their erroneous teaching on predestina
tion or justification by faith alone, indicates the
ruling idea which shaped his whole theology.*
Like Socinus, he had a laudable desire to puU up
the tares, and even more completely than Socinus
he succeeded in rooting up wheat and tares to
gether. Thinking, oddly enough, that the Lutheran
notion of faith apart from morality was grounded
upon the doctrine of the Trinity, and took its
origin at the Council of Nice, he replaced it by
one not materiaUy differing from SabeUianism.
Perceiving again, and rightly, that the new theory
of justification introduced by the Beformers was
based on their pecuhar estimate of original sin,
he denied the Fall of man altogether. A new
motive was found for the Incarnation in the
rebelhon of the apostate Angels, and redemption
consisted in " reducing the HeUs into subjection,"
and thus bestowing renewal on the earthly Church.
While, however, Swedenborg attributes no special
* Luther was in a more hopeful state than others, as having
originally belonged to a Church which exalts charity above faith,
and never having been able altogether to divest himself of his
early creed. Becollections of classical mythology seem to have
exercised some influence over Swedenborg, who was a man of
wide and varied information. Thus e.g. Melancthon was con
stantly employed in writing the words, " Faith alone saves,"
which were as constantly erased by an unseen hand.

252 THE ATONEMENT.
efficacy to the death of Christ, he insists on the
Incarnation as the proper and only means of
bringing men into communion with the Deity,
using on this point language very like that of
Cardinal Cusa and other Catholic divines. Hence
his view of justification is also very hke the
Catholic. It is represented as identical with
sanctification, and as a renewal of the whole inner
man. But he confounds the belief in the meri
torious sacrifice of Christ with the Lutheran
doctrine of imputation, which was fastened on it,
and maintains that both alike came in with the
Nicene definition of the Trinity, whereas the
former, as we have seen, existed from the first,
and the latter was scarcely heard of before the
sixteenth century. In Swedenborg the recoil
from a dry and technical theory of satisfaction
reaches its culminating point; and the wide ac
ceptance, for a time, of his fanatical claim to be
the inspired restorer of primitive Christianity,
proves how deep a wound had been inflicted by
some of its modern exponents on the reason and
conscience of mankind.
And now it is time to revert to the treatise of
Grotius on Satisfaction, already mentioned.* He
was, as we have seen, an Arminian, and with
strong Catholic leanings, but he must not of
course be taken as a safe interpreter of Catholic
belief, nor must we be blinded by bis zeal for
* Defcmio Fid. Cathol. de Satisfactionc Christi, 1617 (Hug.
Grot. 6pp. Theol. iv. BasUese, 1782).

THEORIES OF THE REFORMATION PERIOD. 253
Trinitarian orthodoxy to the very questionable
nature of his theory of the Atonement and of
the arguments by which he supports it. His book
was answered by the Socinian CreUius (the writer
against whom Petavius' third book on the Trinity
is directed) and defended at length, in a work
called the Triumph of the Cross, by Essenius, who
reproduces his conclusions and expands with
perverse ingenuity the most objectionable parts of
his reasoning.* Before making any comments, it
wiU be convenient to give a brief analysis of
Grotius' treatise, which is written with all the
perspicuity and subtilty of a legal mind, and dis
plays, as might be expected from its authorship,
extensive research, both in sacred and secular
literature. Grotius begins by laying down, as the Catholic
opinion, that God, wishing to benefit mankind but
being hindered by their sins, which deserved
punishment, determined that Christ should pay
the penalty for our sins, by willingly enduring the
bitterest torments and a bloody death, in order
that without prejudice to the exhibition of Divine justice
(salvd divinai justitia demonstration) we might through
faith be delivered from the penalty of eternal
death. The reader will take note, that the words
I have itahcized contain the gist of the whole
theory. In the first chapter, adopting the Aris
totelian division of causes, the author lays down
* Triumphus Crucis, sive Fides Cathol. de Satisfact. Christi,
Amstelod. 1749.

254 THE ATONEMENT.
as the efficient cause of satisfaction, first God the
Father who gave His Son, and secondly Christ
who gave Himself for us. The material cause
consists in the sufferings of Christ, both of soul
and body, especially of soul, preceding death, and
still more in His actual death. The formal cause
is tbe payment of the penalty for our sins, which
are expressly said to be imputed to Christ. Grotius,
therefore, translates and explains Isaiah's prophecy
in accordance with the Hebrew text, of the
" chastisement " of our peace being laid upon Him —
not the "discipline," as the Fathers had taken it
— and insists, also against patristic tradition, that
in saying He was made a curse for us, St. Paul
means that he was accursed of God.* God
punished, and Christ endured the punishment.
The final cause of redemption is, on God's side, the
exhibition of Divine justice, on ours, the remission
of sin, that is of punishment ; and by justice is
not to be understood the righteousness or hohness
of God, which is imputed to us, but His retributive
justice, which is displayed in the punishment of
sin. To these four causes Grotius adds, as the
motive cause, on the one hand the love of God and
Christ for man, on the other our sins which
deserved punishment. The four grounds (or final
causes) alleged by Socinus for the death of Christ
— to bear witness to His teaching, to win the right
of pardoning us, to show an example of patience
* Cf. supra., p. 121,

THEORIES OF THE REFORMATION PERIOD. 255
and obedience, and to ehcit our faith — are not only
rejected as inadequate (as they are) but almost, as
in the Lutheran theology, excluded altogether.
The second chapter of the treatise is devoted to
proving that God punishes or releases from punish
ment, which last Scripture calls to justify,* not as
the Creditor or the Person offended, but as the
Buler of the world ; for the offended party, as
such, has no right to demand punishment but only
compensation for the offence. Punishment belongs
to the ruler for the good of the community, not
for his own sake, even when the crime is against
himself, or for that of the person injured. The
third chapter explains, that God's act in pardoning
us is not an abrogation or interpretation of the
sentence of death pronounced on sin at the
beginning,! but a relaxation or dispensation of it,
as regards certain persons, namely, behevers. All
positive law is, in its own nature, dispensable, nor
are penal laws an exception ; but they should not
be dispensed without grave cause, or the authority
of law generally would be impaired. A two-fold
cause existed here, for without relaxation of the
law of death both man's worship of God and the
evidence of God's mercy to man would have
utterly perished. In the fourth chapter the
question is asked, whether Christ's being punished
for our sins was unjust ? It cannot be unjust in
* The reader will observe the Lutheran idea again cropping
out. t Gen. ii. 17.

256 THE ATONEMENT.
itself for God to visit His most innocent Son with
the bitterest torments and death, because He
did so. Neither is it unjust in itself, that the
innocent should be punished for the guilty, of
which there are abundant examples in nature, in
history, and in human law, as when children suffer
for their parents', subjects for their rulers' sin.*
It is essential to justice, that piinishment should
be inflicted on sin, but not that it should faU on
the sinner, at least where there is some natural or
moral connection between the culprit and the
victim, as between father and son, sovereign and
people, surety and chent.
In the fifth chapter, which is the most important
of all for understanding his view, Grotius inquires
whether there was sufficient cause for God to
punish Christ, or, in other words, how it could
benefit us ? For God's wishing to pardon us, the
cause was His own goodness ; the question is about
the method. This is expressly shown, by the
testimony of several Fathers, not to have been
necessary. Other ways of delivering man were
possible, but this was the most convenient, because
the authority of the moral law and the order of
things would have been endangered, had God let
off the sinner without some conspicuous example of
the real deserts of sin. That the example does not
take place in the person of the sinner is immaterial.
According to jurists, the most perfect method of
* Essenius has an elaborate chapter expanding this argument
in detail.

THEORIES OF THE REFORMATION PERIOD. 257
relaxing a law is where there is some compensation
or commutation, and this may be a commutation,
not only of punishment, but of persons punished.
Thereby also God showed His special love towards
us, inasmuch as it was not a matter of indifference
to Him (a$id<popov) to punish or not to punish sin.
It is shown in the sixth chapter, that God intended
to punish Christ, for He had never granted or
promised pardon on any other condition. He
therefore made Christ to become sin, and a curse.
The nature of satisfaction is then explained, as
being not an actual payment — for that ipso facto
releases the debtor from all further obligation — but
a payment requiring a voluntary intervention on
the ruler's part (solutio recusabilis) to relax the law
and remit the penalty, because it is not a payment
of the very thing owed — which in this case was
our eternal death — but of something else. The
ruler does not receive anything, for there is nothing
to receive, but he agrees on the payment of a
oertain penal satisfaction to remit aU punishment
for the future.
The last four chapters of the treatise are occupied
with the death of Christ, considered as a recon
ciliation or propitiation, a redemption, a substitution,
and an expiation. It not only reconciles us to
God but God to us, which is stated to be the same
thing, by turning away His wrath from us. It is a
redemption, because our release from eternal
punishment was purchased by it ; and even texts
which expressly speak of our being redeemed from
17

258 THE ATONEMENT.
iniquity are pressed into the writer's service in this
sense, while he goes out of his way to deny that
they mean, what they certainly say, that we are
redeemed from the bondage of sin.* He adds, that
the punishment or death of Christ was substituted
for ours. It is an expiation, as being an antecedent
act required on God's part for the remission of
punishment. Such, then, is the great jurist's defence of the
Catholic Faith, or rather of his own, on the
Atonement. In his zeal against Socinianism, he
has reproduced some of the worst features of the
Lutheran and Calvinistic systems, which helped to
create it. The idea of justification, as a mere
remission of punishment, the shocking notion of a
literal imputation of our sins to Christ, with its
immoral correlative of an imputation of His holiness
to us, reappears at least in words, t But in its
main characteristics Grotius' theory is his own, as
are also the arguments by which he supports it.
And of these something must now be said.
The first point to strike a reader of the treatise
is its thoroughly abstract and juristic manner of
handling the question. Such a view could only
have occurred to a mind habituaUy versed in the
technicalities of legal hair-splitting. It is rather
the device of a special pleader, who has taken a
* Tit. ii. 14 ; 1 Pet. i. 18. These are the only passages in
the Epistles where the verb Xvrp6u> is used. It occurs once
elsewhere in the N. T. in Luke xxiv. 21,
t This view is however expressly disclaimed by Grotius in his
later writings,

THEORIES OF THE REFORMATION PERIOD. 259
brief for the Atonement, than the judgment of a
theologian. Yet even so, and allowing for the
charm of an exercise of controversial ingenuity,
one can scarcely conceive its having satisfied so
clear and capacious an inteUect. Were it simply
suggested as a fiction of the law, we might reply
with the legal maxim, Summum jus summa injuria.
But, if it means anything more, what shaU we say ?
The Anselmic notion, that pardon was impossible
without the payment of an infinite equivalent for
an infinite debt, however untenable, is at least so
far inteUigible and consistent. It supphes an
adequate motive for the Incarnation and the Cross.
But Grotius denies that an equivalent was either
required or paid. His rationale of the death of
Christ is one which shocks both our reason and
our religious instinct. It was not fitting that God
should let us off, so to speak, without some terrible
example of His righteous indignation against aU
manner of iniquity ; but whether or not the
punishment took effect on the sinner was in
different, so long as it was clearly understood to be
the punishment of sin.* The spectacle on Calvary
was a grand dramatic exhibition of God's retribu
tive justice, and having thus pubhcly vindicated
the authority of His law, He consented to remit
aU further penalties of disobedience. Yet surely,
if a conspicuous example was needed to deter men
* This is very much the notion of " rectoral justice," which
CampbeU justly censures in recent Calvinist theology. See
Suture of Atonement, ch. iv. 17 *

260 THE ATONEMENT.
from sin for the future — and it could have no other
object — not only was there no ground for selecting
an innocent victim, but it was absolutely essential
that punishment should faU on the guilty ; the
greater the criminal the more forcibly would the
lesson be conveyed. Least of aU was the Incarna^
tion of a Divine Person requisite, that the Father
might teach us the heinousness of our iniquities
by visiting their merited chastisement on His
sinless Son ;* the Socinian account of that mystery
would fuUy satisfy aU the requirements of the case.
It is true, indeed, that the Crucifixion of Jesus
revealed, as nothing else could reveal it, the
exceeding sinfulness of sin, but that is quite
another thing from saying, with Grotius, that He
was punished and accursed for our warning by the
vindictive justice of God. There is no attempt to
account for His being chosen as the Victim beyond
the passing remark, in the fifth chapter, that He
had a special aptitude, from the dignity of His
Person and His intimate union with us, to be made
a conspicuous ' example ; surely the more perfect
His innocence, the more conspicuous, on this view,
the example of injustice. I pass over the purely
exoteric character of the whole theory, which
reduces the Incarnation and the Passion to a
thrilling scene in the drama of the world's hisjiory,

* This weakness of the theory was pointed out by later
writers among the Lutherans who attacked it. See Buddseus
Instit. Theol. 1725 ; Pfaff, Examen lib. Grot, de Satisf. 1758 ; and
the jurist Ulrich Huber, quoted by Buddasus.

THEORIES OF THE REFORMATION PERIOD. 261
and recognises no real communion between the
Second Adam and the members of His Body, from
His flesh and from His bones, no link between
His death and their redemption, but that the
condemned criminal is bidden to gaze on the
punishment of the Just as the condition of being
spared his own.
But if the theory itself is starthng, the line of
argument it is supported by is more startling still.
In this world the innocent often suffer for the
guilty, children bear the burden of their fathers',
subjects of their rulers' sin ; nay, it frequently
happens, in the execution of justice, that good and
bad are punished together, or the good instead of
the bad ; therefore, while the law must visit crime,
it need not touch the criminal ! But does not
Christian instinct, to say nothing of Scripture,
teach us that these inequahties of earth wUl be
rectified by unerring wisdom in the world beyond
the grave ? or, rather, are not those very in
equahties a confirmation of our belief in the
new heavens and new earth, wherein dweUeth
righteousness ? Such seeming difficulties, which
from the days of Job have tortured the philosopher,
and sometimes disquieted the Saint, run up at last
into the one insoluble riddle of all metaphysics
and all theology, the origin of evil. When once
the existence of evil is accepted as a fact, though
its original permission cannot be explained, they
cease to be difficulties, and are felt to be a tem
porary and incidental interruption of the perfect

262 THE ATONEMENT.
order of the universe, introduced by sin. They
have also then bearings on the sacrifice of Christ,
as has been observed in a former chapter. But it
is quite a different matter when the experience of
human history — delirant regis, plccluntur Achivi — is
c nverted into an original principle of Divine
governance, and it is gravely inferred that, because,
under the present dispensation, God for wise ends
permits the righteous to suffer for the guUty, He
punishes them for others' sins.* To the bitter cry of
humanity, "What hope of answer or redress?"
we have hitherto been content to reply, " Behind
the veU, behind the veil." But to argue from the
manifold chastisements entailed by the wickedness
or follies of parents on coming generations, or of
sovereigns on a whole people, or again from the
necessary or culpable imperfections of human law,
or the blindness or prejudice or corruption of those
who administer it, as though such things were not
an abnormal exception, tolerated for a while by

* It is one thing to say, with Butler (Analogy, pt. h. ch. 5),
that vicarious sufferings in this world are an answer to objec
tions drawn from the fact of the innocent Victim suffering for
the guilty (cf. supra, ch. 1) ; quite another to say that God
judicially punishes the innocent for the guilty, which is Grotius's
argument. In the one case the Atonement is aUowed to have in
fact involved the suffering of the innocent for the giulty, in the
other its essence is made to consist in vicarious and penal
suffering. Butler, on the contrary, expressly insists on the
distinction that " the sufferings of Christ were voluntary." As
Cardinal Newman says, "It is the law, or the permission, given to
our whole race, to use the Apostle's words, to ' bear one another's
burdens ' ; and this is quite consistent with his antithesis that
' every one must bear his own burden.' " Grammar of Assent,
p. 400.

THEORIES OF THE REFORMATION PERIOD. 263
God, because of sin, but the rule of His Providence
and measure of His, attributes, is to cut at the roots
of human morahty and of trust in a higher than
human Justice. It is to say in effect that, because
evil exists, it must be eternal, and to make God,
if not its Author, its Accomplice. Of all the
strange notions that at various times have darkened
the revelation of Calvary, it would be hard perhaps
to find any more strange than this, which elimi
nates from the greatest fact in history aU real
significance, while it dares to interpose between
man and God a fiction of misdirected vengeance.
Grotius appends to his treatise a long hst of
extracts from the Fathers, which certainly, what
ever else they may contain, do not contain the
theory he has invented.
Before we close this chapter, one more writer,
of the early part of the eighteenth century, may
be mentioned, both as exhibiting the most pro
nounced antithesis, within the bosom of the
Lutheran Church, to the theological system of its
founder, and as being the last Lutheran divine of
any note who can properly be said to belong to tbe
epoch of the Beformation. Towards the middle of
that century, a wholly new movement of rehgious
thought commences with the appearance of the
Wolfenbiittel Fragments and other pubhcations of
Lessing,* the quasi-rationalistic theology of Semler,

* Lessing (Werke, vol. x. p. 322) explains the Atonement to
mean that the moral law was given by God frr the discipline of

264 THE ATONEMENT.
and the philosophy of Kant. From thenceforth
the contest in Germany was between the assailants
and the champions of the traditional Protestant
orthodoxy. The latter for the most part adopted,
with modifications, Grotius' manner of explaining
the Atonement, as is done by Michaehs, SeUer,
and Storr, while the leading writers on the opposite
side more or less openly repudiated its historical
truth and significance. Into that controversy it
would be beyond the scope of this treatise to enter,
nor could it be done to any purpose without a
discussion of tbe principal schools of later German
philosophy, as those of Kant, Hegel, and Schelhng.*
There is one other writer, however, who may fairly
be included in our review of the various phases of
Beformation doctrine on the work of Christ. John
Dippel, the Christian Democritus as he was caUed
comes before the commencement of the Bational-
istic period, and, whUe standing on the professed
ground of Lutheran orthodoxy,'* represents the

man, the imperfections of his obedience being condoned in
regard of the absolute perfection of the Son.
* For some account of the successive Bationalist schools of
German theology, the reader may be referred to Farrar's
Bampton Lectures, On the History of Free Thought, led. vi. and vii.
with the Notes. In his essay " On Atonement and Satisfaction,"
Prof. Jowett notices the theories of some of these writers, such
as Kant, Schleiermacher, Hegel, and Schelling, but he under
states the divergence in observing that " it cannot be said that
the views of any of them agree with the teaching of the
patristic or mediaeval Church, or of the Beformers, or of the
simpler expressions of Scripture." St. Pauls Epistles, vol. ii.
p. 582. They, in fact, proceed on principles which have no
relation at all to historical Christianity.

THEORIES OF THE REFORMATION PERIOD. 265
widest departure from the original standard of
Lutheran behef.*
The Bedeemer, he observes, is not only a High-
Priest, to reconcUe His people through prayer and
sacrifice; He is also a Prophet, to instruct the
fallen in the way of righteousness, and a King, to
break the chains 'of the realms of darkness and set
free the creature from the power of sin. His work
of mediation, as the Second Adam, is not complete
tiU aU this is accomphshed in the soul of the
redeemed. God is Love, and has ever loved us ;
it is we who need to be reconcUed to Him, not He
to us. And this reconcihation cannot be effected
by a mere external fiction of imputed righteousness,
but only through the real implanting of a righteous
principle within us by the hfe-giving Spirit, whom
Christ bestows, and by whose aid we overcome sin.
Punishment is either the natural consequence of
sin, or is inflicted by God for the disciphne and
correction of the sinner, and in either case is a
dispensation of His love. Spiritual death can as
httle be separated from sin as warmth from fire,
for sin is itself a conversion to the creature and a
turning away from our chief Good. HeU, there
fore, is no arbitrary creation of God, but the
inevitable result of sin ; sin means separation
from God, and that separation is spiritual death.
From this Christ sets us free, not by a mere
judicial acquittal, but by releasing us from the
* See Erdfneter Weg xum Friedcn. Amsterdam, 1706 ; Vera
Demomtratio Evangelica, 1729.

266 THE ATONEMENT.
power of sin. From corrective chastisement He
has not released us, but has taught us how to bear
it ; for by such chastisements alone, with the
assistance of indweUing grace, can the affections
of tbe great multitude of men be withdrawn from
earthly things and from their inherent concupi
scence. We are therefore placed under a discipline
of love for our renewal and sanctification. Neither
Heathen, nor even Jewish, sacrifices are properly
types of the Sacrifice of Christ, nor were they so
designed by God, though the latter are so explained
"by accommodation" in the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Lastly, Dippel rejects as blasphemous the Lutheran
notion, that Christ endured the actual curse and
punishment of God, which must in fact imply that
He shared the actual sin.
It is obvious how far even professed Lutherans
had by this time drifted from their master's
teaching, for the most part in a reactionary direc
tion, towards the creed it was intended to supplant.
In our own day there is scarcely one even of
those reputed strictly orthodox theologians who
reaUy adheres to the teaching of the Lutheran
formularies. *
It is not necessary to introduce here any
* DoUinger gives a list of 42 modern German divines — which
he says could easily be enlarged — who have more or less openly
abandoned the Lutheran doctrine of justification, as laid down
in the Formulary of Concord. It includes such names as
Olshausen, Neander, Bothe, andDorner. See The Church and the
Churclies, Eng. Tr. p. 295. Sclmeckenburger said in 1855 that
only one theologian was left (Petri) who adhered to the old
doctrine. lb. p. 294.

THEORIES OF THE REFORMATION PERIOD. 267
lengthened notice of English divines of the six
teenth and seventeenth centuries, partly as being
better known, partly because they have not
originated any special theory on the Atonement
itself, whUe on its application to us, or the doctrine
of Justification, their opinions inchne more or less,
according to individual bias, in a Cathohc or
Lutheran direction. Nor do the more eminent of
them insist on any particular view of justification,
with the exception of Hooker who, in his Sermon
on the subject, not only lays down an extreme
doctrine of imputation, but implies that to deny it
is to " pervert the truth of Christ," and " gainsay
the very ground of apostohc faith "; yet his opinion
stops considerably short of Luther's, and in the
very same discourse he says that Lutheran teaching
is damnable, and by imphcation " overthrows the
very foundation of faith." It may be added that
the Sermon on Justification was among his earher
writings, and was not pubhshed during his hfetime.
The Atonement is scarcely touched upon in the
famous exposition of the patristic doctrine of the
Incarnation in the fifth book of the Ecclesiastical
Polity, which however has the following passage on
the question of its necessity ; " The world's
salvation was, without the Incarnation of the Son
of God, a thing impossible, not simply impossible, but
impossible it being pre-supposed that the will of
God was no otherwise to have it saved than by the
death of His own Son." So also Pearson, in
expounding the fourth article of the Creed, which

268 THE ATONEMENT.
he does in much the same manner as the Triden
tine Catechism, though at greater length, contents
himself with observing; " Salvation is impossible
unto sinners without remission of sin; and
remission in the decree of God impossible without
effusion of blood." Butler, the great ornament of
Anglican theology at a later date, whUe defending,
in the fifth chapter of the Analogy, the doctrine of
Christ's mediation and Atonement against current
infidel objections, expressly disclaims any idea of
speculating on the abstract necessity of Atone
ment, or of attempting to explain the manner
of its efficacy. He considers that " Scripture
has left this matter of the satisfaction .of Christ
mysterious, left somewhat in it unrevealed,"
and that accordingly " all conjectures about
it must be, if not evidently absurd, at least
uncertain." The well-known work of Archbishop Magee, on
the Scriptural Doctrine of Atonement and Sacrifice, like
many others, is mainly directed against Unitarian
objections. He enters at great length into the
universality and Divine origin of the institution of
animal sacrifice and the belief in its expiatory
virtue, tracing it from the time of Abel. But his
argument is drawn in great measure, hke Butler's,
from natural analogies, and, with Butler, while
insisting on the fact of the Atonement, he dis
claims speculations on the reason or manner of its
efficacy, viewing it as a means ordained by God,
not as the cause of His forgiveness. The notion

THEORIES OF THE REFORMATION PERIOD. 269
of the necessity of an infinite Victim for an
infinite sin he indignantly repudiates, treating
it as an Unitarian misrepresentation. His
work, though displaying considerable learning
on many detaUed points, can hardly be said
to throw much new hght on the subject as a
whole. Far deeper, though less systematic, and by no
means free from his habitual obscurity, is Cole
ridge's treatment of the subject.* He declines,
however, to inquire into what he caUs " the
causative act," or " operative cause," " of redemp
tion " — that is, the atonement in relation to God —
not at aU as denying its existent reality, but
because he regards it as " a spiritual and transcen
dent mystery that passeth ah understanding."
And this seems hardly consistent with his summary
rejection of the idea of satisfaction, which has
always in some form found a place in the traditional
teaching of the Church on the Atonement. The
efficacy of redemption in relation to man — that
is, justification— is the point dwelt upon. And
this he makes to consist in our renewal or being
born again, which is expressed in many diffe
rent forms in the New Testament. It is often
difficult to grasp his precise meaning, but the
* Aids to Reflection, pp. 262 sqq. Coleridge's view is given in
a clearer form, if the analysis of it may be accepted as correct,
in Shairp's Studies in Philosophy and Poetry, than in his own
words. For a strongly adverse criticism of his treatment of the
whole subject of Original Sin and the Atonement, see Note XII,
in Mozley's Predestination.

270 THE ATONEMENT.
general tenor of what he says on this aspect of
the question is in substantial accord with the
Catholic doctrine of justification rather than the
Lutheran.

CHAPTEB VI.
LATER CATHOLIC THEOLOGY.
The Atonement did not, as has been before
remarked, become a subject of direct controversy
at the Beformation, nor has it, except in some few
instances in Germany to be noticed presently, been
distinctively handled by later Cathohc theologians.
For the most part they either follow the patristic
method, as Thomassin and Petavius, or, more
generally, the Scholastic, adopting either the
Thomist or Scotist system under various modi
fications. Among Thomists may be reckoned
Suarez, Vasquez, Gregory de Valentia, Dominic a
Soto, and Tournely ; among Scotists, Medina,
De Lugo, Frassen, and Henno. All alike introduce
the doctrine as falling under that of the Incarnation.
Petavius, out of sixteen books on the Incarnation,
devotes one chapter only to the satisfaction and
three to the priesthood of Christ. Thomassin
gives half of one book to His satisfaction and the
whole of the next to His priesthood, which,
however, includes an exposition of the doctrine

272 THE ATONEMENT.
of the Eucharist. To examine these writers in
detail would be to go over again the ground we
have already traversed. But one or two specimens
shall be given both of the scientific and devotional
treatment of the subject during the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries ; and, as the Parisian
Sorbonne was at that time the great theological
school of the Church, they shaU be taken from the
works of French divines, most of whom were
among its professors.
And first we may notice a famous controversy
carried on in France between two of the most
distinguished writers of the seventeenth century.
Among the many questions, philosophical and
theological, on which Malebranche and Arnauld
were opposed to each other, one was that so often
aUuded to in these pages, on the motive of the
Incarnation.* In his Treatise on Nature and Grace,
the great Oratorian maintains that Jesus Christ,
though His birth among men occurred in the
fulness of time, is, in the eternal counsels, the
Beginning of the ways of God, the Firstborn of
all creation, and the predestined Model whereon
our humanity was formed after the image of His.
The Word and Wisdom of God, foreseeing among
aU possible creatures none other that was worthy,
offered Himself, to estabhsh as Sovereign Priest
an everlasting worship in honour of His Father
and to present a victim deserving of His acceptance.
* See Malebranche, Traiti de la Nature et de la Grace; Arnauld
replied in his Reflexions Philosophiques et Theologiques.

LATER CATHOLIC THEOLOGY. 273
The world was created for the sake of the Church,
that is of Christ who is its Head, and man was
formed after the image of Christ to be the ornament
of this visible temple. So far Malebranche said
no more than had often been said before him.
But he goes on to observe, that it was requisite
for the fulfilment of this design that man should
be subject on earth not only to trials and afflictions,
but to the movements of concupiscence, in order
to iUustrate the victories of grace ; and that the
sin of the first man was necessary, because for
making the elect merit that glory which shall
be one day theirs, no means could be comparable
to leaving them for a while immersed in sin (de les
laisser tons envelopper dans le peche, pour leur faire
a tous misevicorde en Jesus Christ), inasmuch as the
glory they acquire by resisting concupiscence
through the grace of Christ is greater than any
other. This need not, and perhaps did not not,
mean more than St. Paul's statement, that God
has concluded all under sin, or in unbelief, that
He may have mercy upon all;* or than the
somewhat poetical exclamation of the Boman
ritual, 0 certe necessarium Ada peccatum quod Christi
movie deletum est. Indeed Malebranche seems to
have moulded his language on such expressions
as these. Still he certainly laid himself open
to the retort, which was actually made, that
on this theory the Fall was not simply permitted
* Eom. xi. 82 ; Gal. iii. 22. 18

274 THE ATONEMENT.
but predestined by God, and that "humanity was
sacrificed for Christ, not Christ for humanity."
Arnauld, however, by no means contented himseh
with objecting to this part of his opponent's
system. He appealed to the authority of Aquinas
— which is of course on his side — against the
Scotist idea of the Incarnation, as independent
of the FaU ; and, with less prudence, asserted in
reliance on Thomassin — what is unquestionably
incorrect — that the Fathers are unanimous in
making the decree of the Incarnation depend on
the prevision of sin. It was not to be expected
that theologians, whose characteristic principle it
was to grudge the universahty of redemption,
should appreciate what must have appeared to
them the very superfluous charity of assuming
a nature which did not need to be redeemed.
And Arnauld, highly as we may and must respect
him as a man and a writer, was, unhappUy, deeply
imbued with the theological idiosyncracies of his
school. He seems on some points to have had
the better of his antagonist, whose antipathy to
the Jansenistic scheme of predestination did not
preserve him from starting another theory, on the
relations of graoe to the human Soul of Christ,
equaUy arbitrary and in its results equally
objectionable.* But, on the whole, we may fairly
* Some account of the controversy may be found in Sainte
Beuve's Port Royal (Paris, 1859), torn. v. ch. 6. The author
seems, strangely enough, to imagine that Malebranche first
invented the idea of the Incarnation being predestined indepen
dently of the purpose of redemption.

LATER CATHOLIC THEOLOGY. 275
consider Malebranche as representing in this
dispute the patristic and Catholic tradition, while
the great champion of Jansenism, hke the
Lutherans and Calvinists before him, adopts the
narrower system which had found : favour with
some of the Schoolmen, and which till of late
has generaUy prevaUed in the more orthodox
Protestant theology.
Tournely, the latest of the great writers men
tioned at the beginning of the chapter, hved
in the last century. He was a vigorous, not to
say bitter, controversialist. On the doctrines of
grace he was vehemently opposed to Thomist
opinions, but he adopts the Thomist view of the
atonement in its extremest form, treating the
question throughout, hke Grotius, in reference
to the Socinians.* Indeed he candidly informs
us that, out of the many opinions debated among
Cathohc divines, he has chosen that which
appeared to him best adapted "for repressing
Socinian impiety." With the great multitude of
theologians, he denies any antecedent necessity
for the Incarnation, either in itself or assuming
the creation or the faU of man. But on the
hypothesis of the restoration of faUen man, while
admitting in words that by the extraordinary
power of God we might have been saved without
condign satisfaction, he yet insists that by the
ordinary power of God this was impossible ; and
* Honoratus Tqurnely, Prelect, Theol. de Incarn. Verbi Divini.
Parisiis, 1727, 18 *

276 THE ATONEMENT.
the ordinary power is explained to mean the laws
of Divine justice, which are part of the Divine
Nature. And, as he also agrees with the Thomists
that there could be no condign satisfaction except
that of Christ, we may regard him as accepting
practicaUy the Anselmic view of an absolute
necessity for the Incarnation, assuming the
restoration of fallen man. He maintains, with
Grotius, that the punishment of Christ was
strictly and literally substituted for ours, and
that he endured the vindictive justice of God
in our place, though not, as Lutherans inferred,
the torments of the damned. It follows of course
that it was not a matter of mercy, but of strict
justice, on God's part to accept the satisfaction
offered for us, and that He could not do otherwise.
Under the term satisfaction, Tournely comprehends
the payment of a debt, the appeasing of Divine
wrath, and the expiation of the liabilities of sin.
Le Grand, a disciple and continuator of Tournely,
foUows on the whole his master's teaching, and,
hke him, directs his argument mainly against the
Socinians. But in simplicity of method, modera
tion of tone, and absence of controversial asperity,
his Treatise on the Incarnation* contrasts very favour
ably with Tournely's Pvalections, and in some
important points their conclusions are different.
Moreover, Le Grand is always very careful, which
Tournely is not, to distinguish between his own
* Tractatus de Incarn. Verb. Vivini. Parisiis, 1750.

LATER CATHOLIC THEOLOGY. 277
opinions and the doctrine of the Church. He not
only rejects any absolute necessity for the Incarna
tion, either antecedently or after the Fall, but adds
that fallen man might have been otherwise restored,
though there could not have been any other
condign satisfaction, nor could God have otherwise
" expressed his vindictive justice " ; but then it
was not necessary to express it, for, while it gives
Him the right to punish sin, it only binds Him not
to pardon the sinner without true repentance.
The Incarnation was therefore, as. the Fathers had
taught, not the only but the fittest method of
redemption. Le Grand accepts the Thomist view
of its motive as the most probable ; satisfaction he
defines, with Tournely, as "the voluntary ren
dering of equivalent honour and reverence out of
what is one's own, and not otherwise owed, to
compensate an injury done to another " ; adding,
that all these conditions were fulfilled in the
satisfaction of Christ, which was not only equiva
lent but superabundant and such as God was bound
in strict justice to accept. But he is careful to
explain that all which the Cathohc faith requires
us to hold is, that it was such as God could fittingly
accept for the sins of men. Le Grand admits
pointedly, what Grotius had almost seemed inclined
to deny, that the grounds assigned by Socinians
for the death of Christ are true and valid, as far as
they go, though inadequate ; and he answers their
objection about the innocent suffering for the
guilty, not altogether satisfactorily, but an a very

278 THE ATONEMENT.
different manner from the ingenious special
pleading of the great jurist. WhUe insisting on
the fact, as ascertained from Scripture, that it was
not God's will to remit sin without atonement, he
confesses that his explanations of it are httle more
than conjectural, and that there are causes of the
mystery which in this life we cannot hope to
discover. It is probable that both these writers
Were largely influenced in their particular way of
looking at the question — clearly Tournely was —
by the exigencies of the Socinian controversy, as
Was also the case with some Enghsh divines such
as StiUingfleet. Yet any dispute about the office
and work of the Bedeemer was in fact beside the
mark in dealing with those who rejected His
Divinity. The root of the difference lay deeper.
One later specimen shaU be adduced, also from
a professor of the Sorbonne, of the theological
treatment of the subject.* Bobbe, the author of
a Treatise on the Mystery of the Incarnate Word, after
successively repudiating Wicliffe's notion of an
absolute a priori necessity for the Incarnation,
Baymund LuUy's of a necessity assuming the FaU,
and that of the Calvinists (borrowed from St.
Anselm) of a necessity assuming the restoration of
fallen man, decides, against Scotus, that it was
necessary for condign satisfaction, because no other
could be equivalent or ex alias indebitis. He adds,
against the Socinians, that it was a true and
* Tractatus de Mysterio Verbi Incarnati, auctore J. M. Bobbe,
Parisiis, 1762.

LATER CATHOLIC THEOLOGY. 279
proper satisfaction. Nor was it only sufficient but
superabundant. Any act of Christ, or any single
drop of His Blood, would have been sufficient for our
redemption, from the dignity of His Person, but
not efficient unless He had so designed it. The
sacrifice was really offered ad altcrum, because
offered to the whole Trinity. The author further
argues, against Vasquez, Medina, and others, that
it was ex propriis and ex alias indebitis, because acts
belong to the person, not the nature of the agent.
Under this last head the question is asked, whether
the satisfaction of Christ required any agreement
on God's part to accept it, or whether He was
bound as a matter of justice to do so ? The
necessity of an agreement is denied by St. Bona
venture, Scotus, and others (among whom must be
reckoned Tournely), but affirmed by Suarez, whose
opinion Bobbe adopts, considering it clear from
Scripture (Heb. x.) that there was in fact such an
agreement, and thinking further that it was
requisite, because the offending parties might have
been fairly caUed on to make satisfaction them
selves. Christ was our Head by arrangement
(pacto) and not, like the first Adam, by nature. He
satisfied in strict justice, inasmuch as His satis
faction was adequate and more than adequate, but
to accept it for us was a matter not of justice but
of mercy.
And now let us take two exampleSj from the
same century, of the hortatory and devotional
rather than scientific treatment of the subject,

280 THE ATONEMENT.
which for that very reason wiU be in one sense a
surer test of the habitual manner of looking at it.
They wUl be found, like the theological treatises of
Petavius and Thomassin, to bear out the remark
made in an earlier chapter, that, Avhile the
scholastic formula of satisfaction was retained as
one method of expressing the mystery of atone
ment, the idea of sacrifice was that most pre
dominant in Cathohc teaching and devotion.
In illustration of this we may refer, in the first
place, to a Treatise on the Pviestliood and Sacrifice of
Jesus Christ, in four books, by Leonard de Massiot,
a French Benedictine of the learned Congregation
of St. Maur.* The author begins by tracing out
the idea and obligation of sacrifice, as the supreme
act of homage to God, and as including, since the
introduction of sin into the world, an additional
character of reparation ; and shows how both the
interior and exterior sacrifice are most perfectly
realised in Christ. The second book deals with
the sacrifice and priesthood of Christ, in its unity,
perpetuity, and continuation in the Eucharist.
The whole mystical Body is offered with Him on
the Cross, which is the common altar of all
mankind. In the third book the effects of His
sacrifice are considered, under the classification of
satisfaction, merit, overcoming the power of sin
and Satan, and confounding pride by humility.
The last half of the book is occupied with the
* Traite du Sara-doer ct du Sacriiicc tic Jesus ( 'hrist. Par L. de
Massiot. Poitiers, 1708.

LATER CATHOLIC THEOLOGY. 281
treatment of the Eucharist, as an abiding memo
rial of the benefits wrought by Christ, a sacrifice
of praise and thanksgiving, a mystery of unity, a
sign of the union of the faithful, and a mystery of
faith. The fourth book, which is much the longest,
continues in detail the consideration of the priest
hood of Christ, as communicated to His Church in
the Eucharist. To return to the chapter on
satisfaction. The writer relies chiefly on St.
Anselm's argument for the impossibility of man
making satisfaction for himseh, and on Aquinas for
the sufficiency of that wrought by Christ, as giving
to God something more pleasing than what He had
lost by sin, owing to the charity with which Christ
endured the pains of His passion, the excellence
of His life, and the dignity of His Person. His
voluntary temporal death, it is added, was of far
greater value than our eternal death could be.
Our personal satisfactions are not superseded by
His, but must be united with it.
Not very different is the treatment of the subject
by a later author, Plowden, who, though an
Englishman, was a resident in, France and, hke
Massiot, wrote his Treatise on the Sacrifice of Jesus
Christ in French.* While rejecting the notion of
any absolute necessity, he dweUs on the congruity
of a satisfaction and reparation being made for
the disorder caused by sin, either by aU men in
common, or by some representative of the race.
He proceeds to discuss the quahties and conditions
* Traite du Sacrifice de Jesus Christ. Paris, 1778.

282 THE ATONEMENT.
essential for a mediator, who must not only be able
to pardon sin but to infuse holiness. These con
ditions can only be found united in the God-Man.
It was fitting, again, that He should accomplish
His work by sacrifice, which is the highest of all
acts of satisfaction, though any, the least, inter
cession of His would have been sufficient, from its
infinite value. The effects of His sacrifice are
three-fold ; to reconcile or reunite us with God, to
unite us with each other by charity, and to incor
porate us into the mystical body, which He offered
up with His natural Body on the Cross. Plowden's
work is divided into five parts. The first examines
the pre-announcement of the great Sacrifice in the
written and unwritten law, the Jewish and Heathen
rituals. The second exhibits the perfect fulfilment
of the sacrificial idea in the hfe and death of
Christ. In the third is considered its perpetuation,
for communicating its effects to us, in the Mass,
considered chiefly as the centre of Christian
worship. The fourth part insists on the repro
duction of the idea in all members of the mystical
body through self-sacrifice and imitation of the
virtues of their Head, while the fifth carries on the
idea to its final consummation in the offering up of
the entire body of the elect reunited with their
Head in heaven. Of the three last parts no more
need be said here. In the first, the interior sacri
fice of the heart, and the outward sacrifice which is
its proper expression, are contrasted and explained,
with constant reference to St. Augustine's City

LATER CATHOLIC THEOLOGY. 283
of God. The outward expression was needed for
men composed of body and soul and having to
live in society, even during the state of innocence ;
stiU more after the Fall, when the idea of expiation
was added to that of homage, and hence animal
sacrifices came into use. Those of the Jewish
ritual are examined in detail. In the second part
the immense superiority of Christ's sacrifice to all
others is dwelt upon. It consists of the oblation
of His Body, Soul, and will, that is of His whole
Being, together with those of His members ; of His
prayers and other acts, together with theirs ; and of
His sufferings and death, and theirs united with His.
It wiU at once be seen that with these writers —
and they are but a specimen of many more — the
dominant idea, as with the Fathers, is that of
Sacrifice, which comprehends more than the
notions of satisfaction only, or of the payment of
a debt. It includes and exhausts them, but it
includes a great deal more. We may further
observe that this idea is habitually viewed in
connection with its perpetuation in the Eucharist.
And this suggests an aspect of the doctrine of the
Atonement aheady more than once referred to, in
the chapters on patristic teaching, and which
requires distinct recognition, though a separate
volume would be required for its adequate treat
ment. A few words must suffice here, not to prove
but to indicate the inseparable union between the
sacrifice of the altar and the sacrifice of the Cross*
On the last night of His earthly ministry, when

284 THE ATONEMENT.
the shadows of death were closing in upon the
chosen few, and the dark designs of the conspirators
were even now shaping themselves into act within
the waUs of the apostate city, Jesus, having loved
His own, loved them unto the end. He was about
to die. And therefore He gathered His disciples
around Him in that upper room at Jerusalem, for
a last farewell. " When the evening was come,
He sat down with the Twelve." He had washed
their feet ; He had addressed to them those words
of thrilling import, which run through four chapters
in the narrative of the last Evangelist ; He had
eaten the Paschal supper. And then, as at a
marriage feast He had begun His ministry by
changing water into wine, so at the feast which
closed it He transmuted, by a yet more signal
miracle — the abiding heritage of His Church, — the
shadow to the substance, the figures of the law
into the realities of the Atoning Sacrifice. He
sanctified Himself. He offered to the Eternal
Father that great Eucharistic intercession, recorded
by St. John, which embraced all future ages and
contained in germ all possible liturgies of Christen
dom.* He rehearsed before the Twelve in mystery
that Sacrifice which on the morrow was to be
offered in tears and blood. He took of the pure
wheat flour which is given for man's nourish
ment, and the fruit of the vine which maketh'
glad his heart, and consecrated them to be for all
time the symbols, the vehicle, the transparent
* John xvii.

LATER CATHOLIC THEOLOGY. 285
veils, of that sacred Flesh and that redeeming
Blood which He had assumed in the Conception
and was to offer on the Cross. What He did
then His Church was to continue always, tiU He
should return again, for a memorial of Him. As
every Christian prayer must be offered in His
Name, so all Christian worship must be centred in
the one great act which perpetuates for ever the
" new rite " of that last Paschal Supper, not in
empty sign but in spirit and in truth. From the
rising to the setting sun, wherever His Name is
known among the Gentiles, He has bidden that
pure oblation to be laid continually on His altar.
The Incarnation and the Passion are no mere
incidents of bygone history, bat a presence of
abiding power. The Blood that flowed on Calvary
flows indeed no more, but the Lamb slain before
the worlds were made is offered still, Himself
the Victim, Priest, and Shrine. And through
the might of that Atonement, the Sacrifice one
and indivisible pleaded on ten thousand altars, the
same yesterday, to-day, and for ever, is the
Church's prayer fulfilled ; Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata
mundi, dona nobis pacem*
And here it will be well to give some notice of
German Cathohc divines in the present century,
who are now stepping into the place occupied
before the French Bevolution by the doctors of
the Sorbonne. In 1807, Kliipfel and Dobmayer
* See Excursus viii. " On the Connection between the Sacri
fice of the Cross and the Eucharist."

286 THE ATONEMENT.
published dogmatic works in Latin.* They agree
in regarding the Atonement as a mystery, which
we cannot explain on antecedent grounds of reason,
and must therefore be content to accept as a
revealed fact : Consultius igitur dncimus rem arguere ex
eventu. The Son of God has made satisfaction,
inasmuch as He has done all that was necessary
for our eternal welfare, for removing sin and its
consequences, and re-estabhshing the kingdom of
God. In what sense this satisfaction was necessary
we cannot know, but we must infer from the event
that there are reasons why it was so. Dobmayer
adds, that the Atonement must not be regarded as a
punishment inflicted on Christ, but as an act done
by Him for the benefit of the human race ; not as
a substitute for our personal service, but as a
supplement of our weakness and encouragement
to our energy. A more famous name is that of
Klee, who wrote thirty years later, in German, on
Catholic doctrine.f He understands by the satis
faction of Christ that, through His bodily death,
He has removed the grounds of our spiritual death
and softened (gemildert) its consequences, as to
intention and efficacy for aU, and actuaUy for those
who are so united with Him as to be able to
appropriate His sufferings. We cannot say that
He has formally endured our punishment, as such,
for it is impossible for the innocent to be justly
* Klupfel, Instit. Theol. Dogmat. Wien, 1807 ; Dobmayer,
Systema Theol. Cathol. Sulsbach, 1807.
f Klee, Katholische Dogmatik. Mainz, 1835,

LATER CATHOLIC THEOLOGY. 287
punished; nor materially, for He was not made
subject to spiritual death, as neither to ignorance
or evil desire. Neither, again, has He in such
sense suffered in our place, and by substitution,
as that by His satisfaction all our debt and sin is
in fact remitted. Bodily death, the sorrows of life,
ignorance and concupiscence remain, and we are
then first released from our debt, when we have
fulfilled all the conditions requisite for partaking
of the benefits of the redemption wrought for us.
This satisfaction of Christ is in itself superabun
dant, for, while sin is finite, the acts of the God-
Man, as proceeding from His Person, not from
His finite human nature, are infinite. Another
Cathohc writer of the same date, Brenner, also
protests against the notion of substituted punish
ment, as hard and unreasonable and inconsistent
with the nature of God.*
We cannot pass over in silence a still greater
name, that of Giinther. With his philosophical
system, which is said to be very obscurely
expressed, I have no acquaintance, nor indeed is
this the place for examining it. The following is
the simplest account I can give of his theory of
the Atonement.f We shaU have occasion presently
to notice the writings of Pabst, who, if he repre
sents the same theological school, is at least a
much clearer and more intelligible exponent of its
* Brenner, liaihol. Dogmat., p. 36.
f Giinther, Die Incarnationstheorie. Wien, 1829. His Philo
sophical Works were placed on the Boman Index.

288 THE ATONEMENT.
principles. Giinther' s system implies, if I under
stand him rightly, the Scotist idea of the Incar
nation being decreed before the prevision of the
Fall. Its primary object is the infusion of divine
life into man, or his regeneration to eternal hfe.
The death of Christ is " not the moving but the
mediating cause" of redemption; or, in other
words, God is not gracious to us because Christ
died, but Christ died for us because God is gracious.
The juristic view of vicarious satisfaction is rejected,
on the ground that justice requires the punishment
of the guilty, and can least of all be satisfied by
the supreme injustice of punishing the innocent
instead. That would be a direct contradiction.
Some other explanation must therefore be found
for the Sacrifice of the death of Christ. God wiU
only forgive sin to those who are willing to be
reformed ; but for this man needs a practical
proclamation of the heinousness of sin, which is
given, as in a picture, by the death of Christ. But
the ground of sin lies not only in ignorance or
unbelief, but in the infirmity of a perverted wih,
and the work of redemption, therefore, must be
something beyond a mere outward exhibition ; it
must consist in the real communication and
implanting of a new nature, to reunite the soul
with God. The redeeming power must, then, be
sought in the life of Christ, but it can only be
imparted through His death. The Son of God
took, in His Incarnation, a human body under
the conditions of fallen nature transmitted from

LATER CATHOLIC THEOLOGY. 289
Adam, though without sin. This body of death
He offered up to God, pouring out the earthly
blood and animal soul or life ;* and thus He
satisfied justice and opened the hands of love.
The necessity for His death does not rest on any
attribute of the Divine nature, for God is Love,
but on some quality of human nature, which as
yet we cannot fully comprehend, but which is
indicated by the statement of Scripture, that
" without shedding of blood there is no remission,"
for the soul is in the blood and the blood is that
which atones for the soul. It is clear that this
theory lays a special stress on the Incarnation,
and views the death of Christ chiefly as a channel
for conveying the benefits of the Incarnation to
us, but the precise meaning of the latter portion
of it I do not profess to understand. We may
compare with it the following considerations of
the philosopher Baader on the nature of human
sinfulness.! The soul of man, subjected through
the FaU to the bondage of matter, can only through
the medium of matter be restored to the freedom
of spiritual hfe. But the blood, as the special
organ of animal hfe, is also the organ of sin. By
the oblation of the outpoured blood the spiritual
powers of man were set free, and the impure
influences, which held him in thraldom, passed

* This may remind the reader of some similar expressions of
Origen's, previously referred to.
t Baader, Vorlesungen iiber eine kunftige Theorie des Opfers oder
Rultus. Minister, 1837. 19

290 THE ATONEMENT.
from him into that which was offered up, whUe
the blood thus offered and consecrated in the
death of Christ returned as a life-giving and
fruitful principle into the substance of those for
whom it was offered. This view of Baader's
seems, at least in language, to come very near the
Manichean notion of the impurity of matter.
And now let us turn to a theologian already
mentioned, who is comparatively free from the
lengthy periods and needless periphrasis often so
perplexing in German writers, and speaks with a
clearness at times almost rising into eloquence.
A brief account of his general system will best
introduce his exposition of the doctrine of Atone
ment.* According to Pabst the idea of God, as the
Ego, or absolute Being, implies from eternity the
idea of the creature, the non ego, or conditioned
being, as its necessary correlative. But the actual
realisation of the non ego, as natura naturata Dei qua
natura naturantis, is not necessary, as the pantheistic
scheme implies. Creation is a free act of God,
implying a beginning, as the absolute nature is
essentially necessary and eternal ; but the con-

* This sketch is drawn mainly from Pabst's Der Mensch und
seine Geschichte (Wien, 1830), but I have also compared with it
a later work of his, Adam und Christus (Wien, 1835), where the
subject is treated as introductory to an elaborate dissertation on
the seven sacraments, and especially marriage, viewed in its
sacramental character, to which the author attaches a crucial
importance as marking the distinction between Catholicism and
various forms of imperfect or unchristian belief. It would be
impossible to givo each reference separately here ; the reader
wij], have no trouble in verifying them, if ho pleases, for himself,

LATER CATHOLIC THEOLOGY. 291
ditioned, once actually brought into existence,
must last for ever, as the creaturely reflection of
the absolute Being of God. There was no
theoretical necessity for Him to create, but there
was an ethical ground in His own nature, and
that ground was love. As then by His free love
He created us, so by love alone can the creature
gain or preserve its union with Him. Creation is
God's eternal revelation of Himseh. The creature
cannot attain to a real consciousness of its own
being, without thereby becoming conscious of the
absolute Being or Creator. As in the unity of
God there are Three Persons, so creation, which is
His image, is threefold also. There is free spirit,
nature or the physical universe which is unfree,
and man in whom both are combined, spirit and
nature standing to each other in the relation of
substance and accident. Man constitutes the
organic unity of the two ; he is at once distinct
from each and partakes of both ; in him the hfe
of nature puts forth its most perfect bloom, while
he is also a member of the spirit- world, and thus
creation, as the outward revelation of God, becomes
the perfect reflexion of the Divine consciousness.
As the organic unity of nature and spirit, man is
the coping stone of creation, the creature of all
creatures, the ultimate realisation and representa
tive of the creaturely idea and perfect antithesis
of the Creator. Or, as the author says elsewhere,
he is the last and mo3t glorious fruit of the mighty
increase of tho earth, the wondrous fabric (Gebilde)
19 *

292 THE ATONEMENT.
wherein God by a new and special creative act has
bound the two worlds of spirit and matter into
organic unity.
From this idea of creation is deduced the idea of
sin, as consisting in a refusal on the creature's part
to recognise its creatureliness and consequent
dependence on the absolute Being of God. It
involves an infinite debt (Schuld) incurred by the
creature, and an infinite offence against the Creator
whom it directly tends, so far as in it hes, to
dethrone, because it is a negation of His self-
existent Being. By thus denying God, it also
denies the very basis of aU creaturely existence
and turns the life of the spirit into a he, corrupting
its whole nature and marring, though it cannot
destroy, the image of God. It involves an eternal
enmity between the creature and the Creator, as
being a wilful aversion from the Highest Good ; in
a word, it involves HeU, not as an infliction of the
Divine wrath, but as the inevitable sequel of its
own act in choosing self-love rather than the love
of God. Such are the effects of sin on the
spirit- world ; its effects on the world of man are
further modified by the conditions of his composite
nature, which is not mere spirit but formed of
spirit and matter combined, each individual being
part of an organic whole, the member of a race.
Hence it follows, that the sin of the first and
typical man becomes, not personally but generically,
the heritage of all his children; for though God
creates each soul separately, He creates it with

LATER CATHOLIC THEOLOGY. 293
reference to the particular body it is destined to
inhabit, not for a separate existence, but to become
part of the composite man who is a member of the
race.* Sin, then, has a direct effect in dissolving,
ipso facto, the organization of humanity. The parts
lose their proper relationship and union with each
other, and both are accordingly dishonoured, the
spiritual enslaved to the material, the material
itself made subject to a law of decay and death
extending over the whole physical creation. The
earth is cursed for man's sake.
But in the very ground of the curse lay
also the possibility of redemption. The generic
transmission of our faUen humanity, compounded
of free spirit and unfree matter, which was the
channel of sin, might prove the means of restoration,
whenever a sinless descendant of the first Adam
should appear, to become the Second Head and
Father of the race, the Source to them of original
merit (Erbverdienst) instead of original sin (Erbsiinde).
But this could only be One who was God as well
as man. The Spirit, who is the Bond of Love in
the Holy Trinity and had been at first the
Principle of union between the creature and the
Creator, immediately departed on the entrance of
sin into the world. But the Divine Logos, by
whom all things were made, as immediately took
His place, and began at once to speak with
authority in the conscience, so that man's life,
* The reference here is to " Creationism," as opposed to
" Traducianism."

294 $Hfi ATONEMENT.
amid manifold errors and darkness, remained a
religious one, and was never whoUy cut off from
God even amid the deepest gloom of Heathendom.*
Conscience, as was shown in the case of Cornehus,
contained in itself the germ of redemption, and
indeed of the future Church. We may say with
Justin Martyr," Those, like Socrates and Heraclitus,
who lived according to the Logos (inwardly revealed)
were Christians." Or, in the author's own words,
" Conscience in its objectivity is the beginning of
the external Church, and the Church is the
objective perfection of conscience, having attained
its outward fulfilment." But, inasmuch as this
inward revelation to the individual conscience
proved insufficient, an outward revelation was
added, and that, being addressed to fallen man,
could onlyjbe a revelation of the Bedeemer. It
was given first in the Covenant with Abraham,
then in the Law of Sinai, which "fixed the
categorical imperative of conscience in tables of
stone." In the life of His chosen people God
revealed a type of His deahngs with mankind, and
their history exhibited, as in a picture, the history
and the judgment of the world. The Levitical
priesthood recalled the reality of sin, the Prophetic
Order spoke out with growing distinctness, as time
went on, the promise of redemption.
We have seen that the created spirit had realised

* I need hardly remind the reader of the famous argument
for " the natural supremacy of Conscience " in Butler's Sermons
upon Huma.i Nature,

later catholic theology. 295
its creaturely freedom in the choice of evil, through
what must be considered a second creative act.
Bestoration, therefore, could only be brought about
through a new creative act, not to annihilate the
first, which in itself is irreversible, but to abolish
its results (dass sich dicselbe . . . obschon nicht in ihrem
Seyn, doch in ihrem Daseyn aufhebt und ausloscht). And
this was a fresh revelation of God, not, hke the
first, as absolute Being, but as the Bedeemer and
Atoner who came to renew that life, originaUy
derived from Himseh, which the creature had lost
by sin. It was to be at once an act of satisfaction
wrought out through the perfect obedience of a
sinless Child of the faUen race, and an act of
creation and revelation vouchsafed by God ;
therefore only the God-Man could accomplish it.
This double work of restoration has necessarily a
gradual development, with various epochs and
periods, and this, as we have seen, was actuaUy
the case. First the still small voice of God spoke,
" as from afar," to the conscience of man ; next
He revealed Himself more intimately through the
covenant with Abraham, and the Jewish ritual ;
and at last in the fulness of time the Divine fiat
went forth, and the Word made Flesh proclaimed
Himself the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He
by whom aU things were made at the beginning,
came to remake them. The union of God and
man in One Person finds a type and analogy in
the union of spirit and material nature in man,
which is also an organic union of life ; and in the

296 the atonement.
God-Man each nature remains perfect and entire.*
In His birth of a Virgin we read both His identity
with our common humanity and His distinction
from it. He is a member, not a product, of the
race. The Second Adam, like the first, is (as
Man) an immediate creation of God, but, unlike
the first, takes root in the soU of humanity, as
not being formed from the ground, but from the
consecrated substance of a virgin daughter of
Eve. The thirty years of His hidden hfe
represent His feUowship with our nature, as Son
of Man ; the three years of His pubhc ministry
represent His manifestation, as the Son of God
with power, in His threefold office of King,
Priest, and Prophet. In His character as Second
Adam and Head of the race, He passed, hke the
first Adam, through the trial and probation of
free-will, not for Himself but for us. The first
man was placed for probation in the " Paradise
* I omit the author's account of the hypostatic union, which
does not materially differ from that given in the ordinary manuals.
He rejects, as inconsistent with the perfection of manhood, the
common opinion of a full infusion of beatific and other know
ledge into our Lord's Human Soul from the first, and holds,
with the majority of the Fathers, that there was a real growth
in wisdom, not only in its outward manifestations. The question
will be found discussed in Wilberforce's Incarnation, ch. iv., and
Kulm's Leben Jesu, i. 5. See also Petav. De Incarn. xi. 2-4,
with the notes of Alethinus, who takes the same view as Pabst,
and on the same grounds, as being most consistent with the entire
KeVojcris of the Incarnation. This certainly appears to have been
the general opinion ofthe Fathers. Cf. Klee, Dogmengeschichte, ii.
4, 7. The question does not, of course, relate to omniscience,
which can in no case be ascribed to our Lord's Human Soul,
being inconsistent with the conditions of human nature. Cf.
Klee, Dogmatik, p. 511.

later catholic theology. 297
of pleasure," where every need was satisfied; the
Second was driven into the wilderness which
brought forth thorns and thistles, the heritage
of Adam's sin, to be tempted of the devil after
fasting forty days. Each of the three Temptations
was an attempt in different forms to make Him
deny or doubt, if but for a moment, the perfect
union of His human wiU with God. In His
victory over the Tempter through the free exercise
of that human wUl, though He was impeccable
by virtue of the hypostatic union, He asserted,
what Adam's sin had denied, the absolute
dependence of the creature on the Creator, and
proclaimed before Heaven and HeU the enthe
conformity of His creaturely will with the will
of God. And thus the work of redemption was
begun.* Since man by wilful disobedience had incurred
the debt of sin, only through willing obedience of
the whole life and being could that debt be paid.
And in order to profit the whole race, the payment
must take the shape of what in man is the natural
consequence and fruit of sin. The enthe life of
the Bedeemer, in great things as in small, must
fulfil the ideal of penance, which in mankind is an
inevitable necessity, but in Him was a voluntary
sacrifice. This self-oblation, inaugurated in St.
* There is an interesting discussion in Adam und Chiistus
(pp. 76-83) on the relations of the freedom of Christ's human
will to His impeccability, but it would take us too far from our
proper subject to introduce it here. Cf. Kuhn's Leben Jem
(Mainz, 1838), vol. i. ch. 4.

298 The atonement.
John's baptism of repentance, was consummated
in the dereliction and the Cross. But His merit
(Erbverdienst) can only be applied to His members
individually by their own co-operation. Bedemp
tion is universal, justification depends on the
human will ; and as all are lost, whether under the
law of nature, or of Moses, or of grace, who by
personal act make the common sin of the race
their own, so those alone can partake of the
common merit who- by voluntary union with the
life of Christ, the ideal Man, make His merit
theirs ; so that what before were fruitless sufferings
become in them a meritorious satisfaction. This
double connection of humanity with the first Adam
and the Second explains that strange inter
mingling of good and evil, sorrow and joy, which
would else be the great riddle of life. For redemp
tion as httle destroyed our freedom as the FaU,
and those who are led of the spirit of Christ must
be content to share in this world the common
penalties of the race, just as those who in heart
reject Him are stiU, as yet, His brethren after the
flesh. When, lastly, Christ had made by the
Sacrifice of the Cross an overflowing redemption
(copiosa redemptio), and gone down into Hades to pay
to the uttermost the debt of sin, He rose trans
figured from the grave and ascended into heaven,
to send back the Spirit, who had been chased away
by sin, as the Teacher of all truth and Comforter
in all trials and temptations. Thus was the work
of redemption perfected, and summed up in the

LATER CATHOLIC THEOLOGY. 299
baptismal formula in the name of the Holy Trinity.
The Divine Spirit had, as we have seen, at the
beginning united the dependent creature with the
self-existent God, and now that same Spirit came
once more to sanctify and re-unite the ransomed
race with Him. As the work of re-creation is
properly aUotted to the Son, who is the Creative
Word, so is the work of re-union assigned to the
Spirit, who is the Bond of Love.
The Church of the Old Dispensation was the
representative of the coming Christ,- the Church of
these latter days is the representative of the Word
made Flesh, who must be ever present in it as the
infallible Interpreter and great High Priest with
His abiding Sacrifice. His life-long obedience to
God and His life-long toil for man were concen
trated and sealed in the act of death, the " bright
bloom of the world-redeeming work of Christ."
Therefore, that sacrificial act must continue to be
the supreme and characteristic worship of God on
earth, from which all other kinds of worship derive
their consecration and their worth. Mankind
cannot celebrate its solemn Easter without the
Easter Lamb. It was impossible but that the
Cross should become an altar, the material sacrifice
of Christ offered up in blood be perpetuated in an
unbloody rite, that is in the sacrifice of the Mass.
But the Mass is a Sacrament as weU as a Sacrifice ;
the Sacrifice sets forth the death of the Son of
Man in its relation to God, while in the Communion
is shown the death of the Second Adam in its

300 THE ATONEMENT.
relation to humanity ; in the former He is present
as Bepresentative of the race, in the latter as the
Fountain of their new hfe. As in the Mass there
is offered with the Body and Blood of Christ the
whole family of believers, so in Communion the
redeemed are made partakers of that Body and
Blood, that they may have life in themselves. And
thus are His words fulfiUed; " If I be hfted up, I
will draw aU things unto Me."
With these specimens of recent Cathohc theo
logy, our record of the past may be closed.* For
the future, since the faU of the old Sorbonne, and
during the present luU of theological energy in
Italy and Spain, we look with' anxious hope to the
Catholic thinkers of Germany, that nation once
the sovereign power of Christendom, but into
whose hands in these later days the torch of sacred
as of secular science has been committed, and
which, hke Greece of old, in the decay of political
greatness was employed in conquering for itself a
nobler and more enduring empire in the leadership
of European thought. We ton to the land where
Boniface preached and suffered, the cradle of the
Anglo-Saxon race, and ask its people to repay their
kinsmen in the fruits of sanctified intellect, from
whom in earlier days they received the heritage of
faith. * The subject of justification was to have been treated in the
fifth volume of Kuhn's Katholische Dogmatik, which unfortunately
never appeared.

CHAPTEB VII.
THE MORAL FITNESS OE THE ATONEMENT.
And now that we are come to the end of our
inquiry, does it not almost seem as if we were still
at the beginning ? Are we not tempted to exclaim,
with the phUosopher of old, that the end of aU
knowledge is the consciousness of our ignorance ?
Doubtless what Coleridge said of philosophy is
even more true of theology, that it begins in
wonder and ends in wonder. Indeed, this is but
to repeat the language of the ritual, that He, who
has wonderfully created our nature, has yet more
wonderfully redeemed it.
" Das Wunder ist des Glaubens liebstes Kind." *
After all has been said, much must ever remain
unsaid. Our deepest feehngs are precisely those
we are least able to express ; and, even in the act
of adoration, silence is our highest praise. Still,
without attempting to dogmatize- on points beyond
the sphere of revelation, we may gather up some
* Gothe, Faust.

302 THE ATONEMENT.
results, both negative and positive, from what has
been recorded of the past history of the doctrine
of the Atonement in the Church.
Not to dwell on minor undercurrents of opinion
or belief, we have seen the successive waves of two
great theories of satisfaction pass over the surface
of Cathohc theology, and again retire, but not
without leaving indelible traces behind them.
First came the Origenist notion of a ransom paid
to the Evil Spirit, which found its latest utterance
in Peter Lombard, but was then already merging
into the broader and more spiritual conception of a
victory over sin, and therefore over him who is its
author. After this foUowed the Anselmic con
ception of the necessity of an infinite satisfaction
for an infinite debt, discussed in aU its bearings
throughout the scholastic period, and almost
universally rejected, in its absolute sense, but
finding new advocates at the Beformation, and
becoming in their hands the basis of a system
which has served first to distort, and then to
alienate, the moral and religious convictions of a
large section of the Protestant world. The
scholastic controversy brought out with peculiar
clearness that, while we have no right to assume
that an adequate satisfaction was necessary, a satis
faction not only sufficient but superabundant has
certainly been made, owing to the infinite worth,
by virtue of the hypostatic union, of those human
acts and sufferings which the Redeemer offered for
the sins of His brethren, as the Head and

THE MORAL FITNESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 303
Bepresentative of our race. The blood that flowed
on Calvary had that infinite power of redemption,
because, as the great Apostle reminds us, it was
"the Blood of God."*
We cannot, again, say, except by a figure of
speech, that our sins were imputed to Him, or that
He who was sinless endured the wrath of God;
stiU less, in the blasphemous language of several
Lutheran divines, that He suffered the torments of
the damned. Yet it is certain that His mental
sufferings, which greatly exceeded the bodily pains
of the Passion, had an expiatory virtue, and that
they were chiefly, though not exclusively, super
natural. As was said in a previous chapter, He
was offering to the Eternal Father the one perfect
act of contrition for the sins of His brethren,
whose nature He had assumed ; He was making a
general confession of the iniquities of aU mankind,
which He had taken upon Him, as though they
were indeed His own. Nor is this true only of
those incidents of the Passion which are crowded
into the last twenty hours of His earthly ministry.
Every act of that spotless life had a sacrificial
power. It was at once a confession of the sins
that had separated man from his Maker, and an
* Acts xx. 28. Cf. Hooker, Eccl. Pol. v. 3, 3. " Which one
only point of Christian belief, the infinite worth of the Son of
God, is the very ground of all things believed concerning life and
salvation by that which Christ either did or suffered as Man in
our behalf." On the other hand Aquinas says, " Peccatum pro
quo fiebat aatisfactio, infinitatem quamdam habcbat." Summa,
Para iii, pist, 20, Art. g,

304 THE ATONEMENT.
intercession for the transgressors. And thus even
those sufferings which might seem at first sight
purely natural, as the awful sohtude of which the
Prophet spoke, or the " contradiction of sinners,"
foretold by Simeon and noticed in the Epistle to
the Hebrews, have their supernatural side also.
The Agony in the Garden and derehction on the
Cross represent, in the language of prophecy, an
" ocean of sorrow," on whose shore we may stand,
and gaze down upon the waveless surface ; but the
depths below no created intelligence can fathom.
Thus much, however, we may certainly discern — •
and it is needful to repeat it, because it has not
unfrequently been denied — that the bitterness of
His spiritual trial lay not merely in the treachery
or coldness of His intimates, the foresight of His
Passion, and the sorrow for His murderers' sin.
The chahce that could not pass from Him, the
agony Gabriel was powerless to console, meant
more — far more — than that. The accumulated
wickedness of aU generations of mankind, in its
fulness and its detail, not weighed in the scales of
human judgment, but seen in the hght of His
Countenance before whom the heavens are unclean
— the just wrath of the AUholy, not, indeed,
against Him who was sinless, but against the sin
which for us men, and as our Bepresentative, He
had in that supreme agony of meritorious contrition
vouchsafed to make His own* — the sense of
* v7T£jo 17/w afiaprlav enovqo-ev. 2 Cor v. 20.

THE MORAL FITNESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 305
unutterable lonehness, as though (if one may
venture to say so) the hypostatic union was being
dissolved and He was to become one in wiU, as
in nature, with the apostate creature who had
forsaken God — these were the rebukes that broke
His Heart, and wrung from His parched lips the
loud and exceeding bitter cry that startled the
gazers on Calvary. It was the hour of the power
of darkness. The light of the Beatific Vision was
shrouded, for so He willed ; and in a sense most
real, though passing human comprehension, Jesus
received into His sinless consciousness the burden
of our guilt, and learnt by experience, as He alone
could learn, whose gaze alone could "measure the
infinite descent," what it is to be shut out from the
Eternal Love. When He brought in vision before
one of His Saints a venial sin in all its naked
deformity, she swooned beneath the intolerable
anguish. What must the contemplation of all sins,
venial and mortal, of all generations of mankind
have been to Him, who is not a Saint but the
Living Source of Sanctity ? The extremity of His
suffering is attested, but not explained, by the cry
of dereliction and the Sweat of Blood. We can
but adore in silence the inscrutable secret of those
" unknown agonies," the interior martyrdom sealed
at last in death.
The controversies of the Beformation threw a
fresh light on the subjective and moral aspects
of the doctrine, and exhibited with peculiar
distinctness the error of supposing that the
20

306 THE ATONEMENT.
Atonement wrought by Christ was to be under
stood as superseding our own satisfactions or
obedience, instead of sanctifying and transforming
them. This was in fact tiie question that lay
at the root of the long disputes originated by
Luther's teaching on justification, and the nature
of justifying faith, while the other great school
of Beformers brought into prominent notice the
universahty of redemption, as opposed to their
own cherished theory of a dehverance wrought
only for the elected few. The criticism of Socinus
helped to expose the hoUowness of aU merely
forensic schemes of satisfaction, and to remind
Christian believers of the indissoluble connection
between the Sacrifice and the Divinity of their
Lord. Another idea ehcited in the course of discussion
was, that in aU probabihty the Son of God, " the
Firstborn of every creature," would have assumed
our nature, and sanctified it by personal indwelling,
though we had needed no redemption. We could
not have argued a priori that He would come at
all, or that, when we had fallen, He would come
to die. We could not have told that the
Incarnation of Jesus was to be the means of
our union with the Godhead, or that our
atonement, if atonement was needed, would be
wrought out through His death. Nor can we
tell with any certainty or completeness why it
has been so now. The reasons lie deep in the
counsels of Eternal Wisdom, We can but gaze,

THE MORAL FITNESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 307
as it were, at the outer fringe of the curtains
of His tabernacle, and from what we know of
His dealings with us surmise something of that
vaster mystery of the Divine Government which
as yet remains unrevealed. But looking back on
what has actuaUy occurred, with the light which
revelation throws upon it, we may discern
something, if not of the original causes of the
Atonement, at least of its adaptation to our
needs and the lessons it is designed to teach
us. There is a fitness in the behef that He,
who is "the Brightness of the everlasting Light,
the unspotted Mirror of God's majesty, and Image
of His goodness," would have come to make His
dehghts with the children of men, even though
they had persevered in their primal innocence.
Still more does it seem natural to us that, when
we had sinned, He should come, not only as our
Brother, but our Bedeemer, to make reparation
for our sins, and consecrate afresh ' our faUen
humanity in the baptism of sorrow and blood.
Let us gather up some of the reflections which
this view of the fitness of , His atoning Passion
suggests to us.
1. Pain, as has been aheady said, is the deepest
and truest thing in our nature since the Fall.
We feel instinctively that it is so, even before we
can tell why. Pain is what binds us most closely
to one another and to God. It appeals most
directly to our sympathies, as the very structure
of language indicates, To go no further than our
20 *

308 THE ATONEMENT.
own, we have English words, such as condolence,
to express sympathy with grief ; we have no one
word to express sympathy with joy. So, again, it
is a common remark that, if a funeral and wedding
procession were to meet, something of the shadow
of death would be cast over the bridal train, but no
reflection of bridal happiness would pass into the
mourners' hearts. Scripture itself has been not
inaptly caUed " a record of human sorrow." The
same name might be given to history. " Man is
born to trouble, as sparks fly upward." Friendship
is scarcely sure till it has been proved in suffering,
but the chains of an affection riveted in that fiery
furnace are not easily broken. So much then at
least is clear, that the Passion of Jesus was the
greatest revelation of His sympathy ; " Greater
love hath no man than this, that a man lay down
his life for his friends." " It was fitting that God
should make the Author of then salvation perfect
through sufferings." * And hence Fathers and
Schoolmen ahke conspire to teach, that one reason
why He chose the road of suffering was to knit us
more closely to Himseh. For this He exalted His
head, not on a throne of earthly glory, but on
the Cross of death. It is, indeed, no accidental
pecuharity of the few, but a law of our present
being, which the poet's words express :
" That to the Cross the mourner's eye should turn,
Sooner than where the stars of Christmas burn." t
* John xv. 13 ; Heb. ii. 10. t Chmtian Year. Good Friday.

THE MORAL FITNESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 309
For all, in their several ways and degrees, are
mourners. The dark threads are woven more
thickly than the bright ones into the tangled
skein of human hfe,.. and as time passes on, the
conviction that it is so is brought home to us
with increasing force. We begin to discern "the
trail of the serpent" over aU the flowers of our
earthly Paradise. There was a saying among the
Greeks that "whom the gods love die young,"
and the translation of Enoch, if it does not explain
the origin of the proverb, attests its truth, which
has received under the Gospel its final and fuUest
consecration.* Our Lord left a special blessing
for those chUdren of the first resurrection, who,
being perfected in a short time, have fulfiUed many
times, and are taken in the unsullied freshness of
their early bloom, by the wasting of sickness or the
baptism of blood, to behold the King in His beauty,
and the land that is far away. They are His
dearest " tokens " from that " earth, where He was
once a Child." But sooner or later a crisis comes
in the hves of the rest of us who linger here
when we are constrained to walk — it may be with
backward step and averted eye — up the road that
leads to Calvary, and the sun goes down at noon,
and the stars withdraw their shining, and the
Cross stands bare and cold under the darkened

* The recorded age of Enoch is, indeed, immense, according
to our reckoning, but it does not reach half that of the shortest-
lived of his contemporaries, and herein lay his blessing : " he
was not, for God took him."

3lO THE ATONEMENT.
heavens, and we must be stretched thereon, whether
we wiU or no. It is weU for all in that hour of
sohtary trial who can patiently, nay, thankfully,
embrace then cross, as knowing that indeed they
are not alone who are crucified with Jesus. And
thus, as St. Paul reminds us, the Cross is a
manifestation, not simply of His love, but of His
power. He was lifted up thereon, not only as the
great High-priest and true Melchisedec of a better
covenant, not only as the Prophet, who could
preach most persuasively from that uneasy death
bed of the bleeding tree, but in vindication of the
regal office, to which also He was anointed by the
Eternal Spirit in Mary's womb. The Cross was
an altar of Sacrifice, and a chair of Truth, but it
was also, strange as it may sound to say so, the
throne of an everlasting kingdom. It was there
the Bedeemer asserted His double royalty, over the
inteUects and the hearts of men. It is the fact,
as has been justly observed, of His manifesting
His love at so great a cost to Himself, and not by a
mere act of clemency, that gives to the Atonement
its persuasive power.* Because He died for our
sakes, the love of Christ constraineth us.f
When is it that we most deeply reahse the
presence of our King? Not when the angel
brightness shines on the fields of Bethlehem, and
the Gloria in Excelsis of angel voices rings clear and
* See Campbell's Nature of the Atonement, pp. 24 sqq. Cf. also
supra, p. 199.
I 2 Cor. v. 15.

The moral fitness of the atonement. 311
sweet through the stiUness of the midnight heavens ;
not when the Paschal alleluias sound over the open
Grave, or the mighty wind is rocking the upper
chamber, where the Paraclete descends in tongues
of flame on the first behevers of the infant Church.
No ; but in the grave solemnity of the Good Friday
procession, when altars are stripped, and beUs are
hushed, and lights burn dim, and the crucifix is
veUed, and for that day alone of aU the year the
daily sacrifice has ceased, as though the reign of
Antichrist were come, and the abomination of
desolation set up in the most holy place ; it is then
the strange unearthly melody of the Vexilla Regis
breaks on the silence of our supernatural sorrow,
with the tidings that He, the Crucified, is Lord
and King.
" The royal banners forward go,
The Cross shines forth in mystic show."
And, therefore, when scarce four centuries had
passed since the Crucifixion, the greatest Father
of the Church could openly appeal to the glory of
that Cross, " once trampled on by the enemy, bat
now the brightest ornament of a monarch's
crown."* The foohshness of that preaching of the
Cross overcame the world; it subdued the pride
of phUosophy, and tamed the fire of lust. Domuit
orbem non ferro sed ligno. He with great power had
exalted His chosen people, and they exalted His
head on the accursed tree ; but from that tree,
* Aug. in Ps. liv. 9.

312 THE ATONEMENT.
stained with the blood-red dye of empire and
of martyrdom, He claimed and conquered the
aUegiance of mankind. Sacrifice is the grand law
of the universe, and the Cross revealed it. In the
words of a writer too early snatched away, "AU
the other bonds that had fastened down the Spirit
of the universe to our narrow round of earth were
as nothing in comparison to this golden chain of
suffering and self-sacrifice, which at once riveted
the heart of man to One, who, hke himseh, was
acquainted with grief."* In this sense also His
sacred hmbs " were nailed,
For our advantage, on the bitter Cross."
What is it, again, that gives to the roUing music
of the Psalter, which has echoed for above three
thousand years along the corridors of the Jewish
or the Christian Church, its pecuhar force and
charm — a sweetness that never wearies, a power
that never fails — and has fitted it to record the
most various experiences of individuals and of
nations, to syUable the deepest thoughts, whether
of joy or sorrow, which have stirred the hearts,
and shaped the destinies, of a hundred generations
of the chosen people of God ? It is not only that
* Arthur Hallam's Remains. The same idea, viewed from the
opposite side, is thus expressed by Faber : " Why is it that
suffering should have a spell to fix the eye above the power of
beauty or of greatness? Is it not because the Cross is a
religion of suffering, a faith of suffering, a privilege of suffering,
a perfection arrived at by and through suffering only ? " Sights
and Thoughts in Foreign Churches, p. 288.

THE MORAL FITNESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 313
marvellous fulness and diversity of human utter
ance, that profound spirituahty, that exquisite
refinement and tenderness of pathos, which strike
a responsive chord in our inmost being, that have
made the Psalter our most cherished manual of
secret devotion, the most familiar and universal
organ of our public praise. It is this, but it is
more than this ; their inspired sympathy with
every phase of the Bedeemer's lhe-long Passion,
with every sentiment of the Heart which gathered
up and recapitulated in Itself the collective heart
of humanity, has made the songs of Israel the
rightful heirloom and common ritual of Christen
dom.* For the history of the Passion is, in one
sense, the history of the Church, and in the streets
of that ""great city, which is spirtually caUed
Sodom and Egypt," our Lord is not once, but
perpetually crucified.
2. It may help us to realise better the world
wide attraction of those " cords of Adam," whereby,
in His atoning Passion, our Lord drew us to Him-

* See a striking passage on the wide appreciation and use of
the Psalter in Stanley's Jewish Church, vol. ii. pp. 146-162. The
author's view is not identical with that taken in the text, for it
lays less stress on the Messianic, and especially the Passion
element of the Psalter, but is consistent with it. And cf. Witness
of the Psalms to Christ, by Bp. Alexander, 2 ed. pp. 37, 38 ; " The
wonderful feature of those [Messianic] Psalms is that they
answer the peculiar characteristics of His Human Soul 
For His life on earth, sometimes humbled to the dust, sometimes
lifted to the heaven, was one Hymn with various parts. The
music which accompanied it ranged through the compass of the
Psalms which were His, their rapidly interchanging lights and
shadows, triumph and wailing, pathos and majesty."

314 TfiE ATONEMENT.
seh, if we try to bring home to ourselves with
some distinctness the universality of His sufferings,
which therefore appeal at once to every variety of
bodily or mental or moral constitution, to every
class and condition of mankind.* Let us remember,
then, that He suffered in every part of His Sacred
Humanity, in Body and Soul alike, and throughout
the entire period of His earthly life, not only
during the night and day of the Passion. This
double aspect of His sufferings is expressly dwelt
upon by the Psalmist in that solemn prophecy,
" I am made ready for the scourges, and My
sorrow is ever in My sight." f The first drops of
blood shed in His Circumcision were a foretaste of
the Agony and the Cross ; the first hght of reason
in His infant Soul dawned on a fathomless, shore
less sea of woes ; Magna velut mare contritio Tua.
What are sometimes called His " unnecessary
sufferings," as not strictly belonging to the actual
Atonement, yet belong to that superabundance,
that extravagant generosity of self-abandonment,
so to caU it, characteristic of Him, with whom is no
bare forgiveness only, but a " copious redemption,"
and who would exhibit in His Passion as weU the
magnificence of the Divine Attributes, as the
minute tenderness of His love for man. It has
* This aspect of the Passion is insisted upon by Aquinas.
Cf. supi: p. 205. For some points in this and the following
section I am partly indebted to suggestions found in MS. notes
taken many years ago of a course of Lectures on the Passion by
the late Father Faber, not included among his published
works. I Ps. xxxvii. 18 (E. V. xxxviii. 17).

the Moral fitness of the atonement. 315
been shown in detaU by devotional writers how
He hteraUy endured — with two exceptions, for
which there were mystical reasons — every diverse
form of bodUy pain, and suffered through every
one of His bodUy senses. His eyes were tortured
with hideous, unholy sights, His ears outraged by
false witness and blasphemies ; His tongue was
parched with thirst, His mouth filled with vinegar
and gaU ; there was cold, and weariness, and
hunger, and exhaustion from loss of blood, and
buffeting, and wounds, and bruises ; the tearing
of His tender flesh by iron scourges,* and the
piercing of the naUs, and the long blunt thorns of
Palestine driven deep into His bleeding brow, and
the heavy burden borne through the streets of
Jerusalem, and the slow agony of Crucifixion, and
the pains of death.
But sharper far to bear than the worst of these
bodily sufferings, "renewed in every pxUse," was
the load of interior anguish that pressed continually
on His Sinless Human Soul, and broke out from
time to time in some seemingly casual utterance
that startled and perplexed his hearers ; as when
in boyhood He warned His blessed Mother that
the sorrow of the Three Days Loss did but fore
shadow another and more awful separation in after
years ; or, at the beginning of His public Ministry,
- On the horribly cruel nature of this Boman punishment,
inflicted not with rods but with the " horribilcflagellum "_ (p.dori$),
knotted with bone or lead, and under which the victims often
expired, see Farrar's Life of Christ, vol. h. pp. 379, 380 ; and cf.
Smith's Dirt. Antiq., s.v. -'flagellum."

316 THE ATONEMENT.
reminded her that His hour was not yet come ; or
told His disciples, when they marveUed at the
well of Sychar why He would not eat, that His
meat was to finish His appointed work ; or spoke
to them again, when the end drew near, of the
chalice of agony He must drink and the fiery
baptism He must be baptized with, and of how
He was straitened tiU it was accomplished ; or,
when the Magdalen anointed Him at Bethany,
said that she had done it for His burial. Even
amid the visible glories of the Transfiguration
Moses and Elias discoursed of His approaching
death. Such sayings do but reveal to us, as by
occasional glimpses, that habitual prevision of
the coming doom, which was never for a moment
absent from His thoughts. And the very anticipa
tion included in itself all that multiplicity and
completeness of mental sufferings, distinct in kind
but together exhausting the manifold possibilities
of human sorrow, which were summed up and
concentrated in the actual Passion. No .enumera
tion can suggest more at best than a faint and
imperfect outline of that mystery of woe, but
some points may be noted which it must certainly
have comprised.
There was the fear of death, which is a sinless
infirmity of our nature, and this was aggravated
by a shuddering horror at the physical and moral
circumstances of His trial and crucifixion There
was shame, that shrank with almost intolerable
sensitiveness from the exposure of His Sacred

THE MORAL FITNESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 317
Person to the coarse touch and brutal gaze of the
unbelieving, the scornful, and the impure ; and
yet deeper shame and confusion at the false
imputation of what was hateful to Him; for to
us shame is the painful unveiling of our true
selves, but to Him it was the imputation — we
might almost say the imposition from without —
of a self that was not and never could have been
His own. There was, again, an abiding sadness at
the manifestations of evil that daUy confronted
Him, and which in His sight was as a specimen
and microcosm of the vast aggregate of the sins
of aU mankind — from the creation to the day of
doom' — of the saved and of the lost, whose nature
He had taken and for whom He was about to die.
And mixed with that sadness was an intense
compassion and sympathy, which from its very
intensity caused Him bitter anguish, for the trials
and sufferings of each individual sinner, while He
loathed the sin. His perfect love for God and
man, which was outraged afresh by every act of
sin, was itself an unspeakable aggravation of His
agony, which after their humble measure, and in
proportion to their hohness, His saints have
inherited from Him.* And to aU this must be
added that dull wearing sense of solitude and
estrangement, always so trying to human weak
ness, and not unfrequently leading to insanity or
suicide, but which He endured in a manner and
degree to us incomprehensible, who " trod the
* Ps. cxviii. (E.V. cxix.) 136.

318 THE ATONEMENT.
wine-press alone," and of the people, nay, of His
intimates and His chosen ones, there might none
be with Him ; their bodily presence, as in the
Garden or at the Cross, did but serve to recaU
more vividly the consciousness of inward isola
tion. Even Mary could have no part nor lot in
that unshared mystery of sorrow, whose Imma
culate Conception was the fountain at once and
the purchase of His atoning Blood. And ten
thousandfold more awful was the depth of Divine
solitude, whereof we hardly dare to think or speak,
which found utterance at last in the loud cry of
agonized resignation, " My God, My God, why
hast Thou forsaken me?" He endured, again,
throughout hfe, and not merely in the closing
scenes, the perpetual contradiction of sinners, not
of open enemies alone, but of His own familiar
friends ; His very Apostles understood Him not,
and, when the final crisis came, one of them
betrayed, another denied, and all forsook Him.
And, more than this, there was the clinging,
torturing sense of defilement — a trial the holiest
of His saints can but dimly appreciate — from the
daily, hourly, intimate contact through life, and
above all in the successive stages of the Passion,
with the presence and power of evil, of the sin
which slew Him, and which in the great Agony
He appropriated and took upon Him and into
Him, so to speak, as though it had become, what
it never really could be, a part of His living Self.
These, then, were among the ingredients that

THE MORAL FITNESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 319
made up the exceeding bitterness to His human
nature of that chahce He thrice prayed might,
if it were possible, pass from Him, but which yet
He wiUed to drain to the very dregs for love of
us. His Soul was " sorrowful even unto death."
That sorrow it was that caused the beginning of
His bochly Passion in the Sweat of Blood, and,
when the long agony was accomphshed and the
ransom paid, ended it on the Cross.
3. It was intimated just now that the history
of the Passion is, in a very true sense, the
history of the Church. It could not well be
otherwise. That was indeed the " one Divine
event," to which, from the FaU downwards, "the
whole creation moved," groaning and travailing in
pain together, the one supreme crisis whereunto
all previous history converged, from whence all
later history takes its departure. It has coloured
the art and hterature of after ages, controlled
then civilisation, almost created their philan-
, thropy. The Cross is the measure of the world ;
how much more, therefore, of the Church ? It is
her office and her privilege to " fill up what is
wanting of the sufferings of Christ." His Passion
alone interprets the riddle of human life ; it
interprets, interpenetrates, and dominates the
snpernatural life and action of the Church, His
spouse, formed, as St. Augustine says, from the
opened Side of the Second Adam, while He slept
upon the Cross.* * Aug. In Joann. Horn. cxx.. 2.

320 THE ATONEMENT.
We see this first in the seven holy sacraments,
which are an outflow of the Passion and the
channels whereby its benefits are conveyed to us.*
The chiefest of them all is at once a Sacrament
and a Sacrifice, wherein, not in figure but in fact,
Christ is daily "set forth crucified," before the
eyes of God and man. In Baptism and Penance
our souls are cleansed by His atoning Blood.
Confirmation seals us with His Cross for our life
long warfare against our spiritual foes. The priest
hood was ordained primarily for the continual
perpetuation of His Sacrifice. Christian marriage
owes its sacramental character and grace to His
mystical union with the Church He wedded in
His Blood. The last Unction, consecrated in the
solemn anointing of His Body for the burial,
anneals our mortal flesh for the resurrection of the
just. And these Sacraments, moreover, are the
appointed guardians and guides of our enthe
earthly life ; they accompany us, for blessing, for
instruction, and for warning, from the cradle to
the bed of death. Like the seven mighty angels
who go in and out before the presence of the Holy
One, or the seven stars in His hand, or the seven
burning lamps which are the seven spirits before
His throne, the seven great Sacraments, which are
the fruits of His Passion, are with us through
* lb. " Vigilanti verbo Evangehsta usus est, ut non diceret
LatusEjus percussit, aut vulneravit, aut quid aliud, sed ' aperuit';
ut illic quoaammodo vitse ostium panderetur, unde Sacramenta
Ecclesiee manaverunt, sine quibus ad vitam quae vera vita est
non intratur."

THE MORAL FITNESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 321
each successive stage of our probation here on
earth, to sanctify our childhood, to confirm our
youth, to raise us up when we fall, to feed us with
the hving Bread that perisheth not, to bless us in
our secular or our spiritual caUing, to renew our
failing energies in the last trial, lest for any pains
of death we fall away from God.
The Passion, again, gives to aU suffering, volun
tarily undertaken or willingly undergone, whether
for the satisfaction of sin or the perfecting of the
Saints, its meaning and true worth. This it is
which distinguishes Christian penance from the
weU meant but vain or superstitious self-torture
of a fakir or a Buddhist, that it is a loving par
ticipation in the chalice He drank and the baptism
wherewith He was baptized, who would unite us
by that closest bond of feUowship to His Sacred
Heart. Hence all must undergo persecution who
would be His disciples, those only who suffer with
Him shaU reign with Him, those only who have
borne the Cross can wear the crown, the meek
conquer, the mourners are comforted, the poor are
made rich, warfare is the condition of victory, and
" through many tribulations we must enter into
the kingdom of God." Without suffering there is
no sanctification, whether it be endured in this
life, or in the next. And those have ever been
likest and dearest to Him who have been most
nearly conformed to the image of His atoning grief.
" Three Saints of old their lips upon the Incarnate Saviour laid,
And each with death or agony for the high rapture paid.
21

322 THE ATONEMENT.
His Mother's holy kisses of the coming sword gave sign,
And Simeon's hymn full closely did with his last breath
entwine ;
And Magdalen's first tearful touch prepared her but to greet
With homage of a broken heart His pierced and lifeless feet."*
It is the attraction of the Cross that has wrought
through all ages of the Church, alike in the con
version of sinners and unbehevers, and in moulding
the choicest specimens of heroic sanctity ; beneath
the shadow of the Cross the afflicted, the bereaved,
the broken-hearted, the world- wearied and heavy-
laden have found their rest. Out of the Passion
has come the sanctification of our sorrows, and the
deepening of our joys, the reahsation ofthe divine
antithesis exhibited in the Beatitudes, "as sor
rowful yet alway rejoicing." Disbehef or distrust
of it lies at the root of the sadness, unrestfulness,
shahowness, uncertainties, and strange incohe-
rencies so characteristic of modern life, which
might find their explanation in the despairing cry
of the Magdalen on Easter morning, when she had
lost her Lord, and knew not where they had laid
Him. The Cross is the sustaining power both of
the active and contemplative devotion alike of
individuals and communities. Because His love
constrained them to go ^forth and preach Jesus
and Him crucified, the voice of Apostles and
Evangehsts has been heard in, every land, and from
age to age the foundations of the spiritual temple
have been laid afresh in martyr blood. The
* Lyra Innocentiuni,

THE MORAL FITNESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 323
outward extension of the Divine kingdom is
dependent on the same unchanging law as its
internal growth; it conquers by the sign of the
Cross. In the visions of the Apocalypse the
Church is nurtured in the wilderness, and her
witnesses prophesy in sackcloth.* And her history
from the first has been a chronic fulfilment of that
vision. The ten fierce persecutions which braced
her growth were the landmarks, not the hmits, of
her agony ; the form of the conflict varies from
age to age, but the world's hatred of the Name of
Jesus is the perpetual heritage of His disciples.
Heathenism and heresy, brute force and civihsed
indifference, the tyranny of monarchs and the
frenzy of fanatical multitudes, each has had its
turn, and through aU alike — >
" hath the Church for ages stood,
Within the world, and ever seemed on fire,
Albeit her hidden scent, like cedar wood,
Smells sweetest on the pyre."
St. Theresa's favourite maxim, Aut pati aut mori,
embodies the ruling principle exemplified in the
history of the Church and in the lives of all her
Saints. But the introduction of this new law of meri
torious suffering, by virtue whereof the meek
inherit the earth and the persecuted the kingdom
of heaven, and which so signally reversed all
current traditions both of Jewish and Pagan
* Apoc, xii, 6 j xi. 3, t Faber's Poems.
21 *

324 THE ATONEMENT.
antiquity, like all God's greatest gifts and mani
festations, like Him who is its Teacher and
Exemplar, " came not with observation." The
Annunciation and Nativity took place at midnight,
the Besurrection in the twilight of the early dawn,
while men yet slept, the Transfiguration and even
the Ascension were witnessed only by a chosen
few. The Crucifixion indeed was made a spectacle
to the world, but the world comprehended it not.
To the great mass of the actual spectators on
Calvary it was an offence, or a foolishness, or the
object of mere vulgar curiosity. To the contem
porary world in general it was far less than this.
His death, who hung there between two thieves,
was to be the life of men, the secret and sustaining
power of all that ennobles or beautifies our mortal
existence, the source of aU our hopes beyond the
grave. The enthe future of humanity here and
hereafter was wrapped up in it. Yet what was it
to the mighty empire which ruled the order and
civilisation of the world of that day, to its poten
tates, its philosophers, its polished society, its
monied men, its literary classes, its " dim common
populations " ? A vague rumour, perchance, flying
along the Boman roads of some unexplained
eclipse, or of a strange excitement about an
obscure criminal execution in the remote depen
dency of Judea, where " one Christus, the author
of a pernicious superstition, had suffered under
Pontius Pilate."* It has passed into a proverb
* Tac. Annul, xv. 44. Cf. Sueton. Nero, 16.

THE MORAL FITNESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 325
that the world knows nothing of its greatest men,
till it has lost them ; least of aU did it care to take
note of His earthly hfe and death, in whom alone
it hves and moves and has its being, who is indeed
Very Man, but is also its Maker and its God.
4. And if Jesus thus drew us to Himseh by
what in our faUen nature must ever prove the most
intimate and hohest bond of sympathy, if for aU
time His Passion is perpetuated in His Church,
this is for us not so much a penance as a privilege;
He has transmuted suffering from a chastisement
into a means of grace. It has become a kind
of supplementary sacrament, consecrated in the
prayer of Gethsemane, " Thy wUl be done." He
died not, as some have imagined, to supersede our
imperfect satisfactions, but to ennoble them and
give them worth. Thenceforth they have a true
though derivative value, because they are shadows
of His Cross, and sprinkled with His atoning blood.
They have merit, not in spite of His meritorious
Passion, but because- of it. Just as His obedience
was not to be the substitute, but the pattern and
rule of ours, so too in suffering He left us an example
of patience. He did not abolish for His disciples
the common doom of sorrow, but sanctified it.
He bade them take up their daily cross, but He
showed how that cross might be turned from a
curse to a beatitude. The cloud of doubt or per
plexity has melted away, and His people are free
to serve Him, in the spirit not of slaves but sons.
We know that our poor satisfactions are accepted,

326 THE ATONEMENT.
because they are joined with His. We therefore
pray Him to help His servants, because He has
redeemed them with His precious Blood. The
great law of retributive justice, that sin must
suffer, Spao-avTi. iraOeiv, which suggested the grandest
and most religious^drama of the ancient world, lay
as a heavy burden at the poet's heart. The Sacri
fice of Calvary assures us that the law of justice
is also a law of love. Suffering is as the rough
ore embedded in the earth, out of which may be
fashioned crowns of glory or chains of bondage.
It is ours to make friends of the wages of
iniquity, by offering our righteous chastisements
in atonement for our sin. The Passion has im
pressed on every act of Christian service a new
power of reparation. Since Jesus hved as a
" Man of sorrows," the trials of life have attained
a meaning and a dignity; since Jesus died, the
sohtude of death, of which a Christian phUoso-
pher has spoken,* is less terrible than before, the
stone is rolled away from the door of the sepul
chre, and a hght is shed from the Cross on the
cleansing fires of the world beyond the grave.
When " the two voices " are striving in man's soul
for the mastery, there are others than Faust
whose hand has been arrested by the music of
the Easter bells.
5. In the method of the Atonement, and in its
abiding presence in the Church, we are taught the
* " Je mourrai seul." Pascal, Pensees.

THE MORAL FITNESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 327
spirit of self-sacrifice, which lies at the root of all
human exceUence and is the true measure of our
perfection. When we come to present that great
Sacrifice on the altar, we are bidden to say ; " We
give Thee thanks because of Thy great glory." He
who has learnt the meaning of those words, has
caught the spirit of the Eucharist and of the
Cross.* Nor only so. The central act of Christian
worship is at once a Sacrifice and a Communion.
It teaches us both parts of „the precept of charity,
self-devotion to God and self-devotion for the good
of man. AU genuine nobility of character springs
from self-obhvion, and self-oblivion is the spirit
of sacrifice. The toil of the mission, the zeal of
the apostle, the varied ministries of bodily or
spiritual consolation, the meekness of endurance,
the heroism of action, the patience of confessorship,
the courage of martyrdom — all these are fruits and
tokens of the Cross. It is the source of their
energy, and the rule of their fulfilment. Tender
children, like Ponticus and Pancrasius, have given
their bodies a sacrifice to flesh the hon's teeth, or,
like the boy-martyrs of Japan, have kissed the cross,
Whereon they counted it joy to die, as Jesus died.
On others His death has seemed to be almost
visibly imprinted, who, from intense and continuous

* " The Mass is the compendium of the Gospel. It is a
heresy in doctrine to acknowledge the Sacrament and to deny
the Sacrifice. Worldliness is guilty of a similar practical heresy
with regard to holiness. It admits the claims of all its obliga
tions but one, and that is the obligation of sacrifice. "^Faber(
Precious Blood, p. 303.

328 THE ATONEMENT.
meditation on the Passion, have exhibited the
marks, and felt something of the bodily pains of
the Crucified.* But to aU His foUowers, in then
measure and degree, must a share be imparted in
that communion of sacrifice. It is a contradiction,
to be " dehcate members of a body whose Head is
crowned with thorns." Obedience, poverty, and
virginity, which are among the characteristic
tokens of the Incarnation, are not, as has sometimes
been suggested, the specialities of a particular age
or condition of society, though the manner of then
exercise may vary. Christianity knows nothing of
" dead virtues," for in the power and example of
the Crucified aU graces hve. And, even as He
came not to be ministered unto, but to minister,
and to give His life a ransom, so we too are likest
Him, when we lay down our hves for the brethren.
Nor is that sacrifice less acceptably offered in an
age, hke the present, of high civilisation and
refinement, when direct persecution is hardly to
be thought of, though it may not win the praise
of men or attract their notice. The inglorious
martyrdom of labour, or weariness, or contradiction
— " the pang without the palm " — comes nearest

* There can be no doubt about the fact of what is called
" somatization " as in the case of the Tyrolese " Addolorata,"
and others, though it may often have been simulated. It is
perhaps to be explained as the physiological result of a pecuhar
concentration of mind on the Passion, rather than as strictly
miraculous. But it Is not always easy to draw the line. The
Precious Blood, and the Five Wounds, are among the most
popular " special devotions " in the Church. See also 2 Cor. iv.
10 ; Gal. vi. 17.

THE MORAL FITNESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 329
His, who on earth was hidden and despised ;
there are many Saints uncertified by public recog
nition here, whose names are written in heaven.
The lesson of love is taught at Bethlehem, on
Calvary love is crucified ; but the Incarnate
Victim is present stUl, an abiding Sacrifice, in
the Eucharist. To understand what that mystery
teaches is to understand the scope of our Christian
vocation, our highest law of hfe. For His, as we
have seen, was a life-long Sacrifice. That is no
fanciful picture, with which Overbeck has familiar
ised us, of the Boy-Christ on the Cross, with the
thriUing prophecy written beneath it, Dolor Meus in
conspectu Meo semper.
And the sacrifice, let me repeat once more, was
not only hie-long but complete. " He emptied
Himseh." He willed to suffer to the uttermost,
to drain to the last dregs the chahce both of
mental and physical agony. He used His omni
potence, not to curtail His sufferings or to restrain
the fierceness of His enemies, but to prolong
bodUy hfe till they had wreaked their worst upon
Him. He would teach us, if I may dare to say so,
to measure the infinitude of His Divine attributes
by the prodigality of His self-abasement, the
generosity — nay, the " foohshness " — of His Cross.
Even the bodily pains of the Passion included, as
has been shown, every form of suffering to which
our mortal frames are subject, except two. The
Psalmist had prophesied that a bone of Him
should not be broken, and it was not fitting that

330 THE ATONEMENT.
His sacred Flesh should feel the touch of fire,
which is the instrument or the image of the final
chastisement of the impenitent. But, with these
two exceptions, the Prophet's words are literaUy
true ; Vere languores nostros Ipse portavit. He would
feel aU, that He might pity aU, remembering that
we are but dust. And as the perfect organization
of that Human Body, " made ready for the
scourges," which grew as a tender plant from the
barren soil of our common nature, constrained
Him to feel every pulsation of physical agony
more keenly ten thousand-fold than is possible to
the ruder apprehension even of the most sensitive
and finely strung of bodUy organisms among His
earthly brethren, so, too, — and far more — did the
purely natural sufferings of His perfect Human
Soul unspeakably exceed in intensity the bitterest
sorrows that ever wrung the heart of man. And
we must remember that to Him all pains, whether
of soul or body, inflicted by others, were aggravated
by a love we can but dimly conceive of towards
those who smote Him, which reached its cul
minating point in that last mute appeal to the
traitor Apostle, as He knelt on the very night of
His betrayal to wash his feet. These were the
wounds He was wounded with in the House of
His earthly friends. Most of us, indeed, know
something of the bitterness of contradiction,
ingratitude, deliberate misconstruction, sympathy
slighted or betrayed ; yet in this element even of
His bodily sufferings neither Saint nor Martyr can

THE MORAL FITNESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 331
approach Him, for none can realise the love which
made it what it was. But all self-sacrifice involves
suffering of some kind, and what He voluntarily
chose for His earthly lot He has made into a
privUege for His children. There was a place
found for the mourner, the persecuted, the reviled,
among the Beatitudes of the kingdom of God.
6. It is a common saying, that cruelty and
cowardice go together ; so also do self-sacrifice and
tenderness. They ^are different sides of the same
idea. And aU the dehcacy and romance, so to
speak, of Christian tenderness is perceptibly an
outgrowth of the Cross. Lf we compare either the
characters of holy men, or the broader facts of
history, before and since the Crucifixion, there are
few contrasts so remarkable as the presence or
absence of that special quality which may be
caUed the grace and bloom of sacrifice, which is
the chivalry of self-devotion, and gives to heroic
patience its winning and attractive power. It
seems as though, tiU Christ had hved and died,
that fulness of human sympathy was impossible.
Compare Samuel with St. Bernard, or Moses with
the Teacher of the GentUes. The points of
resemblance are many and striking, but there is in
each case a marked distinction. Moses devoted his
hfe for his people, his brethren after the flesh, and
could even pray that his own name might be
blotted out of the book of God's remembrance for
their sakes ; but we seek in vain for that power of
world-wide sympathy, at once so universal and so

332 THE ATONEMENT.
minute, which makes us feel towards the great
Apostle even now, as we read his words, as though
he were a personal friend.* Samuel did not cease
to pray for his royal master, tiU the day of his
death ; but we see nothing of that intense feeling
which melted Bernard into an agony of tears,
when he preached over a brother's grave, t It is
the chief Apostle of the Church who bids us
be " sympathizing, lovers of the brethren, merciful,
courteous." J
Or turn from individual to national character
istics. Pain, deformity, sickness, sorrow, old age,
are an heirloom of the FaU, but their cure or
consolation is an outflow from that Heart which,
for us men and for our salvation, was pierced on
Calvary. Borne, Athens, Alexandria, in then
palmiest days, took no heed of suffering, or heeded
it only as an eyesore to be concealed, or even as
a crime to be punished. Our hospitals, refuges,
sisterhoods of compassion, and the like, are a
shadow cast from the Cross. There have, indeed,

* See Newman's Sermons on Various Occasions, Serm. 7 and 8
on the Character of St. Paul. Cf. also Stanley's Epistles to
Corinthians, vol. ii. p. 23.
f It is not of course meant to deny, that there are exquisite
touches of tenderness to be met with in the Old Testament
history, as in the recognition of Joseph by his brethren, and
still more in the tender affection which bound together David
and Jonathan, to use the words of a distinguished author, " as
by a sacramental union " ; but the very vividness with which
such instances fix themselves in our memory shows that they
are rare and exceptional. I hope it is not an over refinement to
add, that they mostly occur in the case of persons who are
commonly recognised as partial types of Christ.
X 1 Peter iii. 8.

THE MORAL FITNESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 333
in terrible visitations of pestilence been scenes of
frenzied selfishness in Christian cities, that do but
too weU recall the worst moral features of the
plague recorded by Thucydides and Lucretius ;
but there was no Borromeo at Athens to stand, as
an angel of mercy, between the living and the
dead. There have been in our own day cruel
massacres at the barricades of a Christian metro
polis, but the gentle self-devotion of Affre was a
bequest from the Good Shepherd, whose words
hung upon his dying lips. The fierceness of
war is not on the whole what it was of old ;
and, if slavery stiU unhappily survives in some
Christian nations, much at least in its incidents,
which the highest public opinion of Borne or
Athens aUowed, is emphaticaUy condemned by the
universal conscience of Christendom.*
Hence, again, the Passion of Jesus has conferred
on chUdhood, and the child-hke temper, a new
dignity, and made the love of children — whom He
took into His arms and blessed — a reflection and
memorial of His own. Even a heathen poet could
tell us that the greatest reverence is due to
boyhood, but our Lord made children the living
types of that temper without which none can enter
into His kingdom. Of the seven great Sacraments
of Divine compassion that flowed from His riven
Heart on Calvary two alone were designed for any
special age, and both for the age of childhood.
* See Excursus ix. " On Certain Ethical Contrasts of
Christian and Heathen Civilisation."

334 THE ATONEMENT.
Nay, more, He has vouchsafed to be named, for
our abiding devotion, by the lips of Apostles and
Evangehsts, "the Holy Child Jesus."* And in
the days of His earthly pUgrimage children were
drawn to Him as by the speU of an instinctive
sympathy. They were the first to welcome Him
on His entrance into the world, the last to sing
His praise. They form the vanguard of the white-
robed army of Martyrs, " baptized in blood for
Jesus' sake " in the cradles of Bethlehem,
pursuivants of a long procession from every chme
and age. When the representative wickedness of
all generations of mankind was concentrated in the
crowning act of apostasy, which converted the
chosen city into a moral wilderness, and seemed,
but only seemed, to seal the Tempter's victory,
every race, age, sex, condition, but one, conspired
to swell his triumph. The purity of the judgment-
seat was corrupted, priestly sanctity profaned, the
gentleness of woman turned to gaU ; the crowds
who chanted "Hosanna" on Palm Sunday
afternoon were the same that on Friday morning
shouted, " Crucify." One class alone, so far as
the Gospels tell us, never joined that cry. WhUe
priests and scribes were plotting under the very
temple roof, the last time He visited it, the death
* Luke ii. 43 ; Acts iv. 27, 80. It would seem that ircus in
these passages of the Acts has its proper meaning of Boy, as
well as slave or servant of God, as in the parallel passage of
Isaiah liii. 11. There is probably an allusion in both places to
the fact that favourite slaves were often boys. It is remarkable,
that the classical poets hardly ever refer to their childhood,
while few Christian poets have failed to dwell on it.

THE MORAL FITNESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 335
of its Lord, Hosannas rose once more from boyish
voices that would not be put to sUence, and the
mouths of babes and sucklings rebuked the
madness of His people.
More than this ; there has been a " tender
grace " thrown over all the relations of thought, of
hterature, and of hfe, which may no doubt often
degenerate into mere idle sentimentalism, but none
the less springs from a deeper and truer estimate
of the sacredness of that humanity, which Jesus
sanctified in sorrow and death. One of the
greatest modern writers on physical science has
commented on the very different appreciation of
natural scenery exhibited in classical and in
Christian hterature.* There was no subjective
poetry among the ancients. " What was evening
to the Greek ? What was it to the Boman ? It
was not tiU Christianity, that true but sadder
second thought, had drawn a veil over much that
seemed, but only seemed, so clear ; till aU the hght
that lay on human hfe had faded into the hues of
twilight, that men began to feel, dimly at first, and
as if by instinct, the true significance of that
wondrous interval which is not night nor yet day,
but more to the heart than either." t Even in
* See Humboldt's Kosmos, vol. ii. ch. 1, Eng. Tr. with the
quotations from St. Basil and the two Gregories. Cf. Newman's
Church of the Fathers (Hist. Sketches, vol. ii. pp. 59, 60).
t I am indebted for this passage to the unpublished Essay of
a friend. The nearest approach, as far as I am aware, to modern
ideahsm and subjectivity in classical poetry is to be found in the
Idylls of Theocritus, which in their way are unique. Virgil is
perhaps an extreme example on the opposite side.

336 THE ATONEMENT.
mere earthly enjoyments there is nothing pure, or
noble, or enduring without the sense of mystery
and the cost of sacrifice. And both are learnt on
Calvary. As the prismatic hues are centred in the
sunbeam, the tenderness of affection and the
experience of hfe are summed up and harmonized
in the Cross.
7. It foUows from this, that the vision of Calvary
interprets, while it chastens, our yearning for ideal
loveliness. Why has even physical beauty so
powerful an attraction for us ? Why do we so
fondly, so madly, so wildly, so passionately love it ?
Why is it, as a modern writer has truly said, that
no heart is pure which is not passionate, no virtue
safe which is not enthusiastic ? * Degraded,
indeed, the feeling may easUy become into shapes
of nameless horror, for there is a bhght over aU
that is loveliest in this fallen world. But in itself
it is surely part of our unfaUen nature, a rehc
of primeval innocence and earnest of future
beatitude ; it is the instinctive cry of the creature
for the Creator, the longing of the exiled spirit
for the sympathies of an immortal home.f In
this ideal sense the poet's words are true : —
" Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting,
The soul that rises with us, our life's star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting,
And cometh from afar."}
* Ecce Homo.
t See Pascal's Pensees (Paris, 1761), 3, 6.
} Wordsworth's Ode to Immortality.

THE MORAL FITNESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 337
He was not wrong who taught that the love of
Beauty is indeed no other than the love of
Eternal Truth. And only in the brightness of the
uncreated Vision can that love find its adequate
satisfaction.* " Wir miissen nach der Heimath gehen,
Um diese heilige Zeit zu sehen."f
But the corruption of what is noblest is most
base. The records of Heathendom tell us into
what strange aberrations even rehgious enthusiasm,
when undisciplined, may lead its votaries. He,
who is the Flower of humanity, "fairest among
the sons of men," is proposed to our adoration,
not so much as modern art has striven to represent
Him, in that winning brightness of His Boyhood
which riveted the gaze of the assembled doctors
in the temple, or the grace of maturer years which
drew upon Him the eyes of all the worshippers in
the synagogue of Nazareth before He had begun
to speak, but with countenance "marred more
than any man," with " no form or comeliness that

* " Perhaps no man can attain the highest excellence, who is
insensible to sensuous beauty  it gives conceptions which
are infinite, but it never gives or realises the infinite. Still it
leads on to it. To see the King in His beauty is the loftiest and
most unearthly attainment. Can anyone be keenly alive to this
who has no heart for external beauty ? " Bobertson's Letters,
vol. i. p. 223-4. Cf. vol. ii. p. 54 ; "I am quite certain that
beauty attracts an un vitiated heart only because it seems, by a
law of our thought, the type of mental and moral beauty."
t Novalis, Hymn to Death. 22

33 8 THE ATONEMENT.
we should desire Him," in the dishonour of His
Passion, and the cold repose of death. He is
hfted up on the Cross, a bleeding Victim, to draw
all men to Himself. It is the stream that flows
from Calvary, whose living waters make glad the
city of our God. And thus the Cross is a response
to our unfulfilled aspirations, while it consecrates
our discipline of sorrow. It is a pillar of fire to
lighten our eyes, and the shadow of a great Bock
in a weary land ; pointing upwards to the thrones
on the right hand and on the left, but reminding
us of the chalice of agony, the Bed Sea of the
baptism of blood.
It was observed in an earher chapter, that
Heathen sacrifices could scarcely, if at aU, be
taken as prefigurements of the death of Christ,
and that St. Augustine and others regard even the
Jewish sacrificial worship more as a concession to
temporary exigencies, and a safeguard against
idolatry, than as having any special prophetic
value. But it must not be forgotten, that such
rites tell much of the reality of sin, if they throw
but a dim hght on the method of its expiation.
Sacrifice, even, nay chiefly, in its most revolting
and criminal shapes, not only the thousands of
rams, the burnt offerings and calves of a year old,
but the first-born offered for transgression, " the
fruit of the body for the sin of the soul," like
other forms of superstition and self-torture, gives
unmistakable, however distorted, expression to
man's instinctive sense of guilt, and his dread of

THE MORAL FITNESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 339
punishment.* Other meanings it might have
besides, as in the Oriental notion of absorption into
the divine essence, or anima mundi, through self-
annihUation ; but stUl this feeling, often perhaps
vague and undefined, of remorse and terror is its
most radical and universal explanation. The facts
of nature and the experience of human history
tended to confirm such impressions. Men could at
best but feel after God, if perchance they might
find Him, and "faintly trust the larger hope,"
though much in the outward appearance of things
seemed to contradict their creed. To assuage this
terror, and turn remorse into repentance, some
act, so to speak, was needed on God's side, whioh
might reveal the depths of His compassion and
notify to men, not indeed that He would leave sin
unpunished, but that for all who turned to Him
with contrite hearts punishment was tempered by
mercy. And such an assurance was given in the
Incarnation and death of the Eternal Son. " Why
Christ's death was requisite for our salvation, and
how it has obtained it, will ever be a mystery in
this hfe. But, on the other hand, the contempla
tion of our guilt is so growing and so overwhelming
a misery, as our eyes open on our real state, that
some strong act (so to caU it) was necessary, on
God's part, to counterbalance the tokens of His
wrath, which are around us, to calm and reassure us,
and to be the ground and the medium of our faith.
* See Butler's Amlogy, pt. ii. ch. 5 ; and of, Newman's Gram.
mar of Assent, pp. 887-391, 22 *

340 THE ATONEMENT.
It seems, indeed, as if, in a practical point of view,
no mere promise was sufficient to undo the impres
sion left on the imagination by the facts of Natural
Behgion ; but in the death of His Son we have His
deed — His hreversible deed — making His forgiveness
of sin, and His reconciliation with our race, no con
tingency, but an event of past history." * It was the
Divine response to the long and exceeding bitter
cry of tortured humanity, deepening from age to age
in its conscious or unconscious yearning for the
advent of a Bedeemer, as it rose from the sinning,
suffering multitudes of the Patriarchal, or the
Hebrew, or the Heathen world ; 0 Adonai et Dux
domus Israel, 0 Rex gentium et Desideratus earum, veni
et salva hominem quern de limo formdsti !
Such, then, are some of the inferences that may
be drawn from the fact of the Atonement wrought
by Christ, though we could not, I repeat, have
used them beforehand as arguments to show that
it was needed, or that it would be vouchsafed.
They do not unlock the secret of the Divine
counsels, but they help to explain its apphcation to
ourselves. We recognise, as through a glass
darkly, an utterance of that "Wisdom that pro-
ceedeth out of the mouth of the Most High, and
reacheth from one end to the other mightUy, sweetly
disposing aU things " ; but we do not pretend to
understand it. We may not pierce behind the
veil. So much our hearts will tell us, that in
* Newman's University Sermons, 3 ed, pp. 118, 119.

THE MORAL FITNESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 341
the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world,
but offered in time on Calvary, we have the surest
pledge and most perfect revelation of a love that
cannot faU. From of old He had loved us with an
everlasting love, and therefore, when we rebeUed
against Him, in the compassion of His sufferings
He drew us to Himself once more ; and He has
vouchsafed to reconcile us by so excellent a method^
of atonement, that it is at once the source of
sanctity to the faUen, whose nature He has
assumed, and a perfect satisfaction for their sin.
And, further, the voice of tradition combines with
the surmises of reason to suggest to us, that the
mystery of the Atonement is part of a yet deeper
mystery in the eternal purpose of God. He had
always meant to make His tabernacle among men,
but He had not meant to die. Only in so far as
we comprehend the charity of the Incarnation, can
we hope to comprehend aright its consummation
in the shame and self-sacrifice of the Cross.

EXCUKSUS I. (p- 25).
ON THE ATONEMENT AND THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION.
It is a very common, but very ignorant, objection to the
doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, that it places the
Blessed Virgin beyond the need of redemption ; and I have
even known of sermons being preached against it on the
text, " My spirit hath rejoiced in God lay Saviour." Those
who so argue can never even have read the decree ol
Dec. 8, 1854, which expressly affirms, " that the most Blessed
Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her conception, by a
singular privilege and grace of God, in virtue of the merits of
Jesus Christ the Saviour of the human race, was preserved
exempt from all stain of original sin."* Nor is it more to
the purpose to object, as is also frequently done, that her
conception was not, like that of our Divine Lord, miraculous.
Yet the present Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Oxford
seems almost to think it a sufficient disproof of the doctrine to
quote some words from a sermon of St. Leo's, to the effect that
Christ alone was born innocent, because His birth alone was
not through the1 ordinary laws of generation^ But that is
not the point Without entering here on the vexed question
of the manner of its transmission, it is obvious that original
sin affects directly the soul, not the body. And the soul is
created immediately by God, though its creation is dependent
* Bishop Ullathorne's Immaculate Conception, p. 198. Bichard-
Son, 1855.
f Bright'B Sermons of St. Leo with Notes. Note 1. Masters.

344 THE ATONEMENT.
on certain physical antecedents. The body of the Blessed
Virgin (as in all probability our Lord's also) was subject to
the conditions of infirmity introduced by the Fall.* But we
may none the less hold that her soul was, by a singular grace
vouchsafed for the merits of her Son, perfectly sanctified at
the moment of its creation, as ours are in the sacrament of
baptism.f It is, further, a pious and universal belief (though
not matter of faith), dating at latest from the time of
St. Augustine, that she was preserved through life by a special
grace from all defilement of actual sin, as the Apostles are by
many supposed to have been " confirmed in grace " by the
descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost. To call such a
belief derogatory to the grace of God, or the merits of our
Redeemer, is unmeaning. Rather it commends itself to the
instinctive feelings of a religious mind. And accordingly
we find the great English poet of the last generation
exclaiming: —
" Mother, whose virgin bosom was uncrost
By slightest shade of thought to sin allied,
Woman above all women glorified,
Our tainted nature's solitary boast." }
It is of course true, as Dr. Bright observes, that St. Leo
" knew nothing of the Immaculate Conception," as it is true,
* See Excursus IV. Her death, therefore, is no argument
against her sinlessness, as is argued by the clever but very one
sided author of Quelques Mots sur les Communions Occidentals,
p. 84. Leipzig, 1855. Cf. Encore Quelques Mots, p. 29. Leip
zig, 1858.
t Cf. Ullathorne, ut supra pp. 58-60 ; Ffoulkes' Christen
dom's Divisions, vol. i. p. 105.
$ Wordsworth's Ecclesiastical Sonnets. A distinguished Angh
can prelate and divine of our own day very justly observes, that
" to imagine that even for one moment the Blessed Virgin, by a
wilful sin, was hateful to her Son, or that by a deliberate evil
wish she took the part of Satan against her Son, and conspired
to dethrone Him (both which notions are bound up in the idea of
sin), is a thought revolting to the pious instinct." Bp. Forbes's
Explanation of the Articles, vol. i. p. 224.

THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. 345
in the same sense, that the early Greek fathers knew nothing
of the doctrine of original sin, as eventually defined, till it
was brought into prominence by the Pelagian controversy,
while some of the greatest of them — as St. Clement of Alexan
dria and St. Chrysostom — use language which seems to
contradict it. And the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception
presupposes the doctrine of original sin. But it is a con
fusion of thought to imagine that St. Leo intended to
contradict an opinion not brought into debate in his day.
There were later writers, as St. Bernard, who did oppose it,
partly from misapprehension of its precise meaning, partly on
grounds proved, after being sifted through some eight
centuries, to be inadequate. Arguments of this kind are
two-edged swords. Those at least who defend the present
form of the Nicene Creed (and there are, it may be hoped, very
few Anglican divines who decline to do so) may be expected
to remember for how many centuries the definition Filioque
was unknown, and what high authorities have rejected it.
I have had occasion more than once in the course of this
volume to point out, that the Scotist view of the Incarnation,
which naturally allies itself with the dogma of the Immaculate
Conception, is most accordant with the general spirit of
patristic teaching, though not expressly maintained by any
early writer, as it has also commended itself to many modern
Protestant divines, both English and German. The whole
doctrinal question is elaborately discussed in Passaglia's De
Immaculato Deiparce semper Virginis Gonceptu Comment a-
rius (3 vols, folio) ; and is exhibited in a more concise and
popular form, but with great lucidity of statement, in Bishop
Ullathorne's book already referred to.
* Hence again the duty and importance of infant baptism was-
evidently not recognised, either in theory or practice, even
among saints, in the same way before as after the Pelagian
controversy. See Newman's Development, pp. 127, sqq.

EXCURSUS II. (p. 51).
ON COMMUNION IN ONE KIND.
So much has been said in some recent publications against
Communion in one kind, which is sometimes ignorantly and
profanely stigmatized as " Half-Communion," and there is so
strong a prejudice on the subject among many even of the
most orthodox among Anglicans, that it may be well to add a
few words here in further vindication of what has been for the
last five centuries the general usage of Western Christendom.
The validity of Communion Under either kind separately
depends, of course, theologically on what is called the doctrine
of Concomitance, according to which all who receive the Body
of our Lord thereby receive with it His Blood also, while
conversely all who receive the chalice partake, by that act, of
His Body as well as of His Blood. But the doctrine first
formally laid down by the Council of Constance (Sess. xiii),
that " it is most firmly to be believed, and in nowise doubted,
that the whole Body and Blood of Christ is truly contained
as well under the species of Bread as of Wine," is, in fact, not
so much an inference from the truth of the Real Presence, as
an integral part of it. If it be true that our Lord is present
entirer— Bodyj Blood, Soul, and Divinity' — under every
particle of the consecrated species— and the doctrine of
Transubstantiation or the Real Presence, which, as I have
endeavoured to show elsewhere, are identical,* cannot mean
less than this — it follows that He is received entire by those
Who communicate tinder either kind. No doubt by direct
* See Appendix I. to Catholic Eschatoloyyt

COMMUNION IN ONE KIND. 347
virtue of consecration the Body alone is present under the
form of Bread, and the Blood under the form of Wine, but, as
the Tridentine decree on the subject proceeds to explain, by
reason of the hypostatic union, which is involved in the truth
of the Incarnation, wherever the Body is there must also be
the Blood, and wherever the Blood is there must also be the
Body, together, in either case, with the Soul and Divinity of
our Blessed Lord* This, be it remembered, is no subtle
scholastic refinement ; it is a fundamental verity of the Gospel,
which cannot be denied without denying the reality of the
Incarnation. And if it was not expressly put into words by
early writers, there is abundant evidence of the practical
recognition of the principle in the Church from the beginning,
for otherwise Communion in one kind would be not only, as
it is sometimes called, a mutilation of the Sacrament, but
would be simply invalid.
What makes this clearer is that the obligation of Infant
Communion was maintained, as it is still maintained in the
Eastern Church, on the strength of our Lord's solemn
declaration, which is often cited as a palmary proof of the
necessity of receiving under both kinds, " Except ye eat the
Flesh ofthe Son of Man, and drink His Blood, ye have no
life in you."t It was, therefore, evidently held that infants
* See Canones Cone. Trid. Sess. xiii. c. 3. " Semper heec fides
in Ecclesia, Dei fuit, statim post consecrationem verum Domini
nostri corpus, verumque ejus sanguinem sub panis et vini specie
una cum Ipsius anima et Divinitate existere ; sed corpus quidem
sub specie panis, et sanguinem sub specie vini, ex vi verborum,
ipsum autem corpus sub specie vini, et sanguinem sub specie
panis, animamque sub utraque, vi naturalis illius connarionis
et concomitantiat, qua partes Christi Domini, qui jam ex mortuis
resurrexit non amplius moriturus, inter se copulantur,
Divinitatem porro, propter admirabilem illam Ejus cum corporc
et anima hypostaticam unionem."
t John vi. 53. But cf. vv. 48-51, 57, 58, where eating the
" Bread of Life," or " the Bread which came down from
heaven," is Spoken of without any mention of the chalice. Sec
S. Aug. Contr < duas Epist. Pelag. i. 40 ; ii. 7 ; iv. b,

348 THE ATONEMENT.
communicated with the chalice only — as were also the sick in
certain cases* — did receive both the Flesh and Blood of our
Lord. The same principle must equally hold good of the
sick, the imprisoned confessors, and those allowed to reserve
the Blessed Sacrament in their own houses, and communicate
themselves privately,f all of whom received under the form of
Bread only, And these classes taken together must have
made up a considerable majority of Christians during the ages
of persecution, so that in practice, though not in theory,
Communion in one kind was then the general rule. Moreover,
in the Mass of the Presanctified, dating at latest from the
Council of Laodicea in 365, and still solemnised in the
Eastern Church daily during Lent, except on Saturdays and
Sundays, the priest receives, in the public liturgy at the altar,
under the form of Bread only, as in the Latin Rite for Good
Friday..]] It is no answer to this to say, what is of course notorious,
that the general usage of the Church for the first twelve
centuries was to administer Communion in the public liturgy
under both kinds, for the question is not whether in this
respect the early discipline has been changed, which is allowed
on all hands, but whether this change is one calculated, on the
principles of the early Church, to affect the validity of the
Sacrament. Still less is it to the purpose to plead that Popes
Leo I. and Gelasius, in the fifth century, expressly forbade the
rejection of the chalice, as systematically practised by the
Manicheans (who in their own masses used water instead of
wine), avowedly on grounds connected with their own peculiar

* See Hefele's Conciliengeschichte, vol. iii. p. 115.
I St. Basil, e.g. says (Epist. 93) that in his day nearly all
the laity in Egypt, as well as all the monks in the desert,
communicated privately in this way from the reserved Sacra
ment ; and there is abundant evidence of the custom in Ter
tulhan and other early writers.
| See Smith's Diet, of Christ Antiq. s.v. "Presanctified."

COMMUNION IN ONE KIND. 349
form of Antichristian heresy. It might, indeed, be plausibly
inferred from St. Leo's words that some diversity of general
practice existed at the time, even in public Communion, since
a special and stringent prohibition was found necessary in
order to make the refusal of the chalice a test of Manichean
heresy. Be that as it may, the broad fact remains that, from
the first, the Church deemed it both lawful and expedient to
communicate her children under one kind only in a large
number of cases, for most of which no plea of necessity could
be urged, even supposing such an excuse could ever be
admitted — as of course it cannot — for the violation of a Divine
ordinance. If, for instance, wine for the celebration of Mass
could not be procured in some particular place, that would be
a conclusive reason for the temporary discontinuance of the
rite, but would be no excuse for substituting a new rite, at
once invalid and profane, by using some other liquid instead
of wine for the purpose. And so, too, there would be no
excuse for communicating the sick in one species only, even
when they were unable, from whatever cause, to receive both,
if the reception of both was essential, by Divine appointment,
for the integrity of the Sacrament, as it is for the integrity of
the Sacrifice ; they would in such circumstances have to be
content with a spiritual Communion.
It is no part of my present purpose to enter on a discussion
of the Scriptural argument, further than to point out that, in
the face of so overwhelming a weight of traditional sanction
for the existing practice of Western Christendom, the whole
onusprobandi lies on those who argue against it from their own
private interpretation of the letter of Scripture. And it is a
burden they will not find it easy to sustain, in the absence
of any direct injunction or prohibition,* and in view of suoh

* The Divine command, "Drink ye all of this," was
addressed to the Apostles, and formed in fact a part of their
ordination to the priesthood. If it is taken to establish a

350 THE ATONEMENT.
passages, e.g. as St. Luke's description of the Communion at
Emmaus, which appears, so far as we can gather from the
sacred text, to have been administered to the two disciples in
the species of Bread only, by our Lord Himself. Nor must
it be forgotten that in one crucial passage of the New
Testament, where there is no pretence even of doubt as to the
correot reading of the Greek text, " or " has been deliberately
changed into " and," in Protestant versions, in order to
obscure the clear testimony of the original to the practice of
Communion under either kind separately in the Apostolic age.
" Whosoever shall eat this Bread, or (not and) drink the
chalice of the Lord unworthily," are St. Paul's words. And
Alford (in loc), though he declines to accept the inevitable
inference, candidly admits that " the meaning of this 17 (or) is
not to be changed to xat (and), as is most unfairhj done in
our E. V., and the completeness of the argument thereby
destroyed."* Nothing here said is intended to imply any opinion as to
bow far some change or relaxation might be advisable of a rule
which, to cite Mohler's words, " evidently belongs to discipline
and not to doctrine," and which is not now binding on the
Uniates. To the weighty judgment of the great divine just
named, T would refer my readers; "It is well known that

universal rule of Communion under both kinds for all, then the
words addressed to them just before, tovto irouiTe cis rrjv i/irjv
avap-vno-Lv ("Offer this for the commemoration of Me") must be
taken to establish the universal priesthood of all Christians, in
the strict sacrificial sense of the term.
* Alford's Greek Text. vol. ii. in 1 Cor. xi. 27. Bloomfield's
comment on the same passage, derived from Mr. Slade, as to
" the argument of the Romanists," is truly marvellous in its
ignorance of the plainest facts; " If it proved anything, it
would prove too much, since it would authorise a separate use of
the cup as well as of the bread ; whereas they never presume to
give the cup without the bread," — which was done habitually
throughout the whole Church for twelve centuries, and is atill
done throughout the East, in the rite of Infant Communion.

COMMUNION IN ONE KIND. 351
this custom was not first established by any ecolesiastioal law ;
but, on the contrary, it was in consequence of the general
prevalence of the usage that this law was passed in approval
of it. . , . The Catholic who, even in this formality, proves
that it is not with him a mere matter of form when he
abstains from the consecrated chalice, and who, taught by
examples in Scripture, or at any rate by the authority' of the
primitive Church, thinks himself justified in so abstaining,
without becoming alienated from the spirit of Jesus Christ, or
losing any portion of his Eucharistic blessings, rejoices that,
though in his Church there may be men of a perhaps
exaggerated scrupulosity, yet none are found so carnal-minded
as to desire to drink in the Communion, not the holy Blood,
but the mere wine, and often on that account to protest,
among other things, against what they call a mutilation of the
ordinance of Christ, . . . When even the Zwinglians complain
of this mutilation — they who have taken away the Body with
the Blood of Christ, and left in room of them mere bread and
wine, — it is difficult not to think of that passage in Holy Writ
wherein the Redeemer reproaches the Pharisees for straining
at gnats and swallowing camels. However, we should rejoice
if it were left free to-each one to drink or not of the consecrated
chalice ; and this permission would be granted if, with the
same love and concord, an universal desire was expressed for
the use of it, as from the twelfth century the contrary wish
has been manifested."*
Let me add, in conclusion, that the late Bishop Forbes,
while himself opposed to the present Western practice, and
insisting that, " according to the best theologians something
is lost by the deprivation" of the chalice — which is not
disputedf— fully admits the validity of Communion under
* Mohler's Symbolism, pt. i. ch. 4, sec. 34.
t See e.g. De Lugo De Sacram. et Euch. xii. 8. " Concilium
non voluit negare aliquam novam gratiam conferri per calicem.

352 THE ATONEMENT.
either kind. After referring to the precedents in the Ancient
Church already dwelt upon, he proceeds — the italics are my
own; — " These instances, and they go over a great range, not
only serve to console one under the contemplation of the fact
that the Occidental Church causes all but the celebrant to
abstain from the Sacrament of the Cup, but also illustrate
how the mind of the Church became trained to the thought
that it might dispense with the Chalice without danger of
invalidating the Sacrament. They show that those thus
deprived lose not any grace necessary to salvation."*
Admoneo ex hac doctrina non fieri ullo modo posse aliquos
merito conqueri de Ecclesia quod usum Calicis laicis interdixerit,
turn quia fructus substantialis et praicipuus in singulis speciebus
habetur, turn etiam quia in hujus Sacramenti dispensatione
attendendum non solum ad suscipientium utilitatem sed etiam ad
ipsius Sacramenti reverentiam." The passage is quoted by
Dalgairns, who says that the Church calls upon her children
to sacrifice some additional grace, to be derived from the
chalice, for fear of irreverence to the Precious Blood ; and this
on account of " the tremendous evil to our souls of anything
which would breed a habit of irreverence towards our Blessed
Lord." Holy Communion, (8 ed. Duffy, 1868), p. 321.
* Explan. 39 Articles, vol. ii. p. 596.

EXCURSUS III. (p. 92).
ON THE REAL MEANING OF THE POPULAR CULT OF
ANTINOUS.
It is clear from the language of Origen (Contr Celsum III.
36-38) that Celsus had laid special stress, in his argument
against Christianity, on that last desperate effort of an expiring
Paganism, the apotheosis and cult of Antinous, which he
expressly declared " to differ in nothing from our worship of
Christ." Origen, of course, rejects the analogy thus suggested
with just indignation ; but what does it mean ? The exact
historical truth about the death of the Bithynian slave-boy —
if such he was * — deified by Hadrian and immortalised in
ancient art, it is hardly possible now to recover with any
certainty, although the theory of voluntary self-devotion,
which appears to be symbolised in the Ildefonso group at
Madrid, is on the whole much the most probable, and we have
distinct evidence of contemporary examples of it. But
whichever of the three rival hypotheses — of accidental
drowning, of self-devotion, or of immolation — he accepted as
true to fact, belief in the second will alone suffice to account
for the rapid spread of this new worship, and its steady
survival for between two and three centuries after the death

. * It is not certain that Antinous was a slave, though the
statement of Hegesippus receives some support from the bas-
reliefs on the Arch of Constantine, representing him in a page's
hunting dress,
23

354 THE ATONEMENT.
of Hadrian : that could not, as Dr. DoUinger observes, be the
effect of mere fawning and flattery exhibited towards a freak
of the reigning Emperor* St. Clement of Alexandria de
nounces the continued observance of the " sacred nights " of
Antinous (Protrept. c. 4). St. Athanasius (Contra Gentes, 9)
speaks of the cult as existing in his own day, and regards
it as insigne adversus universam idololatriam monumentum,
but when he adds propter melum imperanlis venerantur,
he must refer rather to the original deification than to the
lasting popularity of the worship of Antinous. Nor can
Milman's statement of its " tending to alienate a large portion
of the thinking class, already wavering in their cold and
doubtful polytheism, to any purer or more ennobling system
of religion," be admitted as an accurate account of the actual
result, while his reference to a well-known line from the
eighth Book of the Sibylline verses only attests the Christian
sentiment of a later age.f
In the apotheosis itself there is nothing greatly to surprise
us; what requires explanation is the widely-extended
observance and long duration of a cult, which may have
sprung in the first instance from a mere personal whim of
Hadrian's. No other imperial apotheosis — and there were
fifty-three of them in all — ever took so strong a hold on
popular belief, or was so distinctly rocognised in the indignant
denunciations of Christian Apologists, such as Prudentius,
Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Eusebius, Justin Martyr,
Tatian, Athenagoras, Athanasius, and Origen, as in some
special sense a counter influence to the Gospel. The new
worship spread rapidly, not only in Bithynia, the birthplace
of Antinous, and throughout Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt, and
Greece, where coins and medals are still found with his like-

* Dollinger's Jew and Gentile, vol. ii. p. 168.
t ircu8a 8eov Sci/cvwra, arravra erc/JoKr/iara \virei. See Milman's
Hist, of Christianity, vol. ii. pp. 106, 128.

THE POPULAR cult of antt:;ous. 355
ness, but even in Italy; his name maybe read in Roman
and Neapolitan inscriptions, as well as in the temple of
Dionysus at Athens, and his statues are to be seen at Rome
and Naples, and in various cities of the Campagna There
were festivals and public games celebrated in his honour in
many parts of the empire : he had temples, priesthoods, and
oracles, and in the time of Origen miracles were still ascribed
to him. His worship lasted at least to the reign of Valentinian,
and amid the wreck of ancient monuments his multiplied
statues have survived to this day the destructive zeal both
of political and religious iconoclasts.* How are we to account
for this ? It is only due to human nature, even in its fallen
state, to admit that, however corrupt in practice, it will not
give to whatis simply vile, as such, its permanent reverence and
adhesion. The most debased religions that have any vitality
live, not by reason of their debasement, but in virtue of such
elements of truth and goodness as are still retained in them,
as the presence of ten just men would have averted the
doom of Sodom. And I cannot therefore but think that a
distinguished modern scholar is right in suggesting that the
motif of this new devotion, and the secret of its success, must
be sought in the nobler and more spiritual element it supplied,
or seemed to supply, to the effete forces of a decaying super
stition. " The popular emotion upon which his cult reposed
recognised . . . his vicarious sacrifice, and paid enduring
tribute to the sublimity of his young life untimely quenched,"
and thus " Antinous became in truth a popular saint, and
satisfied some new need in Paganism, for which none of the
elder and more respectable deities sufficed." Hence the startling
comparison of Celsus, which Origen so sternly repudiates.
It is clear that Celsus, relying on the received version of the
story, had ventured to put forward the self-devotion of
* See Dollinger's Jew and Gentile, vol. ii. pp. 168, 169, and
cf. Sketches and Studies in Italy, by J. A. Symonds, " Antinous."
23 *

356 THE ATONEMENT.
Antinous in rivalry with the Sacrifice of the Cross. To quote
Mr. Symonds again, " the dying spirit of Hellas seized upon
those doctrines of self-devotion and immortality which,
through the triumph of Christian teaching, were gaining a
new and incalculable value for the world." And thus the
name of Antinous became endeared to his Pagan votaries,
and formidable, or at least odious, rather than simply con
temptible, to Christian Apologists. We must remember that
the old Pagan tradition required a victim who devoted his
life for another to be integer vitce scelerisque purus, and it
was on this hypothesis, therefore, whether true or false
historically, that the popular cult reposed. It is a curious
'coincidence, if it is nothing more, that in a statue in the
Chigi Chapel at Rome — the only marble statue he ever
executed — Raphael should have chosen to reproduce the
likeness of Antinous under the name of the prophet Jonas,
who was the recognised emblem in early Christian art of self-
sacrifice and immortality. And thus the statue fitly typifies
a cult which gave expression to the last wearv cry of un
redeemed humanity, as of " an infant crying in the night " of
Pagan darkness, and feeling in dim presentiment after a
Divine Deliverer, whose death should be the life of the
world. It is worth noting, in conclusion, that two German novelists
of the day have made Antinous the hero of their latest works,
both of whom represent his character as a singularly guileless
and noble one, and his death as a voluntary act of self-
devotion for the life of his beloved master.* The same idea
is embodied in Mr Symonds's touching poem on what is
perhaps the most touching episode in classicnl antiquity,
entitled, " The Lotos-Garland of Antinous." The author of
Antinous, who represents the final catastrophe as brought
* Der Kaiser; Roman, Von Georg Ebers; Antinous, Historisches
Roman aus der romischen Kaiscrzcit, Von George Taylor.

THE POPULAR CULT OF ANTINOUS. 357
about through the murderous treachery of iElius Verus and
his priestly accomplice, Amenophis, in tampering with the
oracles, has drawn far the most life-like and attractive picture
of his character and destiny. In both stories he is brought
under Christian influences, and in one narrowly misses con
version, which is of course quite possible, though I am not
aware of any historical authority for it. The author of
Der Kaiser speaks of the contemporary statues and busts of
Antinous as a fresh efflorescence of Hellenic art in its season
of decay, much as his English biographer says, justly enough,
that " his death seems to have formed an era in the history of
ancient art."* George Taylor points out that "innocence
and resignation, melancholy and infinite longing, are indelibly
impressed on the features " thus rendered familiar to us, and
dwells on the marvellous extension of the artistic and religious
cult of the deified favourite throughout the Roman world.
No one acquainted with the facts can hesitate to agree with
him that " it would be absurd to attribute this phenomenon
simply to the servile adulation of the age," and he touches on
the true explanation when he makes Hadrian say, in reference
to this subject, to a recent Christian convert, who had been a
friend of Antinous, " I cannot blame you for seeking, like me,
to charm yourself away, by the aid of new mysteries, from the
dreary scepticism of this godless age." All testimony indeed,
friendly or hostile, conspires to indicate that, in religion, as in
art, the one imperial apotheosis which developed into a popular
cult, was the last, prophetic afterglow of an expiring faith.
* See Smith's Biograph. Diet. s.v. " Antinous."

EXCURSUS IV. (p. 98).
ON THE CONDITION OF OUR LORD'S HUMAN BODY.
A friendly reviewer in the Ecclesiastic took exception at
the time to my speaking, in the first edition of this Volume,
of our Lord's assuming a " corruptible " body, or, as it is
expressed in another place, a body " subject to the con
ditions of infirmity introduced by the Fall," that is to decay
and death; and insists that our Lord's bodily constitution
was modelled in all respects on that of our first parents before
the Fall, not on that which they transmitted to their posterity.*
The discussion of the question belongs properly to the
theology of the Incarnation ; having occasion to refer to it
incidentally in a work on the Atonement, I did not profess to
do more than give what appears to me the most probable
opinion, and what is certainly that most generally adopted by
theologians. And I must content myself here with noticing
very briefly the reviewer's objections to it. Those who wish
to pursue the subject, may be referred to the Treatises of
Petavius and Thomassin on the Incarnation, especially the
latter, where it is discussed at length, and the conclusion in
which I have acquiesced, is maintained."f
* See Ecclesiastic for Aug. and Dec. 1865. *
t Petav. De Inc. Verb. x. 3-6. Cf. Thomas, De Inc. Verb.
Divin. iv. 12. Thomassin speaks of the notion that His Body
was impassible as Eutychian. It is conceivable, of course (as
the Tridentine Catechism observes, in reference to the future
condition of the wicked), for bodies to be incorruptible without
being impassible, but there is no reason for assuming this of
our Lord's Body before the Resurrection. Petavius distinguishes

THE CONDITION OF OUR LORD'S BODY. 359
The reviewer's opinion is chiefly based on the perfect
sinlessness of our Lord, and the fact of the hypostatic union.
He relies chiefly on the former argument ; " Our Blessed
Lord was perfectly sinless, and therefore His flesh could see
no corruption." And from this it is inferred that our Lord's
Body " was never subject to the laws of the material creation,"
though "He chose by an economy to make Himself subject
to the conditions of our fallen world." The Transfiguration
represented " the normal condition of His human nature," to
which He " simply returned at His Resurrection." In a
second notice, the writer explicitly admits that "in one sense
our Lord's Body was not only corruptible, but did actually
corrupt," inasmuch as it went through the ordinary process
of growth and decay during His earthly life ; and he does
not, of course, deny that it was actually subject to hunger,
thirst, pain, and weariness, which are " laws of the material
creation." But he says this was not by necessity but by
condescension, and denies that our Lord's Body was naturally
subject to death at all. For this view he alleges some
authorities, which shall be noticed presently.
There is, of course, no controversy as to our Lord's having
assumed voluntarily whatever kind of body He did assume,
or that, if man had never fallen, He would have been
incarnated (on the Scotist hypothesis) in an impassible and
incorruptible body, like theirs whose nature He was
taking upon Himself. The question relates simply to the
human nature He actually did assume, when he came in fact
as the Redeemer of a fallen race. Did He take a mortal
and corruptible body, like theirs for whom He came to die,
or a body immortal and incorruptible, like that of Adam
before he fell, and which was only liable by a separate act of
between the two, and denies that it was incorruptible in any
other sense than that it was to be preserved by Divine power
from actual corruption.

360 THE ATONEMENT.
will — in other words, by a separate miracle, in each case, for
this is what the reviewer implies — to pain, hunger, weariness,
or death ? Was His Body really in a different state, as the
bodies of His redeemed are, before and after the Resurrection,
though, on special occasions, like the Transfiguration, He
anticipated its future glory : or was its normal condition toe
same before and after the Resurrection, though during the
former period that condition was, so to say, normally sus
pended, and only at rare intervals suffered to exhibit itself,
as at the Transfiguration on Mount Tabor? The former
view appears to me incomparably the most probable in itself,
and most in accordance with the language of Scripture, and
the facts of the sacred narrative, while it has also the highest
theological sanction. It brings out most fully the entire
tcevaxris, which is so endearing a characteristic of the Incar
nation, and enables us best to realise that our Elder Brother
is indeed " flesh of our flesh and bone of our bone." It
also materially strengthens the evidence of His Resurrection
as a pledge of ours. And if it be admitted, as it must be,
that the Body of our Lord was subject through life to the
physical processes of decay and growth, and to hunger, pain,
and weariness — no doubt through His merciful condescension
in assuming a human body at all — why should we scruple to
admit that it was subject also to the law of death and the
physical incidents of dissolution ? Scripture does not say,
with the reviewer, that " His Flesh could see no corruption";
but that, for the honour of His Sacred Humanity, it should
not and did not see corruption. When, therefore, he quotes
Dr. Newman's words in the Atlantis, that our Lord's Body.
" was different in fact from ours, as regards corruptibility,
as would appear from Acts ii. 31, xii. 35," it is clear from
the passages referred to that what is meant is, not that His
Body was in its nature incorruptible, but that it was in fact
exempted from corruption. Thomassin quotes these very

THE CONDITION OF OUR LORD'S BODY. 361
passages to prove that it was naturally corruptible. Nor
does the contrast drawn out by St. Paul in 1 Cor. xv. 44-49,
which the reviewer quotes and dwells upon, appear to me to
have any direct bearing on the physical condition of our
Lord's Body during His earthly pilgrimage. On the other
hand, the recorded facts of the Gospel narrative, taken in its
obvious sense, certainly point to a real distinction in His
bodily condition before and after the Resurrection : and
St. Paul's language, when he speaks of the Son being sent
" in likeness of sinful jtlesh " («v o/Aouo/um crapes ap.apTiat),
seems to mean that He assumed our flesh under the conditions
of the Fall.
For the patristic argument on the subject, I must be
content to refer to Petavius. Of the three passages from the
Fathers quoted by the reviewer, two — from St. Athanasius
and St. Leo — seem to me to tell against him, while a third,
from St. Hilary of Poictiers, which denies that our Lord had
any need to take food, except out of conformity to custom, is,
to say nothing of other objections, very difficult to reconcile
with His hunger after the fast in the wilderness and other
portions of the sacred narrative.* St. Leo is quoted as
saying that " He willed His Flesh to be mortal up to the
Resurrection," which is exactly the view I am defending. If
mortal, it was liable to corruption. St. Athanasius says that
" the Word took a body that could die, in order that it
might die for all, while through the indwelling Word it
remained incorruptible."t This appears to mean that He
took a mortal and corruptible body, in order to die, while
through His indwelling Divinity it was preserved in death
from actual corruption. And the reviewer admits that there
are many passages in the Fathers which speak of our Lord's
* Both Petavius and Thomassin refer to the passage, and the
latter observes that Hilary is not always consistent with him
self, and may perhaps be differently understood.
| The passage will be found quoted, supra p. 159, note.

362 THE ATONEMENT.
Body as corruptible before the Resurrection, and incorruptible
after it. It may be added, that the time of His Resurrection,
occurring as it did within less than forty hours after death,
would alone suffice to account for the actual preservation of
His Body from corruption. " His Soul was not left in hell,
neither did His Flesh see corruption " And, again, the
bodies of some of His Saints are thought to have been
miraculously preserved from corruption, though they certainly
were not in their own nature incorruptible.
It remains true, of course, whatever view we take on this
point, that He had power, who was God as well as Man, to
lay down His life or to resume it, for all laws of the material
creation are subject to His will ; and He did in fact choose
the time of His death. But He used His omnipotence, not
to dissolve a body naturally immortal, but to arrest, till He
had drained to the last dregs the predestined chalice of
agony, the dissolution which must otherwise have been an
earlier result of the physical sufferings and exhaustion He
had endured, and which would in any case have sooner or
later taken place had nature been left to itself.*
* The view advocated in the Ecclesiastic is contrasted in the
following passage of Thomassin with that taken in the text: —
" Illis ergo nobisquehocinterjacet discriminis, quod cum passura
esse Christum carne et esurisse et sitisse vere consentiamus, illi
carne incorruptibili, sed ex dispensatione Verbi possum esse gamiant ;
nos autem carne passibili passum, sed ita ut penes ipsius animsB
Deitatisque potestatem esset, prsestare ne quid pateretur. Illi
impassibilitatem ex carne, passionem ex Verbi omnipotentia
repetunt ; nos passionem passibilitatemque in carne, non patiendi
potestatem in Verbo et mente Verbum complexa, collocamus.
Illis et nobis vere passus est, et fuit in Ejus po testate pati vel
non pati ; e6 concordamus ; sed hoc discordamus, quod illis
passus est carne impassibili, nobis carne passibili ; illis pot uit non
patiob impassibilitatem carnis,iwbis potuit non pati ob onvhipotentiam
Verbi ; illis potuit pati ob omnipotentiam Verbi, nobis potuit pati ob
passibilitatem carnis et conniventiam Verbi." He, therefore,
expressly insists that our Lord's Body was modelled on that of
Adam after the Fall, though it may be questioned whether
Adam's body was over, strictly speaking, incorruptible.

EXCURSUS V. (p. ioo).
ON RECENT LUTHERAN THEOLOGY ON THE MOTIVE OF THE
INCARNATION.
It has been observed more than once, that the Scotist view of
the motive of the Incarnation was foreign to the ideas of the
Reformation. It was indeed maintained by Osiander, as we
have seen, but the exception is exactly of that kind which
proves the rule, for here, as in many other points, Osiander
felt himself and was felt by his coreligionists to be out of
harmony with the general Lutheran sentiment of his day.
With him began that reaction against the first Reformers,
which has been traced out in tbe fifth chapter, and which
lasted till the Reformation merged into the Rationalist move
ment in Germany. A similar spirit has, however, as we have
seen, reappeared in our own day in all the more eminent
Lutheran divines of the orthodox school, and the adoption by
some of them of the Scotist view as an integral part of their
system is one illustration -of it. It may be worth while to
give a few instances of this.
Martensen, a Danish Lutheran bishop, whose work,
Die christliche Dogmatik (Kiel, 1850), I quote from a
German translation, teaches as follows. Man is created
after the image of the Divine Logos. The " supralapsarian "
view of Calvin, that redemption, and therefore sin, was
predestined from eternity is met by saying that the Incarnation
was predestined from eternity as the true ideal of humanity,

364 THE ATONEMENT.
but not the Passion and death of the God-Man. It resulted
from our wilful sin, that " the divine revelation of love
actually took place as a revelation of redemption." Christ
can only become our Redeemer because He is by an eternal
purpose our Mediator. We must not say that " without sin
there would have been no place in the human family for the
glory of the Only-begotten. '" He, who would anyhow have
been the Mediator of an imperfect race, has humbled Himself
yet further to become the redeemer of a sinful race. ( Christ.
Dogm. pp. 157, 193-5, 294). It need hardly be said that
Martensen, while accepting generally the language of the
Lutheran formularies, gives them an interpretation widely
different from that of their original authors. The shocking
exaggerations of Luther and Calvin on the nature and
consequences of original sin are softened down to a sense
little, if at all, different from that of Catholic tradition. The
satisfaction of Christ is explained through His redemption,
and justification as implying the gift of a new principle
of holiness implanted in the soul. The appeasing the wrath
of God, and the " active obedience " of Christ, which play
so important a part in earlier Protestant theology, are reduced
to conformity with the teaching of the Fathers : while many
Lutheran opinions are expressly rejected, as the ubiquity of
Christ's Body, and the Lutheran gloss on the descent into
Hell. An intermediate state of purification between death
and judgment is maintained, nor does Martensen object to
call it Purgatory ; he prefers the mediaeval opinion to that of
the Reformers as to the age of the resurrection body. The
book is interesting in itself, and as marking the contrast
between earlier and later Lutheranism. It closes with a
remarkable discussion on the future condition of the wicked,
with scriptural and patristic authorities.
Thomasius, a professor at Erlangen, of narrower views than
Martensen, whose work on Origen has already been referred

RECENT LUTHERAN THEOLOGY. 365
to, discusses the motive of the Incarnation at some length in
his Christi Person und Werk (Erlangen, 1853), urging the
authority of Scripture, Fathers, and Schoolmen against
Martensen's view, which he rejects, as well on that account as
from thinking that it derogates from the love of Christ and
refers His taking our nature to an internal necessity in the
being of God, not to compassion for man — an objection
which would be at least equally applicable to the Anselmic
and many Protestant theories of satisfaction: but in fact it
does not really apply at all here, for the intention of taking
our humanity in order to unite us with God is itself one free
act of love, the further purpose of suffering for our redemption
is another. Thomasius considers the decree of the Incarnation
to be included in the decree of creation, modified through the
entrance of sin foreseen though not predestined by God. He
says that in Christ the archetype of humanity is bodily fulfilled.
He quotes Dorner, as holding the opposite (Scotist) view;
but the purely historical character of Dorner's work does not
give scope for the direct discussion of such questions.
Nagelsbach, in his work, Der Gottmensch (Niirnberg,
1853), devoted to showing, as against atheism and pantheism,
that the God-Man is " the fundamental idea of revelation in
its unity and historical development," maintains that the
union between God and man, which love requires, can only be
realised by God taking on Himself not abstract but actual
humanitv, i.e. becoming man. His Incarnation cannot be
accidental. It is opposed, as Kurtz says, to all Christian
feeling and consciousness, that we should owe it, and the
deification of our nature, only to sin. It is implied in the
very principle of love, that this was from the first the end and
scope of human history. Its first prophecy is not Gen. iii. 15,
but Gen. i. 26. The first Adam implies the Second. All
previous history was an education of the world for His
corning, all Christian history springs from Him as its Root,

366 THE ATONEMENT.
whose appearance is the centre-point in the life of the world.
Der Gottmensch, vol. i. pp. 28-32.
Liebner, in his Ghristologie (Gottingen, 1849), argues at
length that the Incarnation and the consequent deification of
our nature were involved in the original act of creative love,
as the archetype and proper term of humanity. He answers
in detail the objections of Thomasius.
Rothe, one of the greatest Lutheran divines of the day, in
his Theologische Ethik (vol. ii. pp. 252-338), treats of the
redemption wrought by Christ. He does not expressly touch
on the probabilities of the Incarnation, as antecedent to sin ;
but he considers redemption to be involved in the original act
of creation, though requiring a fresh creative act or new
beginning of the race, proceeding from the race itself, but by
a supernatural origin : i.e. a Second Adam. The author
traces out the preparation for Christ's coming under the Old
Law by the moral education of mankind, and by miracle and
prophecy, leading up to the final revelation in His personal
appearance, the end of which is redemption, or restored com
munion between God and man, by the removal of sin which
divided them. In order to mediate between God and man,
He must share the nature of both perfectly, and must make a
free and complete self-oblation of His whole being for the
honour of God and for love of man ; and this in a sinful
world, hating holiness and truth and under the dominion of
Satan, can only be consummated through the sacrifice of His
life. To impart the fruits of His redemption, He has founded
a spiritual kingdom or family among men, whereof He is
the Head and Heart, from which the life of the whole body is
derived. For the redemption of sinful humanity, wrought
fully once for all by Himself, must be applied separately to
to individual members of the race. Only so can actual
redemption and propitiation before God be accomplished for
them, through the removal of sin and of the debt and punish-

RECENT LUTHERAN THEOLOGY. 367
ment which are its consequences. Pardon cannot be bestowed
unless there is a guarantee for the actual casting out of sin
When the sinner is thus reconciled with God, a gradual
process of renewal follows, in which the moral and religious
elements are constantly tending to become identified For
cases of death-bed conversion, and even for those who
die unconverted, there still remains till the end of the
present world and the general judgment an intermediate
state of trial, probably by fire, (for which Mark ix. 49 is
quoted). But a time comes sooner or later, when the being is
wholly turned to evil (ddmonisirt), and no further change is
possible. Conversion after death is harder than before, and
the higher position once forfeited can never be regained.
(lb., pp. 190-2, 484, 488).
Similar specimens of modern Lutheran teaching might
easily be multiplied ; these are taken as a sample, from some
of the principal contemporary divines of that body.

EXCURSUS VI. (p- 169).
ON STRAUSS' ESTIMATE OF THE BELIEF OF THE EARLY
CHURCH.
In a section on the " Christology of the Orthodox System,"
at the conclusion of his original work on the Life of Jesus
(Das Leben Jesu, Tubingen, 1837), Strauss, after insisting
that the outlines of that system are to be found in the New
Testament and have their roots in the conviction of Christ's
resurrection, had taken occasion to describe, with that
eloquence which is always at his command when he chooses
to employ it, the belief of the early Church in her Lord. He
stood, like Balaam, to gaze on the armies of Israel, and his
tongue was constrained to bless the faith which he made
it the labour of a lifetime to uproot. My object in referring
to the statement is to observe, that it substantially endorses
the view of patristic thedlogy taken in this volume. And
since there is a lesson to be learnt from the utterances of
" Saul among the prophets," and the book is not familiar to
the majority of English readers, it may be worth while to
translate the passage here, premising that some of its native
force must inevitably evaporate in the process.
" How full of blessing and elevation, of encouragement and
comfort, were the thoughts the early Church derived from this
conception of her Christ ! Through the sending of the Son
of God into the world, and His delivery to death for it, heaven
and earth are reconciled (2 Cor. v. 18, sqo., Ephes. i. 10,

STRAUSS ON BELIEF OF THE EARLY CHURCH. 369
Col. i. 20) ; through His supreme oblation the love of God is
guaranteed to men (Rom. v. 8, viii. 31, sqq., 1 John iv. 9),
and the most joyful hope opened to them. Since the Son of
God has become Man, men are His brethren, and, as such,
children of God, and joint heirs with Christ of the treasure of
Divine beatitude. (Rom. viii. 16-29). Their slavish estate
under the law has ceased, and love has come into the place of
the fear of punishment threatened by the law. (Rom. viii. 15,
Gal. iv. 1, sqq.). Believers are redeemed from the curse of
the law, inasmuch as Christ has given Himself up for them,
by enduring that death on which the curse of the law was
laid. (Gal. iii. 13). Now we have no longer the impossible
task of fulfilling all the requirements of the law (Gal. iii. 10,
sqq.) — a task which none have accomplished (Rom. i. 18, iii
20), and, owing to the sinfulness of our nature, none can
hope to accomplish (Rom. v. 12, sqq.) ; which only entangles
more deeply those who attempt it in the misery of an interna]
conflict with themselves. (Rom. vii. 7, sqq.). He who believes
in Christ, and trusts to the atoning power of His death, is
pardoned by God ; he who surrenders himself to God's free
grace is justified before Him by grace, not through any works
or performances of his own, whence all self-righteousness is
excluded. (Rom. iii. 31, sqq.). And, since the Mosaic law
can no longer bind the believer who has died to it with Christ
(Rom. vii. 1), since His eternal and all-sufficient Sacrifice has
superseded the Jewish sacrifices and priesthood, the wall of
partition which divided Jew from Gentile is broken down.
The Gentiles, estranged from the old theocracy, left " without
God and without hope in the world," are called to share in
the new covenant of God, and a free approach is provided for
them to their heavenly Father. Thus the two great divisions
of mankind, once at enmity with each other, are now at peace,
members ofthe body of Christ, which is the .spiritual edifice
of His Church. (Eph. iii. 11, sqq.). But that justifying faith
24

370 THE ATONEMENT.
in the death of Christ is in very deed a dying with Him — a
death, that is, unto sin ; and as He rose from death to a new
and immortal life, so shall they that believe on Him rise from
the death of sin to a new life of righteousness and holiness ;
they shall put off the old man and put on the new. (Rom. vi.
1, sqq.). Christ Himself stands by to aid them with His
Spirit, who fills those He inspires with spiritual might, and
frees them more and more continually from the bondage of
sin. (Rom. viii. 1). Nay, more ; those in whom that Spirit
dwells will be quickened in body as well as soul ; for when
the course of this world is ended, God through Christ will
raise their bodies as He has raised the body of Christ. (Rom.
viii. 11). Christ, whom the bonds of death and Hades could
not hold (Acts ii. 24), has conquered both for us, and released
believers from fear of those chiefest powers of mortality.
(Rom. viii. 38, sqq., 1 Cor. xv. 55, sqq., Heb. ii. 14, suq.).
His resurrection, which gives to His death its atoning power
(Rom. iv. 25), is also the pledge of our resurrection and
future life in Him, when He shall return to take His own to
the joys of His Messianic kingdom. (1 Cor. xv.). Meanwhile,
we are assured that in Him we have an Intercessor with God,
who knows our need of help and forbearance, because He
knows by experience the infirmity of our nature, with which
He has clothed Himself, and in which He was ' tempted in
all points, yet without sin.'" (Leben Jesu, vol. ii. 695-7).
Strauss goes on to argue, chiefly from Rom. i. 3,4, viii. 34,
I Tim. iii. 16, and the baptismal formula, that "the Church
of the early centuries " had abundant materials for constructing
" the so-called rule of faith," comprised eventually in the
Apostles' Creed, of which the Incarnation — 6 Aoyos o-dpi eyo/ero
— was the groundwork ; and that she was fully justified in
excluding, as they arose, the successive heresies, from the
Ebionite to the Monothelite, which directly or indirectly
contradicted that faith.

STRAUSS ON BELIEF OF THE EARLY CHURCH. 371
In his popular Life of Jesus (Das Leben Jesu fur das
deutsche Folk bearbeitet, Leipzig, 1864), addressed this time
not to a learned but a popular audience, " as Paul turned to the
Gentiles, when the Jews rejected his gospel," the concluding
Dissertation, from which my extract is taken, does not occur.
But the Preface contains a general endorsement of the con
tents of the former work. The author still regards the
" Christology " of the Church — that is, the whole Christian
doctrine of the Incarnate Word — as the product of several
" Groups of Myths " (twelve are here given, ranging from the
Conception to the Ascension), whose formation must, however,
be so far distinguished frem that of the Greek, or rather
Aryan, mythology, as explained by recent writers, such as
Professor Max Miiller and the Rev. Sir G. W. Cox, that they
do not originate in observations of natural phenomena, but
have a nucleus of historical fact. For the personal existence
of Christ, which seemed to be left uncertain by the language
of the earlier work (Introd., sect. 15), is here expressly
affirmed, in accordance with Baur's system ; though it is
rather to the first Christian teachers, especially St. Paul, than
to Himself that the form of religion which bears His name is
to be attributed. There are " few great men of history of
whom we know so little as of Jesus." (p. 621). "The
Christian Church in its earliest form, as it appears in the New
Testament, was already the result of so many other factors
besides the Person of Jesus, that any inference from it [i.e.
from its belief] to Him is in the highest degree unsafe."
(p. 623). " It may even be questioned whether, if He had
re-appeared on earth about the time of the destruction of
Jerusalem (70 a.d.), He would have recognised Himself in
the Christ then preached in the Church." (p. 623). " Little
of His real history can now be certainly ascertained ; what is
certain is, that those supernatural acts and events, whereon
the faith of the Church has principally fastened, never occurred
24*

372 THE ATONEMENT.
at all."* Strauss admits, with Spinoza, that the Divine
wisdom, which is the Eternal Son of God, " was remarkably
(in ausgezeichnetei Weise) manifested in Jesus Christ " ; but
His example can only be considered a partial and one-sided
model, f and tbe great work of future theology is to discrimi
nate " the ideal from the historical Christ,'' and thus convert
" the religion of Christ into the religion of humanity." (pp.
624-26). Strauss hails in Renan a fellow-labourer in the
same cause, with whose book his own " shakes hands across
the Rhine," though he considers the Vie de Jesus by no means
free from grave errors, especially, as we learn elsewhere (p. 37),
in ascribing an undue and suicidal authority to the narrative
portion of St. John's Gospel. J
The distinctions between the old Christianity, which the
author desires to supplant, and the new religion to be sub-
* Has there not sometimes been a tendency among orthodox
writers to dwell too exclusively on the miracles as proofs of
power ? They are surely represented in the Gospels primarily
as exhibitions, so to say, of the character of God, as revelations
of Divine love. This was noticed, I beheve, at the time, in the
Bp. of Algiers' Observations on Renan's Vie de Jems, which I
only know, however, from extracts. There is a remarkable
passage on the way in which our Lord's miracles affected men's
estimate of Him in Ecce Homo, pp. 44-48. The author speaks
of His " temperance in the use of a supernatural power," as
"a moral miracle superinduced on a physical one."
t Elsewhere (pp. 37, 38), it is argued at length, that so long
as Christ is viewed as a mere man He cannot be held to repre
sent the perfect ideal of humanity. The criticism is intended
for Keim, a German writer, but has its obvious application to
Renan also, as well as to Socinian or deist writers like
F. W. Newman. I may add, that the charge of " cold
bloodedness " brought against the first Leben Jesu is equally
applicable to the second. It has none of that glow of sympathy
which gives to the Vie de Jesus its seductive charm. It is
not bread but a stone.
\ Hase, in his Leben Jesu (5th ed, Leipzig, 1864), aoceptsthe
Resurrection, against Strauss, but denies the Ascension, against
Ewald. He considers the latter the mystical expression of a
devout but uncritical belief.

STRAUSS ON BELIEF OF THE EARLY CHURCH. 373
stituted for it, are thus summarised in the Preface. "As long
as Christianity is regarded as something given to mankind
from without, Christ as One come from heaven, His Church
as an institution for the purification of men from sin through
His Blood, the religion of the Spirit is itself unspiritually
conceived of, and Christianity regarded as Judaical. When
it is understood, that in Christianity mankind has only become
more deeply conscious of itself than before, that Jesus is only
the man in whom this deeper consciousness first came forth,
as a power determining His whole life and being, that we can
only be cleansed from sin by entering into this idea, by taking
it, as it were, into our own blood, then for the first time will
Christianity be really understood in a Christian sense " (Pref.,
p. 18). And again : " The constitution of the Church is only
the form in which you preserve the contents of Christianity ;
and to know what form is best adapted for that purpose, you
must know what it is you have in Christianity, whether it is
something natural or supernatural. And you can so much
the less leave this question undecided, because a supernatural
religion with mysteries and means of grace brings with it as
its legitimate sequel (folgerichtig) an order of priests standing
over the community. He who wishes lo get rid of the clergy
from the Church, must first get rid of the supernatural (das
Wunder) from religion." («'£., p. 19).* In the body ofthe
work (pp. 575, 576), while of course denying that the Old
Testament prophecies really refer to the death of Christ, as
" a death of atoning sacrifice," (eines suhnenden Opfertodes) —
the sufferer spoken of being some pious contemporary, or the
" collective servant of Jehovah " — Strauss expressly asserts
that such was nevertheless the belief, and the " natural "
belief, of the first converts from Judaism. On the whole then,
I conceive, we shall not be wrong in assuming that the view
* The italics are the author's.

874 THE ATONEMENT.
of Christianity, as a supernatural and sacramental religion,
centred in the Person of a crucified and risen Lord, who " was
delivered for our offences," as an atoning Sacrifice, and " was
raised for our justification," to send down the Spirit who
dwells in the Church and in its individual members, as the
Source of truth and grace, was to the last considered by Strauss
a perfectly legitimate development, to say the least, of the
Gospel preached within less than half a century of the death
of Christ, and while His Apostles still ruled the Church. He
admits, in other words, that those who accept the Evangelical
records of the life of Christ, and the comment on them con
tained in St. Paul's Epistles, or even in those four whose
genuineness the Tubingen School does not dispute,* will find
the Catholic creeds the most natural expression of their
belief. In the last of his three principal works, Die Alte und Neue
Glaube, published eight years afrer the new edition of the
Leben Jesu, and two years before his death, Strauss, who never
lacked the courage of his opinions, boldly asks the question,
" Are we [i.e. the class of thinkers he represented] still
Christians ? " And he answers it with a frankness which ¦
some who prate about " an undogmatic Christianity," while
they bid us dismiss, e.g., as no better than beautiful imagina
tions, " the story of the magical birth and resuscitation of
Jesus," might do well to emulate ; " If we would speak as
honest, upright men, we must acknowledge that we are no
longer Christians. . . . Christianity is a definite form of
religion ; it is possible to relinquish it and still to be religious,
but not still to be Christians." That is surely only common
sense. As a sceptical writer in this country has expressed it,
who shares alike the unbelief of Strauss and his outspoken
sincerity ; " Unsectarian Christianity can no more exist than
* Romans, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians.

STRAUSS ON BELIEF OF THE EARLY CHURCH. 375
a triangle which is neither scalene, isosceles, nor equilateral ;
... to proclaim it is to proclaim that Christianity is dead."
There is an exquisite humour in the passage in his last
work, where Strauss draws out in detail the teaching of a
Protestant pastor, who has found it necessary to discard one
by one every article of the Apostles' Creed, not excepting the
first.

EXCURSUS VII. (p- 243).
on Baxter's view of imputation.
A controversy on imputed righteousness arose in England
during the seventeenth century, chiefly among the Dissenters,
in which Baxter's name is prominent. His matured views,
together with a short history of the controversy from the
beginning, will be found in his Treatise On the Imputation
of Christ's Righteousness to Believers (London, 1675), with
which the reader may compare some extracts from his Life
of Faith in Newman's Led. on Juslif. pp. 427, 428. His
teaching on the subject, in the Treatise just mentioned,
differs little, if at all, except in manner of expression, from
that of the Fathers and later Catholic divines ; and this he
repeatedly implies, though feeling bound to insert frequent
protests against language used, or said to be used, by " the
Papists," evidently more from educational misapprehensions
than from any real difference of sentiment. Even the
" merit of good works " is expressly admitted, " according
to the law of grace through Christ." The Lutheran notions
of Christ's vicarious obedience being imputed to us, and of
our sins being imputed to Him, so that He took on Himself
the person of the sinner, and endured, as such, the wrath
and curse of God and the torments of the damned, are
explicitly repudiated ; and original sin is accordingly ex
plained in a sense widely different from Luther's extravagant
theory. On the whole, I conceive that Baxter, prejudices
apart, would have found little to quarrel with in the Tri-

BAXTER ON IMPUTATION. 377
dentine doctrine of justification. It need scarcely be observed
that, while his style is somewhat technical and archaic, he
is one of the clearest and most learned theological writers
in our language. In his scrupulous candour, and Christian
courtesy and moderation of tone towards opponents, too
often conspicuous for tbe absence of such qualities, including
those to whom he owed his thirteen years' imprisonment, he
reminds us of the great and large-hearted Athanasius, who
is a model for controversialists.* After Baxter's death, the
controversy was carried on by a Dr. Williams, also a
Dissenter, who takes the same side, but does not profess
to be, " in all things of the same judgment " with him, and
is by no means his equal in clearness of statement or
correctness of information.
Dr. DoUinger observes that at that time the Protestant
doctrine of justification had been so thoroughly demolished
by Bull, Hammond, Thorndyke, and others within the
(Anglican) Church, and by Baxter without its pale, that in
spite of the language of the Thirty-nine Articles, it could not
hold its ground in the Church, and no theologian of real
learning ventured to defend it. It was shown to lead
directly to simple Antimonianism. But the so-called Evan
gelicals still maintained this doctrine of imputation and
assurance, which was popular, especially among Noncon
formists, both in England and America, as meeting the
desire of " the practical middle-class Englishman " for a
system "intelligible, accommodating, consolatory, and tran
quillizing, which shall flatter his self-complacency and his
prevailing tendencies." And it was called, "preaching the
Gospel in its fulness and freedom." In fact, it may be
* The bitterness of his opponents may be inferred from a
statement made by Dr. Williams, after his death (Discourses,
vol. i. p. 431) : " There be of them that say publicly, ' Mr. Baxter
is in Hell ! ' "

378 THE ATONEMENT.
said that the internal history of the English Dissenting sects
turns essentially on this doctrine, and that they cannot
exist and flourish either without or with it, for it is the
talisman which attracts their members, while yet its moral
and religious effect — as was shown by their own most
distinguished theologian, Baxter — has always been very
injurious.* * See The Church and the Churches, pp. 114, 174, 175.

EXCURSUS VIIL (p. 285).
ON THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE SACRIFICE OF THE
CROSS AND THE EUCHARIST.
It has been already observed that Sacrifice, that is, the self-
devotion of the whole being, is the rightful homage due
from the creature to the Creator, and therefore was from the
beginning the proper idea of divine worship (Xarpaa). It is
what constitutes, in technical language, the differentia of the
supreme worship of God, as distinguished from all sub
ordinate and derivative kinds of worship, some of which may
also be offered to our fellow- creatures, whether living or
departed. Thus, incense is not only presented at the altar,
but to the officiating clergy and congregation also ; so, again,
we may ask the Saints at rest or friends on earth to pray
for us, which is a kind of worship ; or, to take another
instance, outward acts of devotion, as bending the knee, are
paid to earthly sovereigns. But to offer sacrifice, if only
by an internal act of the mind, to any created being is the
essence of idolatry, and a sin against the first and great
commandment.* The true worship of God, then, always
* This of course explains the absence of invocations of Saints
in the ancient Liturgies, as now, which has sometimes been
mistakenly urged in disproof of the practice altogether. St.
Augustine, who expressly approved it, says " We do not raise
altars that we may sacrifice to martyrs, but only to Him who is
their God as well as ours, and at this sacrifice they are named
in their due place and order, as men of God who overcame the
world by confessing Him ; they are not, however, invoked by the

380 THE ATONEMENT.
consisted in sacrifice, both internal and external ; though the
outward expression might vary according to time and cir
cumstances, and was in fact essentially changed by the
Sacrifice of Christ. Meanwhile the idea itself had been
modified by the introduction of sin into the world, which
gave it a new character of reparation (cf. supra, p. 213), and
made all human sacrifices doubly imperfect, as being not
only finite but impure. One alone could now offer a full
and perfect satisfaction and oblation, who was sinless and
was more than man : in the life and death of Christ the
idea received not merely its highest, but its sole adequate
fulfilment. In the eternal purpose of God He was " the
Lamb slain from the foundation of the world," and all acts
of human worship were accepted, so far as they were
accepted, in and through that One spotless Sacrifice, though
the worshippers knew it not. But when in the fulness of
time the Lamb had been slain, not in predestination but in
fact, that One Sacrifice once offered became, from the nature
of the case and in reality, not in symbol, the true and
characteristic worship of the Catholic Church. Types were
necessarily abolished; commemorations there might be, but
they are not properly sacrifice, and are therefore insufficient;
to repeat the One Sacrifice is impossible ; to attempt a
supplement or a substitute would be both useless and
profane. Therefore the same Sacrifice must abide for ever in
the Church.
Two things then are clear: (1) that the distinctive and
supreme worship of the Church must still, as of old, be a
worship of sacrifice, or it would not, strictly speaking, be
worship at all ; (2) that since the One great Oblation has
been actually offered, to which nothing can be added, and
priest who offers sacrifice." De Civ. Dei. xxii. 10. Yet he had just
before, as elsewhere also, commended the practice of invoking
the martyrs.

THE SACRIFICE OF THE EUCHARIST. 381
whioh cannot be repeated, the Christian Sacrifice must be,
not prefigurative like those of the law, or oommemorative
merely, but identical with that of the Cross. For no other
sacrifice is henceforth possible or conceivable. Every
Christian prayer, indeed, commemorates the Sacrifice of
Christ, and is accepted through it ; but the central act of
worship must be that very Sacrifice itself, though offered
in a different manner on the altar and on the cross. It is
not repeated but continued in the Church on earth, through
the ministry of His representatives, as in the courts of
Heaven directly by Himself. And from this follows also the
reality of His Presence. The same Body and Blood which
were offered on Calvary must be offered in the Christian
Sacrifice (though the manner of the Presence as of the
oblation differs), or the Sacrifice could not be the same.
Bread and wine, however sacred from consecration to a sacred
use (like the water of baptism, or the oil of confirmation or
of the last unction), could never afford the material of more
than a commemorative rite. They do not, as is sometimes said
with a strange infelicity, become by consecration the symbols
of the Body and Blood of Christ, in order to represent His
Sacrifice; on the contrary, they become by consecration the
Reality of which they were previously the symbols, that the
sacrifice may also be a real one. A symbolic offering of
bread and wine might suggest a pious remembrance of the
Sacrifice of the Cross, as the offering of Melchisedec was
a shadow and an anticipation of it, but could not itself be a
true and proper sacrifice. If the oblation is the same on
the Cross and on the altar, the thing offered must be the
same too. And therefore the Real Presence of the Divine
Victim is essential to the reality of the Sacrifice.*
* This is not the plaoe to enter on the doctrine of the Real
Presence or Transubstantiation. The philosophical side of the
question is discussed with great aouteness in the first Part of

382 THE ATONEMENT.
Hence, again, it follows that the argument of the Epistle to
the Hebrews, often quoted against the truth of the Eucharistic
Sacrifice, in fact confirms it. For what is the drift of that
argument ? That the One Sacrifice of Christ has superseded
and abolished all types and shadows of the Law, and is itself
incapable of supplement or iteration. He has, we are told,
an unchangeable Priesthood, and is " a Priest for ever after
the order of Melchisedec." What is this but to say that His
Sacrifice abides for ever in the Church, and remains for all
time the supreme act of creaturely adoration and centre of
all Christian worship ? Or, in other words, that glorified
Body, which He presents continually before God in heaven,
He presents no less truly, though "in a mystery," on our
altars, in whose sight the visible and invisible Church are not
two but one Kingdom of God. What our Lord really offered
by anticipation in the upper room at Jerusalem, He offers
really now by perpetuation in heaven and on earth.
In illustration of what has been said, I subjoin a passage
from a great living theologian, forming the close of a disserta
tion on the Eucharist, as a Sacrament and a Sacrifice, the
whole of which is well worth perusal ; " Thus the Christian
Sacrifice is at once permanent, and single. Its unity does
not contradict its duration, nor its duration prevent its being
ever one and indivisible.* The offering of that Sacrifice is
Dalgairns's learned and able work on Holy Communion ; Cardinal
Wiseman has exhibited the scriptural argument, with special
reference to Oriental languages, in his Lectures on the Blessed
Eucharist (Dolman, 1836) ; and the patristic argument is drawn
out in Wilberforce's Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist (Mozley,
1853). See also Cobb's Kiss of Peace, 2nd ed. (Hayes, 1868).
And cf. Appendix I. to Catholic Eschatology, " On the Doctrme
of Transubstantiation."
* A writer in the Westminster Review (Oct. 1865), remarks on
this, " If the unity of the sacrifice be pressed, ... it not
only carries with it the doctrine of the transubstantiation of the
sacramental elements, but, as far as we can see, the transub
stantiation of the priest " ; and he then quotes in support of

THE SACRIFICE OF THE EUCHARIST. 383
indeed divided into numberless acts, according to the con
ditions of time and space in this earthly life ; but they are
brought into unity and held together through the Person of
Christ, in whom and with whom His ministers do all their
acts. It is precisely in this multiplicity of the oblation, by
which the One ever-living Victim is offered, and the Sacrifice
of the Cross constantly applied anew in its effects to the
whole body and to its individual members, that the perfection
and indissoluble power of that Sacrifice reveals itself. To
the retrospective glance of the Christian the number of
sacrificial acts on the altars of the Church at once take their
place, as dependent on that one heavenly offering, which again
depends on that of the Cross, as one single celebration of
sacrifice. ' Fo'r Jesus is entered into heaven itself, to appear
now for us before the presence of God.' It is no new
immolation that takes place : only that once offered on
Golgotha is shown to the Christian people in a symbolic act,
sensibly representing the separation of body and blood in
death. The Cross has developed into a living Tree, ever green
and ever fruitful, overshadowing the Church of all times and
all places."*
Lastly, I will give, as it stands, the statement on this
subject in the Tridentine Catechism : " Unum igitur et idem
sacrificium esse fatemur, et haberi debet, quod in Missa
peragitur, et quod in Cruce oblatum est ; quemadmodum una
est et eadem Hostia, Christus videlicet Dominus noster, qui
Se Ipsum in ara Crucis semel tantummodo cruentum immolavit.

this strange criticism, the latter portion of the extract given in
the text from the Tridentine Catechism, which really contains
the answer to it. Christ is Himself present in the Eucharist,
both as Priest and Victim, by virtue of that " transubstantiation
of the elements " of which His earthly minister is the appointed
instrument. * Dollinger's Chiistenthum und Kirche (ut supra), p. 256.
(First Age of the Church, 3 ed. vol. ii. pp. 59, 60.)

384 THE ATONEMENT.
Neque enim cruenta et incruenta Hostia duse sunt Hostiae,
sed una tantum ; cujus sacrificium postquam Dominus ita
praecepit, ' Hoc facite in Meam commemorationem,' in
Eucharistia quotidie instauratur. Sed unus etiam atque idem
Sacerdos est, Christus Dominus; nam mini stri, qui sacrificium
faciunt, non suam, sed Christi Personam suscipiunt, cum
Ejus Corpus et Sanguinem conficiunt. Id quod et ipsius
conseorationis verbis ostenditur. Neque enim sacerdos inquit,
'Hoc est Corpus Christi,' sed 'Hoc est Corpus Meum';
Personam scilicet Christi Domini gerens, panis et vini
substantiam in veram Ejus Corporis et Sanguinis substantiam
convertit."* It is superfluous to add passages from the Fathers in
evidence of their well-known and unanimous teaching on the
Eucharistic Sacrifice. " It can hardly be disputed," says
Archdeacon Wilberforce, " that there is no ancient writer,
whose subject leads him to speak of the Holy Eucharist, who
does not declare it to be a sacrifice, who does not call the
place an altar at which it is offered, and the person by whom it
is presented a priest.'' t Still more important is the concurrent
testimony of all the early Liturgies, the essential portions of
which are certainly older than many parts of the New Testa
ment. To cite again the language of the same high
authority, " there is one thing which characterizes these
Liturgies as a whole, and which so completely interpenetrates
their whole construction, as to be inseparable from their
existence, viz. that they consist of three distinct actions —
Consecration, Sacrifice, and Communion. And the second of
these is so prominently put forward, as to be a more marked
feature in the Liturgies even than Communion ; while Conse
cration is in all cases introduced as conducive to the other
two actions. "J
* Cat. ad Par. Pars II. cap. iv., Q. 74, 75.
t Doct. of Holy Eucharist, p. 319. | l~b. p. 820.

THE SACRIFICE OF THE EUCHARIST. 385
Since the appearance of the first edition of this work, the
" Dissertation on tbe Christian Ministry " in Dr. (now
Bishop) Lightfoot's St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians has
been pubhshed, towards the close of which the author argues,
in direct opposition to what has been said above on that
point, that " the Epistle to the Hebrews leaves no place for a
Christian priesthood " in the sacrificial sense. He accordingly
objects to 6vo-uurrrjpiov, in Heb. xiii. 10, being understood of
the Lord's table, and considers that meaning to be excluded
by the context, in vv. 9, 15, 16 especially, and inferentially
by a comparison with 1 Cor. ix. 13, 14, x. 18, which, however,
can have little force, except on the improbable assumption of
a common authorship of both Epistles, and the further
assumption, which he himself rejects, that Ova-taarypiov in Heb.
xiii. 10, means the Jewish altar.* The reference to Heb.
xiii. 9 is hardly relevant; the language of vv. 15, 16 is quite
consistent, to say the least, with the Eucharistic application
of OwTuurrrjpiov in v. 10, indicating, as it does, what all would
admit to be certain aspects of the rite. It is no doubt true
that " the Christian Ministry is a priesthood of a type
essentially different from the Jewish," or Heathen ; and there
were obvious reasons for keeping this distinction prominently
in view, which would abundantly account for any " silence "
of the N. T. or other early writers, on the recognised principle
of the " economy," sanctioned expressly by our Lord Himself
(Matt. vii. 6), and acted on both by Him and His Apostles.
But the distinction is not that the Christian is less really a
* How inconvenient the pressure of this passage is felt to be
by those who deny the sacrificial character of the Eucharist
may be inferred from the extraordinary interpretation —
noticed by Bp. Lightfoot, and rejected as "inadequate,"
though he thinks it " attractive "—which has been suggested;
viz. that the writer ofthe Epistle means, " We Jews have
an altar," and " is bringing an example from the old dispensation
(the sin-offering on the Day of Atonement) in which the
sacrifices were not allowed to be eaten."
25

386 THE ATONEMENT.
priesthood than the Jewish, but the reverse. The Jewish
priest " stood daily offering often the same [bloody and
typical] sacrifices," i.e. a succession of them. The Christian
priest presents and pleads on earth the One true and availing
Sacrifice, offered once in blood on Calvary, which Christ has
entered into heaven to plead continually " in the presence of
God for us." This surely explains the contrast drawn out in
the Epistle to the Hebrews.
It would be out of place to enter here on a detailed
examination of Bishop Lightfoot's patristic argument against
the truth of the Christian priesthood, from the alleged silence
of early writers before Tertulhan and St. Cyprian ; for he
fully admits that from thenceforward it holds a prominent
place in the teaching of the Church. But one or two general
remarks on it maybe subjoined. In the first place it is hardly
necessary to observe that the principle of development,
discussed in the Introduction to this volume, applies inter
alia to the doctrine of the priesthood, which we should not
therefore expect to find laid down with the same fulness and
precision by the earliest Christian writers as by later ones.
In the next place, over and above the general principle of the
disciplina arcani, which has a direct bearing on Sacramental
and especially on Eucharistic doctrine, there were obvious
reasons during the first ages of the Church for exceptional
caution in speaking of the Christian priesthood. In the
beginning, while Hebrew converts were still in the habit of
attending the Temple services and observing the Ceremonial
Law, there was serious danger of suggesting any confusion or
collision between the functions of Christian and Jewish priests*
This alone would amply suffice to account for any reserve in
" applying sacerdotal terms to the Christian ministry " on the
part of the New Testament writers, though it is not really
* See Dollinger's First Age of the Church, vol. ii., p. 18.

THE SACRIFICE OF THE EUCHARIST. 387
difficult to trace the sacerdotal idea latent, if not patent, in
many passages of the Epistles. On the other hand, after the
destruction of Jerusalem, when Gentiles were thronging into
the Church, there was the still graver risk of leading them to
associate in their minds the priesthood of the Gospel with the
corrupt caricatures of the true idea with which they had become
familiarized in the various priesthoods — of Cybele, of Isis,
and the like — who conducted the idolatrous and licentious
rites of the motley crew of deities, old and new, sheltered
beneath the vast pantheon of the Roman Empire. It was
precisely when this danger was passing away, through the
rapid spread of Christianity and the decaying influence of
Paganism, that the doctrine of the Christian priesthood, on
Bishop Lightfoot's own showing, came into prominence. It
must further be borne in mind that no insistence of early
writers on the equally certain and perfectly consistent com
plementary truth — which St. Peter affirms (1 Pet. ii. 5), and
St. Paul illustrates in its relation to the Eucharist (1 Cor.
xiv. 1 6) — of the universal priesthood of all Christians, proves
anything whatever against the truth of the special priesthood
ordained by Christ, any more than the fact of the Israelites
being "a kingdom of priests" (Exod. xix, 6) conflicted with
the special prerogatives of the priesthood of the line of Aaron.
" As, besides the universal priesthood of all Israelites, there
was the special and peculiar priesthood of the sons of Aaron
and Levi, so that one limited and completed the other, so was
it also from the first in the Christian Church. All believers
had the call and dignity of priests, but the actual office of
serving the altar was confined to the Apostles, and those they
appointed to assist them. Since the Eucharistic celebration
was instituted there was a special priesthood in the Church."*
Even assuming, then, for argument's sake, what I am not
* First Age of the Church, vol. ii. p. 20, and cf. pp. 19, sqq.

388 THE ATONEMENT.
prepared to admit without considerable qualifications, that
Bishop Lightfoot's version of the teaching of the early
Fathers on this subject is both accurate and exhaustive, it
does not militate against their belief in the reality of the
Christian priesthood. But I would add, lastly, that he omits
all notice of one very important branch of evidence already
referred to, that of the early Liturgies. That, in germ at
least, they are older than the books of the New Testament, and
supply the true key for the interpretation of several crucial
terms and phrases in the Epistles — such, e.g. as Xarovpybv,
Upovpyovvra, Trpotrdiopa. — there can be little doubt, if there are
not, indeed, direct quotations from them to be found there,
as is generally believed by liturgical students.* And these
Liturgies, as we have seen, bear unanimous and unmistakable
witness to the doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The
episcopate, it has been justly said, " slept in the apostolate."
It was a development, though a very early one : so, too, was
the primacy ; both, of course, in direct fulfilment of the
Divine intention for the Church. But the priesthood existed
in its fulness from the moment when, on the eve of His
Passion, our Lord first committed it to the Twelve at the
institution of the Eucharist.
* See Blunt's Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology,
s.v. " Liturgy."

EXCURSUS IX. (p. 333).
ON CERTAIN ETHICAL CONTRASTS OF CHRISTIAN AND
HEATHEN CIVILISATION.
The view expressed in the last chapter as to the comparative
absence from the old heathen civilisation of that gentler
phase of humanity, which seems a natural outgrowth from
the Cross, may not improbably be considered by many
exaggerated or unreal. A few words, therefore, shall be added
here in explanation of what it is intended to convey. It is
quite true, as has been pointed out already, that Paganism, and
especially Hellenism, was regarded by the early Greek Fathers
as a kind of preparatory dispensation to pave the way for the
Gospel, and that a standard of excellence was attained under
the Greek and Roman Republics, which in some respects has
never been surpassed, while there are points in which the
average morality of Christian States has not unfrequently
fallen below it. To dispute this would be as little in the
interests of Christianity, as of historical truth. Neither,
again, is it to be denied, that many individual characters of
heathendom present at least foreshadowings and instalments
of the peculiarly Christian virtues, those, I mean, which
were not only sanctioned but first distinctly inculcated by the
Gospel. To use the words of Tertullian, we discover in
many of them testimonium anima naturaliter Christiana.
Such, in their several degrees, were Socrates, Marcus Aurelius,

390 THE ATONEMENT.
Epictetus, and perhaps Seneca,* among historical personages ;
Hector, Hippolytus, Antigone, among the ideals of poetic
genius. God never left Himself without a witness among men.
On the other hand, it must be confessed, that only in
rare and almost exceptional cases is anything like the
Christian ideal, as represented by the Sermon on the Mount,
realised among ourselves. It is a common remark, that very
few lines need be altered in Juvenal's Satires, beyond what is
purely local, to make them applicable to the London, or Paris,
or Vienna of to-day. Yet it is important to remember, that,
after all allowances, certain broad contrasts remain, which fix
a moral gulf between the world of Aristophanes or Juvenal and
our own.f We have learnt from boyhood to gaze in a
rapture of admiration on that marvellous creation of genius,
the Athens of Pericles, and Socrates, and Phidias, of those
mighty philosophers, orators, and poets, who still, after the
lapse of two thousand years, retain their unrivalled pre
eminence, whose words have rung music in the ears of seventy
generations of mankind. We do well to gaze ; there has not
been such another glory upon the earth. We do well to
* Seneca must, at least, be placed on a far lower level than
the other three. Even though we may reject the' grosser
charges of his enemies, there is but too abundant evidence in
his own writings of his inordinate avarice, and of a servility as
loathsome as it is grotesque. The reader may compare the
estimates of his character — which do not indeed materially
differ — in Farrar's Seekers after God, and the dissertation on
" St. Paul and Seneca " in Bp. Lightfoot's Philippians. I refer
the more gladly to Dr. Farrar's interesting volume, from the
admirable illustration it supplies of individual and social con
trasts in heathen and Christian life, as well as for the nobleness
of its teaching. See also the chapters on Seneca in Stoicism,
by Rev. W. W. Capes, which draws out, as does Bp. Lightfoot,
the radical contrast between the highest Stoic ideal and the
morality of the Gospel.
t They are summed up in the Essay " On the State of the
Heathen World," in Jowett's Epistles of St. Paul, vol. ii.
pp. 68, sqq.

CHRISTIAN AND HEATHEN CIVILISATION. 391
cherish and profit by the " everlasting possession " those
Hellenic intellects have bequeathed to us ;
" Every thought of all their thinking swayed the world for good or ill,
Every pulse of all their life-blood beats across the ages still."
But we are apt to forget that the picture has a darker side,
over which distance draws a veil ; that, in the language of a
writer little likely to undervalue its ideal grace, " if the inner
life had been presented to us of that period, which in political
greatness and in art is the most brilliant epoch of humanity,
we should have turned away from the sight with loathing and
detestation."* The Plays of Aristophanes tell us something
of that inner life ; the pages of Petronius Arbiter reveal
under the Roman Empire a yet lower depth of pollution.
But the reality must have far exceeded anything our imagi
nation can reproduce, and this should alone be our sufficient
warning against " the veiled apostasy " of that spurious
Hellenism of our own day — itself a bastard and feeble
imitation of the corrupt Renaissance of the fifteenth century —
" which, under pretence of artistic sensibility or archaeological
information, has left its deep taint on modern literature [and
life], and seems to be never happy unless it is raking amid
the embers of forgotten lusts ."t
It is not, however, with the impurity so much as the cruelty
of the old civilisations that we are here immediately con
cerned, as contrasting with the tenderness of feeling, the
scrupulous thoughtfulness for others, which has always been
more or less a characteristic of Christian society, and never
more so than in our own day. But there is a close con
nection between these two forms of vice, which is illustrated
alike in Greek and Roman Paganism, and in the modern
revival of it. If many things were permitted to the Jews
* lb. p. 71. Cf. an eloquent passage in Farrar's St. Paul,
vol. i. p. 522.
+ Farrar, ut supra, p. 530.

392 THE ATONEMENT.
"for the hardness of their hearts," many more and worse
were practised by - the Gentiles. The usages of war and
slavery have been alluded to in the text- The condition of
women and children, and in fact the whole system of family
life, which was treated simply as a subordinate department of
statecraft, are also cases in point ; so is the practice of human
sacrifice, wherever it prevailed ;* and the absence, already
mentioned, of any public provision for sickness or other
inevitable suffering. There is, again, in individuals, even the
best of them, a hardness and heartlessness, a want of sympathy
and considerateness, and of much that falls under the notion
of Christian courtesy, which to us would seem almost
incredible, if we came across it in real life, at least among
the educated classes. There are, of course, exceptions ; but
I speak of the general standard, and of what was not found
inconsistent with the highest culture, a stainless reputation,
and distinguished personal excellence. Even a man with all
the refinement of Horace never dreamt of regarding his slaves
as other than mere chattels ; the noblest Roman ladies gazed
with eager and unpitying enjoyment on the hideous spectacles
of the Coliseum Nor was the stern morality of Juvenal
shocked at the gladiatorial shows, but only at the nobles
taking part in them. No public sentiment of Rome was
outraged when, at the bidding of the Emperor Claudius,
20,000 slaves were killed in a mock sea-fight on the " glassy
waves " of the Lake Fucinus — the modern Lago di Celano —
for a summer afternoon's pastime to the spectators. But I
need not multiply illustrations of what will be readily
admitted.

* Mommsen denies the practice of human sacrifice at Rome ;
others affirm it. In Greece it did not prevail in historical times,
but the public taste was not shocked by legends which record it ;
nor was the Spartan cryptia looked upon with any special horror,
though it would have been alien to Athenian habits.

CHRISTIAN AND HEATHEN CIVILISATION. 393
Now it is clearly a fact, that in these and such-like matters
the common feeling and practice of Christendom is a marked
improvement on that of preceding ages. Cruelties no doubt,
both public and private, have been perpetrated in Christian
countries, some of a kind the heathen never dreamed of. Still
it remains true, that the average standard, whether national
or individual, is not what it was then. No one questions, for
instance, that the influence of the Church contributed in the
long run to the abolition of slavery, and softened the horrors
of war. Care for the poor and suffering was from the
beginning a noticeable speciality of Christians ; hospitals, as
has been observed, were first erected in Christian cities.
Sisterhoods of compassion for tending the sick, the outcast,
the orphan, the fallen, and " him that hath no helper," are a
creation of Calvary. For it is surely no mere fancy to
connect the changed temper of modern society with the great
event which has engaged our attention in this volume. There
is a sequence of causation, as well as of chronology An
Order was founded by St. Camillus de Lellis in the sixteenth
century, under the name of Cruciferi, for attending those
afflicted with incurable diseases, or at the point of death.
May we not say that all who represent the more tender and
compassionate spirit of Christian civilisation are so far, in
their measure, bearers of the Cross ?

INDEX.

Abel, his sacrifice why pre
ferred, 92m+, 158.
Abelard, his view of the
Atonement, 190 sqq.
Agnosticism, why more con
sistent than mere theism,
75.
Albert the Great, 204.
Alexander of Hales, 203.
Alexander, Bishop, on Mes
sianic psalms, 313re.
Alford, his Gr. Test, cited,
26«t, 350.
Ambrose, St., on Atonement,
145 and ch. iii. passim.
Anselm, St., 180; his Cur
Deus Homo examined, 181
sqq.
Antinous, popular cult of, how
bearing on Christian belief,
Excurs. iii.
Aquinas, St. Thomas, his
Summa, 179 ; on Atone
ment, 204 sqq. ; on infinity
of sin, 303w.
Aristotle, his place in mediaeval
theology, 4, 8, 173.
Arminius, on Justification,
246.
Arnauld, on the Incarnation,
274.
Arnold, Matthew, on Catholi
cism, 5 ; on Incarnation,
169.

Athanasian Creed, the, 10,
37 sq.
Athanasius, St., on Incarna
tion and Atonement, 159,
and ch. iii. passim.
Atonement, objections to doc
trine of, answered, 84 sqq. ;
foreshadowings of, 91 sqq. ;
not sole end of Incarnation,
97 sqq. ; how connected with
Justification, 103 sq. ; Scrip
ture teaching on, 108 sqq. ;
teaching of Fathers on, ch.
ii., iii. ; of Schoolmen, ch.
iv. (see Table of Contents) ;
Tridentine Catechism on,
222 ; subjective side of,
controverted at Reforma
tion, 13, 223; later Ca
tholic theology on, ch. vi.
(see Contents) ; summary of
teaching on, 302 sqq. ; re
flections on, 307 sqq. (see
Contents). (See also Impu
tation, Justification, Passion,
Ransom, Satisfaction, Sacri
fice.) _
Augustine, St., onPelagianism,
46, 105 ; on Atonement,
143 sqq., and ch. iii. passim. ;
on Sacraments, 320m.
Baader, on death of Christ,
289.

396

INDEX.

Bahr, referred to, 120m.
Bahnez, referred to, 46.
Barclay, Robert, chief Quaker
theologian, 248.
Barnabas, General Epistle of,
on redemption, 117.
Baur, on ransom to Satan,
155 ; on justification, 228m*.
Baxter, Richard, on Imputa
tion, Excurs. vii.
Beauty, love of, interpreted by
the Cross, 336 sqq.
Bellarmine, quoted or referred
to, 47m., 226, 234m*,
235«+.
Benson, R. M., on Redemp
tion, 84m.
Bernard, St., on Atonement,
191 sqq.
Blunt, Prof., on early Fathers,
33 sq.
Body, condition of our Lord's,
Excurs. iv.
Boyhood of Christ, sacrificial,
329 ; reproduced in martyr
boys, 327.
Bonaventure, St., on Atone
ment, 198 sqq.
Brenner, on Atonement, 287.
Brewer, J. S., on Athanasian
Creed, 88.
Bright, Dr. W., on Immacu
late Conception, Excurs. i.
Bull, Bishop, Def. Fid. Nictm.,
80 sq. ; Primitive State of
Man, 226m*.
Butler, Bishop, on animal
sacrifices, 92m t ; on vicar
ious suffering, 262w; on
Atonement, 268.
Calvin, his teaching on Sin
and Atonement, 237 sqq.
Campbell, J. M., Nature of
Atonement quoted or referred
to, 98», 95m, 165m J, 285Mt,
236m*, 240m, 310; and of.
Pref. to 2nd edition.

Chemnitz, on transferance of
law to Mediator, 234.
Childhood, dignity of, derived
from Passion, 833 sqq.
Chilling worth, on rule of Pro
testant faith, 14 sqq.
Cholmondeley, Canon, on
Pauline doctrine of justifi
cation, 236m*.
Chrysostom, St., on Atone
ment, 161.
Church, Dean, on St. Anselm,
181.
Church Quarterly Review, cited,
34m J.
Civilisation, Christian and
Heathen contrasted, Ex
curs. ix.
Claudius Apollinius, on Atone
ment, 123,
Clement of Alexandria, St.,
on Atonement, 122 sq. ; on
Greek philosophy, 231m.
Clement of Rome, St., his two
Epistles, 116.
Clissold, A., on Swedenbor-
gianism, 250m+.
Coleridge, S. T., on Original
Sin, 103, 225 ; on Pauline
doctrine of Redemption,109 ;
on Justification, 269.
Communion, daily, 51 ; in one
or both kinds, 50 sqq., Ex
curs. ii.
Conception, the Immaculate,
24 sqq., 42 sqq., Excurs. i.
Concomitance, doctrine of.
See Excurs. ii.
Confirmation, originaily admi
nistered to infants, as still in
East, 51mJ.
Cudworth, on patristic teach
ing, 82.
CurcellsBus, on Atonement,
247.
Cyprian, St., on Atonement,
127.
Cyril of Alexandria, St., on

INDEX.

397

Atonement, 149, 158, 160,
165.
Cyril of Jerusalem, St., on
Atonement, 161.
Dalgatens, J. B., on with
drawal ofthe Chalice, 352m+ ;
on Transubstantiation, 381w.
Dante, quoted, 200m!
Darwin, on origin of species,
59nJ.
De Lugo, on withdrawal of
Chalice, S51m|.
Development of doctrine, im
portance of, 1 ; meaning of,
8 ; relation of to Apostolic
teaching, 5 ; human and
divine elements in, 1 sqq;
analogy of, to Christian his
tory, 10 ; follows order of
creed, 12 ; cannot be limited
to early ages, 16 ; illustra
tions of, 19 sqq. ; earher and
later compared, 38 sqq. ;
genuine distinguished from
spurious, 44 sqq.; compared
with practical developments,
47 sqq. ; tests of, 54 sqq. ,
corollaries from, 57 sqq. ;
objections to, considered,
60 sqq. ; true antithesis to
rationalistic developments,
72 sqq. ; its gradual course,
81.
Diognetus, Epistle to, on re
demption, 119 sq.
Dippell, John, on redemption,
264 sqq.
Dobmayer, on Atonement, 286.
DoUinger, on doctrinal de
velopment, 11 ; on Osiander,
242m; on modern German
theology, 266m; on cult of
Antinous, 354 sq. ; on Pro
testant doctrine of Imputa
tion, 377; on doctrine of
Eucharist, 882; on Chris
tian priesthood, 387.

Ecce Homo, quoted, 836.
Elias, Revelation of, 20m.
Enoch, Book of, 21m.
Essenius, on Satisfaction of
Christ, .253, 256m.
Eucharist, the, various usages
concerning, 49 sqq. ; its con
nection with Atonement,
283 sqq., Excurs. viii. ; per
petuation of the Passion,
320; its moral significance,
327. (See also Communion,
Sacrifice, Transubstantiation.)
Eusebius, on sacrifice of Abel,
158.
Faber, F. W., quoted, 96m,
208m, 312m, 323, 327m.
Farrar, Dr., on St. Paul's
metaphors, 4 ; on Acts xx.,
28, 26m+; on Second Coming
of Christ, 45m* ; on Scourg
ing of our Lord, 315m ; on
Seneca, 390m* ; on modern
Hellenism, 391.
Fathers, what meant by con
sent of, 106 ; want of pre
cision in ante-Nicene, 114
sqq. ; their teaching on
Atonement, 128 sqq. ; teach
ing of post-Nicene on
Atonement, 142 sqq., 158
sqq.
Forbes, Bishop Alexander, on
Sacraments, 21m+; on in
vocation of Saints, 23m1;
on Atonement, 223» ; on
B.V.M., 344mJ.
Forbes, Bishop William, on
Invocation, 23Mf.
Frank, on vicarious punish
ment of Christ, 235Mf.
Fulgentius, on sacrifice offered
to Holy Trinity, 158.
Gladstone, W. E., on develop
ment, 86m.
Gothe, quoted, 801.

398

INDEX.

Greek philosophy, view of early
Fathers on, 231m, 389.
Gregory the Great, St., on
Atonement, 145 sqq., and
ch. iii. passim.
Gregory of Nazianzus, St., on
Atonement, 156, 165, and
ch. iii. passim.
Gregory of Nyssa, St., on ran
som to Satan, 147 and see
ch. iii. passim.
Grotius, on Satisfaction of
Christ, 252 sqq. _
Guardian, a criticism of, no
ticed, 34.
Guizot, on modern scepticism,
74m* ; on problems of
modern life, 77.
Giinther, on incarnation and
Atonement, 287 sqq.
Hallam, Arthur, on power of
suffering, 312.
Hallam, H., on Lutheran
morality, 241m.
Heresy, how subservient to
development of truth, 4, 7.
Hermas, Shepherd, quoted, 117.
Hippolytus, on Atonement,
126.
Hooker, on Justification, 267 ;
on communicatio idiomatum,
303m.
Hugh of St. Victor, on Atone
ment, 194.
Humboldt, Kosmos referred to,
335.
Ignatius, St., on sufferings of
Christ, 118.
Imputation, no part of Catholic
doctrine, 104 sqq., 303 ;
taught by Luther, 238 sqq. ;
by Calvin, 240 ; by Hooker,
267 ; denied by CurcelkBus
and Limborch, 247 ; by
Dippel, 265 ; Baxter's view
of, Excurs. vii.

Incarnation, development of
doctrine on, 30 sqq. ; Scotist
view of, 98 sqq., 210 sqq., 272
sqq. 306, 341 ; its connection
with Atonement in patristic
teaching, 162, 166 sqq.; ne
cessity of faith taught by
Anselm, 183 sqq. ; recent
Lutheran theology on, Ex
curs. v.
IrenaBus, St., his theory of
Redemption, 130 sqq.
John or Damascus, St., last
Greek theologian, 78 ; on
ransom to Satan, 144, 157.
John Piscator, 243.
John Scotus Erigena, his
teaching on sin and redemp
tion, 170 sqq.
Jowett, Prof., on Christian
doctrine, 73 ; on St. Paul
and Luther, 236m ; on Ger
man Rationalist divines,
264m; on state of Heathen
world, 391.
Justice of God, how under
stood, 87 sqq., 189m.
Justification, how connected
with Atonement, 103 sq. ;
Catholic doctrme of, 227;
Lutheran, 232 sqq. ; Cal
vinist, 239 sqq. ; Osiander's,
242; Mennonite, 244; So
cinian, 245 ; Arminian, 246 ;
Quaker, 247 sqq. ; Sweden-
borgian, 250 sqq. ; Grotius
on, 252 sqq. ; Dippel, 264
sqq. ; Hooker, 267 ; Cole
ridge, 269; English Pro
testant doctrine of, 377.
Justin Martyr, St., on Atone
ment, 120 sqq. ; on Greek
philosophy, 231m.
Karg op Ansbaoh, on vicarious
satisfaction, 243.
Keble, |John, his Christian

INDEX.

399

Year quoted, 808 ; Lyra
Innocentium, 821.
Klee, on Satisfaction, 286.
Kliipfel, on Atonement, 286.
Kuhn, Kattwl. Dogmatik, quoted
or referred to, 3m, 226m*,
229m, 300m ; Leben Jesu,
296m, 297m.
Le Grand, on Atonement, 276
sqq.
Lecky, on cultus of B.V.M.,
30.
Leo, St., on Atonement, 146,
and ch. iii. passim.
Lightfoot, Bishop, on the
Christian Ministry, 384 sqq. ;
on Seneca, 390m*.
Liddon, Dr., his Bampton Lec
tures referred to, 27, 39.
Limborch, on Atonement, 247.
Luther, his teaching on Ori
ginal Sin and Justification,
228 sqq.
Lutheran theology, recent, on
Incarnation, Excurs. v.
Macaulay, Lord, quoted, 44m|
Mackay, his Tubingen School
16m.
Magee, Archbishop, his Scrip
tural Doctrine of Atonement
268.
Malebranche, on Incarnation
272 sqq.
Marcus Aurelius, character of
91.
Martensen, on Incarnation
Excurs. v.
Martineau, Harriet, her Auto
biography, 221m.
Martineau, Dr. J., on Unita
rianism, 219m.
Mass, the (see Eucharist, Sacri
fiee).
Massiot, On Priesthood and
Sacrifice of Christ, 280.
Maurice, F. D., on unity,

77m+ ; on Incarnation and
Atonement, 100m}.
Melancthon, on Original Sin,
229 sqq.
Merivale, Dean, on gradual
development of doctrine,
35.
Methodius, Homily on Cross
127.
Mill, J. S., on Christianity and
theism, 75m.
Milman, Dean, on miracles,
44m1- ; on Scotus Erigena,
171m* ; on Scholasticism,
178 ; on Cult of Antinous,
Excurs. iii.
Mohler, on opinion and dog
ma, 107 ; on Socinianism,
220 ; on Roman Catechism,
221m! ; on Justification,
228m* ; on Osiander, 242w ;
on Communion in one kind,
350.
Morison, J. G.,Life of St. Ber
nard, 191m.
Mozley, J. B., On Predestina
tion, referred to, 103Mt,
269m.
Neander, on Purgatory, 45m| ;
Eastern and Western de
velopments, 69m+ ; Satisfac
tion, 115m; Justification,
228m*.
Neo-platonism, its influence on
Christian theology, 8; re
vived by Scotus Erigena,
171.
Newman, J. H. Card., on
Second Eve, 25m1 ; on
" new doctrines," 28, 57 ;
patristic variations, 82 sq. ;
development in Scripture,
68 ; penance of Christ, 88m ;
original sin, 103Mt ; Atone
ment, 170, 339 ; Justifica
tion, 238m* ; character of
St. Paul, 332m* ; sacrificial

400

INDEX.

rites, 839m ; infant baptism,
845m.
Nicolas of Cusa, on birth of
Christ, 218.
Novalis, quoted, 337.
Origen, his theory of redemp
tion confirms and supple
ments that of Irenaeus, 134
sqq. ; on Greek philosophy,
231m.
Original Sin, first scientifically
treated by St. Augustine,
25 ; a fact, 103 ; importance
of, 225 ; Cathohc doctrine
of, 226 ; Lutheran, 229 sqq. ;
Calvinist, 239 ; denied by
Socinus, 245 ; and Sweden
borg, 251 ; Quaker view of,
248.
Osiander, . on Justification,
242.
Owen, R., his Introd. to Dog
matic Theology, quoted, 31m.
Ozanam, on Scotus Erigena,
171m*.
Pabst, on Atonement, 290 sqq.
Paine, Tom, his Quaker train
ing, 249m.
Pascal, his Pensees referred to,
326, 336,
Parousia, the, referred to, 45m.
Passion, the, pains of expia
tory and supernatural, 303
sqq. ; chief revelation of
Divine sympathy, 308 ; its
attractive power, 310sqq. ; in
cludes all mental and bodily
sufferings, 314 sqq., 829; its
perpetual life in the Church,
319 sqq. ; consecrates human
sufferings, 825-6 ; teaches
self-sacrifice, 826 sqq. ; and
tenderness, 881 sqq. ; sanc
tifies childhood, 888 sqq. ;
interprets and corrects
idealism, 836 sqq.

Pearson, Bishop, on Atone
ment, 268.
Pelagianism, 25, 103, 105,
345.
Perrone, on Purgatory, 47m.
Petavius, on development, 31 ;
saying of St. Cyril, motive
of Incarnation, 50m, 97, 112 ;
our Lord's Body, 358w+ ;
Satisfaction, 188m|.
Peter Lombard, on Atonement,
150, 195 sqq.
Plato, his Republic cited, 91.
Plowden, On the Sacrifice of
Christ, 281 sqq.
Polycarp, St., on death of
Christ, 119.
Positivism, 74.
Psalter, the, its manifold
teaching, 67 ; the secret of
its power, 312.
Pulleyn, Robert, on Atone
ment, 193.
Purgatory, 45, 47, 54, 224.
Pusey, Dr„ on Real Presence,
41m ; on Lutheran doctrine,
236 ; on Swedish Lutheran
orders, ib. n\.
Quenstedt, on original sin,
230 ; on vicarious punish
ment of Christ, 234 sqq.
Ransom to Satan, theory of,
first taught by Irenaeus, 180
sqq. ; supported by Origen,
184 sqq. ; by Greg. Nyssen,
Augustine, Greg. Naz.,
Athanasius, Gregory the
Great, Leo, 148 sqq, ; three
ideas included in it, 142 ;
remarks on it, 150 sqq. ;
combined with idea of Sacri
fice to God, 188, 156 sqq.;
found last in Peter Lom
bard, 150, 195 ; rejected by
Anselm, 181.
Rationalistic school, its bear-

INDEX.

401

ing on development, 71 sqq. ;
views of on Atonement,
why excluded from this re
view, 264.
Raymund of Sabunde, on
Atonement, 216 sqq.
Reformers, the, their teaching
subjective, 13 ; a wrong de
velopment, 18 sq.; on verbal
inspiration, 46 ; on Atone
ment, 224 sqq.
Renaissance, the, 60; modern
revival of, 391.
Renan, E., Hibbert Lectures
quoted, 90nf ; Vie de Jesu,
94m, 372.
Richard of St. Victor, on Satis
faction, 194.
Robbe, On Mysten/ of Incarnate
Word, 278.
Robertson, F. W., quoted or
referred to, 90m*, 100, 167m,
189m, 337m*.
Rothe, on Incarnation, Ex
curs. v.
Rousseau, quoted, 162m*,
Sacraments, all administered
from the first, 20 ; number
of first defined by Peter,
Lombard, 21 ; connection
of, with justification, 227 ;
perpetuation of the Passion,
330 ; two especially for
children, 333.
Sacrifice, of Cross, taught by
ante-Nicene Fathers, 129 ;
in connection with Euchar
ist, 140; by later Fathers,
142, 156 sqq., 167 ; Massiot
on, 280 ; Plowden on, 282 ;
Pabst on, 297 sqq. ; Dol-
linger on, 382 ; moral power
of, 326 sqq. ; completeness of,
329 sqq. ; how connected
with Eucharist, Excurs.
viii.
Sacrifices, heathen, how bear

ing on Atonement, 92, 338
sqq.
Sainte-Beuve, Port Royal
quoted or referred to, 46m,
274m.
Satisfaction, part only of
Atonement, 97, 110 ; not
found in ante-Nicene writers,
115, 124, 128; how implied
in later Fathers, 160 ; first
expressly taught by Anselm,
184 sqq. ; denied by Abelard,
190 ; defended by Bonaven
ture, 201 sq. ; Alexander of
Hales, 203 ; Albert the
Great, 204; Aquinas, 206;
questioned by Scotus, 207
sqq. ; affirmed by Wicliffe,
215 ; Raymund of Sabunde,
217 ; Catechism of Trent
on, 222 ; Lutheran doctrine
on, 233 sqq. ; Grotius on,
252 sqq. ; Butler on, 268 ;
later Catholic theology on,
275 sqq. ; why of infinite
value, 303 ; gives worth to
human satisfactions, 306,
321, 325.
Savonarola, 66.
Schcerer, E., on Tubingen
School, 73m.
Scholasticism, 175 sqq. ; two
periods of, 180; later doc
trine of, on states of man,
226m*, and cf. Pref. to2nded.
Scotist view of Incarnation.
(See' Incarnation.)
Scotus, Duns, on Atonement,
99, 207 sqq.
Scripture, relation of to tra
dition, 14 sqq. ; to develop
ment, 60 sqq. ; teaching of
on Atonement summarised,
108 sqq.
Secrecy of Divine visitations,
324.
Self-sacrifice, taught by Atone
ment, 327 sqq. 26

402

INDEX.

Shairp, Prof., referred to,
269m.
Shakespeare, quoted, 312.
Shirley, W. W., on Scholas
ticism, 179.
Socinus, his teaching, 245.
Socinianism, character of, 219
sqq.
Socrates, 66.
Spectator, quoted, 38 ; criticism
of answered, ln\.
Stancarus, on mediatorial
office, 234m*.
Stanley, Dean, on Loretto,
44«-f ; on Psalter, 313m ; on
St. Paul, 332m*.
Strauss, on Humanity, 162m+ ;
on belief of early Church,
Excurs. vi.
Suffering, the strongest bond
of sympathy, 307 sqq ; its
attractive power, 310 sqq. ;
its true value, 321 ; its
sacramental efficacy, 325
sqq.
Sufferings of our Lord, uni
versality of, 313 sqq. ; "the
unnecessary," 314 ; the
bodily, 315 ; mental, 315
sqq.
Swedenborg, his system, 249
sqq.
Symonds, J. A., on Cult of
Antinous, 355.
Tacitus, on Crucifixion, 324.
Tait, Archbishop, on Immacu
late Conception, 24m*.
Taylor, Jeremy, on Nicene
Creed, 17Mf ; on original
sin, 103.
Tenderness, a lesson of the
Cross, 331 sqq.

Tertulhan, on Atonement, 124
sqq.
Thomasius, on Incarnation,
Excurs. v.
Thomassin, on objects of In
carnation, 102, 163m ; on
our Lord's Body, 362».
Tournely, on Satisfaction, 275.
Transubstantiation, 40 sqq.,
71m, 381m.
Trench, Archbishop, on Eu
charist, 41m.
Trent, decrees of, 13, 223,
347 ; Catechism of, on Pas
sion, 222; on Sacrifice of
Mass, 383.
Ullathorne, Bishop, onlmma-
culate Conception, see Ex
curs. i.
Unity, visible, importance of,
79 sq.
Vincent of Lerins, St., on de
velopment of doctrine, 7m|,
11m+, 16m*.
Westcott, Dr., quoted or re
ferred to, 9m, 53m, 77m}.
Wicliffe, John, on Atonement,
215.
Wilberforce, R. I., on doc
trinal developments, 9m; on
Eucharist, 22m*, 384 ; on
mediation of Christ, 98Mf.
Wiseman, Cardinal, on Eu
charist, 40», 382m ; on
Science and Revelation,
59m|.
Wordsworth, Bishop Christo
pher, on development, 62m.
Wordsworth, W., quoted, 58,
336, 344.

London ; Printed by W. H. Allen & Co., 13, Waterloo Place, S.W

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
THE FIEST AGE OF CHEISTIANITY and the
CHURCH. Translated from the German of J. I. von
Dollinger, D.D., D.C.L. Third Edition. 2 vols. Crown
8vo. 18s.
CATHOLIC ESCHATOLOGY AND UNIVEE-
SALISM. An Essay on the Doctrine of Future Retribution.
Second Edition. Revised and Enlarged. Crown 8 vo. 7s. 6d.
POEMS. Third Edition. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
London: W. H. ALLEN & Co., 13, Waterloo Place, S.W.
LECTUEES ON THE EE-UNION OF THE
CHURCHES. Translated, with Preface, from the German of
J. I. von Dollinger, D.D., D.C.L. Crown 8vo. 5s.
EECOLLECTIONS OF OBEE-AMMEEGAU IN
1871. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
AN EIEENICON OF THE EIGHTEENTH
CENTURY. Proposal for Catholic Communion. By a Min
ister of the Church of England. New Edition, with Introduc
tion, Notes, and Appendices. 8vo. 10s. 6d.
RIVINGTONS,
London, Oxford, and Cambridge.
HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS OF THE
CHURCH, Vol. II. Translated from the German of C J.
Hefele, D.D., Bishop of Rottenburg. 8vo. 12s.
Edinburgh : T. & T. CLARK.
MOEAL AND EELIGIOUS ESTIMATE OF
VIVISECTION. 8vo. 6d.
London : JOHN HODGES, 24, King William Street, Strand.

3 9002 00491 8653