In accordance with this full and explicit teaching of holy Scripture, we find that the sufferings and death of Christ were ever regarded as of primary and essential importance in his work of redemption; but notwithstanding this, we look in vain throughout the early centuries of the Christian church for anything like a systematic development of the doctrine of the A. The germs of the doctrine existed, but without any logical con nection or clearness. " On this head there has been a twofold mistake—sometimes the existing beginnings of many later elaborated dogmas have been overlooked; or, on the other hand, it has been attempted to point out with literal distinctness church doctrines as if already developed." The early church fathers dwell with a sort of inspired devotion upon those facts of the gospel which represent Christ as the sacrifice for our sins, as the ransom paid for our redemption, as our deliverer from the power of Satan, as the restorer to mankind of whatever was lost by the fall of Adam; but they seldom attempt to show how these blessed results connect themselves with the sufferings and death of Christ; neither do they show in what Manner the A. has objectively been made, nor how it i3 brought to the experience of its individual subjects.
The narrow limits of this article will not allow us to specify the many ways in which the sufferings and death of Christ were regarded in relation to their A. for sin. During the first four eenturles there appeared no certainty of opinion as to whether they were a ransom-price paid to God or to the devil. The latter supposition is the more prevalent, and is shared in by Origen and St. Augustine. Gregory of Nyssa explains this opinion' by saying that the devil consented to receive Jesus as a ransom, because lie regarded him as more than an equivalent for all those under his power; but that, notwithstanding his subtilty, he was outwitted, for, owing to the humiliation in which Christ was veiled, he did not fully recognize him as the Son of God, and consequently was himself deceived. But having consented to receive him as a ransom for mankind, he was righteously deprived of his dominion over man, whilst he could not retain Jesus when he discovered him to be the holy one of God, being horrified and tormented by his holiness.
Athamisius first of all successfully controverted this notion, and maintained that the ransom was paid to God. He argued that as God had threatened to punish transgressors with death, he could but execute his threat. But then it was not becoming the charac ter of God to allow his purpose in the creation of man to be frustrated by an imposition practiced upon him by the devil. The only expedient, therefore, which remained for his deliverance from death, was the incarnation and sacrifice of the Logos in his stead, by which the justice and veracity of God would be maintained, man delivered, the law fulfilled, and the power of the devil broken. It has often been stated that Tertullian uses the term satisfaction with respect to Christ's A. for sin, but this is incorrect, for although he employs the term, he never does so in the sense of a. vicarious satisfaction,
but only in the sense of making amends for our own sins by confession and repentance.
These elemental and mythical conceptions of the doctrine of the A. remained in a most imperfect and altogether undeveloped condition, until the acute and subtle genius of the Piedmontese archbishop of .Canterbury reduced them to order, and presented them in logical consistency. We must regard Anseim, therefore, as the author, at least as to its, form, of the doctrine of vicarious satisfaction, which, under various modifications, has ever since continued to be held as the orthodox doctrine of the church. The following is; in all essential respects, his statement of the doctrine: The infinite guilt which had contracted, by the dishonor of his sin against the infinitely great God, could be atoned for by no mere creature; only the God-man Christ Jesus could render to God the infinite satisfaction required. God only can satisfy himself. The human nature of Christ enables him to incur, the infinity of his divine nature. to pay. this debt.. But it was incumbent upon Christ as a man to order his life according to the law of God; the obedience of hiS life, therefore, was not able to render satisfaction for our guilt. But although he was under obligation to live in obedience .to the law, as the Holy One lie was under no obligation to die. Seeing, then, that he nevertheless voluntarily surrendered, his infinitely precious life to the honor of God, a recompense from God became his due, and his recompense consists in the forgiveness of the sins of his brethren.—In this form of the doctrine are taught the necessity of an active vicarious satisfaction; but Anselm nowhere teaches the passive satisfaction, he nowhere says that Christ endured the punishment of men. Nor do we find in his writings the development of the sub jective side of the doctrine—namely, how the satisfaction rendered to God mediates the A. in the experience of the believer.
Subsequent to the time of A.uselm, and prior to the reformation, there are two views of the A. which divide the opinions of this period: the one regarding the peculiar manner in which it was accomplished as absolutely necessary, and deriving its efficiency from its objective nature; the other supposing a subjective connection between the sufferings of Jesus and the price of redemption, because this was best fitted to effect the moral transformation of men. According to Anselm, the satisfaction rendered by Chris.t was greater than the guilt for which lie atoned; and it needed to be greater, for the payment of the debt due to God gave men no claim to the favor of God. Thomas Aquinas and his followers maintained Augustine's opinion of the infinite value of the blood of Christ rendering it more than sufficient; while the Scotists maintained that it was sufficient only because God wag pleased to regard it as sufficient. But in the period between. Anselm and the reformation, little or no progress was made in the'development of this doctrine.