Atonement

ATONEMENT. The Atonement is the caption under which Christian theology intro duces the discussion of the application of the merits of the, life and death of Christ to the reconciliation of fallen man to his Creator, as well as of the acceptance thereof by the Di vinity. It expresses the crowning effect of the incarnation. It is, in this sense, an attempt at an explanation of the coming of the Redeemer. In a general way it means compensation, res toration, expiation, satisfaction, ransom. It is a word made up etymologically of at and one, and suggests that two who were divided have become one again. It embraces all that the Saviour accomplished to nullify the effects of sin. The atonement is considered to have re paired the consequences of the primal trans gression, all the moral consequences, say some, say most of the authorities. As to the physical outcome of the rebellion in Eden, it claims no change save that, through it, man has been enabled to bear patiently and meritoriously all the ills of existence and to wrest from what is evil a good that worketh unto satisfaction. The atonement idea is coexistent with what, in order to avoid conflict with those who think otherwise, may be called Biblical humanity; that is,• the race whose chronicle is found in the pages of Scripture. It has no meaning for those who reject the inspiration of Holy Writ or for those whose beliefs are antagonistic to Christianity. With these, if there be any atone ment at all, it lies in an evolution, by virtue of which man develops from worse to better and in the °process of the suns° reaches, un aided, to a deliverance and a perfection far surpassing even the dreams of Christianity. The subject is a vast one. It has many and far-reaching ramifications which are constantly in • contact with every issue of soteriological study. To confine it within the limits of an encyclopedic article necessarily cramps it and scarcely makes for completeness. All that can be done is to present its general features, the basis on which it rests, and some of the opin ions which deserve attention in the different stages of development incidental to its growth. The fact upon which the doctrine reposes is that narrated in Genesis iii, wherein the pre varication of the first couple is said to draw on them and posterity the curse of the Al mighty, which He tempers with the promise of a Redeemer to come. This violation of God's command, while it rendered Adam and Eve criminal and placed them under a ban, was at the same time an insult outraging, as much as anything finite could, the infinite perfections. Thus a condition was brought about which consigned man to punishment and left an af front against the Creator to be, in some way or other, atoned for. In this plight the whole race was involved and became ostracized from God. All humanity was confronted by a God whose infinite justice called for an indemnity of some kind as a reparation for the indignity offered to His perfections, by a penal sentence to be endured, by the loss of innocence, by the unbridling of concupiscence and by a slavery which reduced it to the thrall of the prince of the powers of darkness. Immediately is per ceived the gaping breach which the atonement had to bridge over. Could the restoration be achieved by man himself and alone, or by en tire humanity? The general answer is a nega tive. It is clear from the attitude into which man was forced by his sin what the questions are which in this discussion call for a reply. The views entertained by theologians arc not marked by very harmonious notes. There is a very great discrepancy of opinion. Like other doctrines, that of the atonement did not come into existence full grown. It was not formu lated in the beginning. Hints of its nature are found in the New Testament. By Christians up to the time of the Reformation it was re ceived from individual teachers, by whom, as by the laity, it was instinctively grasped, though scarcely expressed, and thus in many forms traversed the duration of nearly 15 centuries. Whenever, during all that period, it was treated by the fathers and doctors and other writers, there was unanimity on this one point: that the atonement was effected by the incar nate Son of God and that the satisfaction was complete and answered all the exactions of a just Deity, while it simply deluged man with a sea of spiritual blessings. Their contention, summed up, was that it was in the absolute power of God to pardon man without any atonement, without sending His Christ. In His wisdom, however, consulting not only the great wrong perpetrated against Him, but the wel fare of His creatures, He decreed the incar nation of His divine Son, the second person of the Blessed Trinity. 'That Son incarnated was both God and man, possessing two natures in one person. This person was divine. As all acts are attributable to the personality of the individual, it followed that the acts of the God-man were divine, and so, whether proceed ing from the human nature or not, they were infinite in value. It was necessary for an atone ment act to have infinity, because sin, though committed by a finite agent, was in a measure infinite, since its malice was directed toward a being infinite in nature. Theologians made the distinction that sin was finite subjectively, but objectively infinite. The divinity of the person made the atonement secure on the side of the Father. Man was doubly •privileged. The Redemption of Christ obtained for him, through grace which had its efficacy in the blood of the Saviour, the remission of sin, and strengthened him against his own weakness, his own passion and the wiles of the enemy from whose thraldom he had been rescued. In

a word, the insult to the Father was wiped out; man was restored to the old friendship, was endowed with the means of justification and sanctification and his feet put on a path to the vision of God, in the enjoyment of which sin becomes an impossibility and happiness is supreme. With very few exceptions this, more or less completely, was the form the atonement took in the thoughts of the large majority of teachers of the Church for a decade and half of centuries. They labored to hold up the dig nity and liberality of the atonement. The Atoner was Christ, and He atoned through His sac rifice on the cross in a manner ample beyond all human reckoning. But the atonement was not a thing of Christianity only; its effects reached back to the whole past of man, for the Lamb who atoned was "slain from the founda tion of the world? They argued that the re demption was universal as to time and place and for all the generations of man. All the peoples before Christ came within its pale. No man, however insult, fell outside of the plan of redemption. Everyone everywhere could find its blessings within his reach. It wrought from alpha to omega on the race. Not the chosen people only, but the Gentiles as well participated in its benefits. It was taught in the period under reflcxion that just as soon as the Redeemer was foretold to Adam and Eve the atonement began to energize in some inexplicable manner, but always with a view to the merits of Christ, who was to come in the fullness of time and pay the ransom. The concession of the Creator in granting a Re deemer who was to make plenary atonement for every man until the passing away of the race was, before the incarnation, a promissory note— if it may be allowed to use the term —a prom issory note of salvation accepted and honored by the Maker, who knew that at the appointed time a priceless amount would be stored up for its redemption. The atonement idea, that is, the necessity of making amends to a Ruler whose mandates had been and were being vio lated, prevailed everywhere in the ancient world and was not confined to the descendants of Abraham. Sacrifices, propitiatory and ex piatory, so common among the ancient idolators, are evidence sufficient. Among them was an uppermost thought that reconciliation with God or with the gods could not be brought about by individual efforts alone. The sacrifices of Israel emphasize the essence of all atonement. A victim was always called for. Something outside of the transgressor had to be offered to effect the lifting of the ban. That blood offerings, or others, were ineffective, save in directly and by a mysterious connection with the oblation of Christ, is admitted throughout the extent of ante-Reform tradition. In the Jewish mind the concept of sacrifice in a mul titude of cases connoted effusion of blood. The Hebrews were instructed that transgressions placed on the back of the victim died with the victim. This only in a measure, for it does not appear that they professed that after the death of the victim the guilt of the sacrificers was canceled without any further act or co operation on their part. Repentance was nec essary and each had to do his utmost to share by individual action in the redeeming work of the sacrificial object. The vexed subject of imputation (q.v.) recurs frequently but can not be touched here. The religion of the Jews was distinguished by the number and variety of its sacrifices. But atonement was ever be fore their eyes. Yom hakkippurim, or Day of Atonement, is another proof. It was a penitential occasion. Its austerity was rigor ous. From the evening of the 9th to the even ing of the 10th of the seventh month no bodily labor could be done, no food taken under pen alty of death. All the ritual was carried out by the high priest, who offered sacrifices for the sins of himself, of the priesthood and of the people. For the typical meaning of these ceremonies see Heb. viii-x, and for a descrip tion of the solemnity cf. Lev. xvi. These types ceased with the advent of Christ. Mention has already been made of the gradual develop ment of the doctrine of atonement. From the death of the Saviour it was admitted that °Je sus died, the just for the unjust, to redeem mankind from the bondage of corruption and to restore the broken connection between heaven and earth." Different ways of looking at this fundamental axiom of Christianity in gen eral have suggested various explanations. The conditions of the dispute led to many questions which relate to the incarnation. The one thing the teaching Church held to was that Christ as man is the first and supreme mediator be tween God and man (1 Tim. ii, 5). Because as man He was a created being He is below God, but is above all creatures by reason of the plenitude of His grace and glory. As man he offered to God a satisfaction so singu larly adequate that by it was destroyed "the handwriting of the decree° so adverse to us, and by it also man was endowed with all that is requisite to be in friendly association with God, by grace in the present and by glory in the future. Others, ministerially or otherwise, may co-operate in uniting God and man, but Christ is the chief and first and literally the only mediator (Billot).