Thomas Aquinas (died 1274) and his followers maintained Anselm's opinion of the infinite value of the blood of Christ, rendering it more than sufficient; while the Seotists maintained that it was sufficient only because God was pleased to regard it as sufficient. Here the eon troversy rests among Catholics. The prevailing view among Catholic theologians is that of Saint Thomas's development of Saint Anselm's position.
We now come to the period of the Reforma tion, when the doctrine of the atonement began to be speculatively viewed from the standpoints of the various reformers (the foremost of whom was Luther) and their followers. In the writings of Luther, one will only with difficulty arrive at his intellectual apprehension of this doctrine in its scientific form; but setting out with the consciousness of sin, one will every where discover how he realized that in Christ all sin is 'vanquished, killed, and buried, and righteousness remaineth a conqueror and reign eth forever.' The following is an outline of the Lutheran doctrine, as laid down in the Con cordienformel: It is alone by faith that we can receive the blessings given to us in the Gospel by the Holy Ghost. Faith justifies, because it appropriates the merit of Christ. Therefore, the righteousness which is imputed to the believer, simply by the grace of God, is the obedience, the suffering, and the resurrection of Christ, by which He has satisfied the claims of the law and atoned for our sins. For as Christ is not merely man, hut God and man in one person, He was, as Lord of the law, no more subject to it than He was subject to suffering and death. For this reason His twofold obedience— that which he rendered, on the one hand, by 'His suffering and death; and, on the other, by His righteous fulfillment of the law on our behalf—is imputed to us, and God acquits us of our sins, and regards us as just, in view of His complete obedience in what He did and suf fered. This obedience embraces the entire exist ence of Christ upon earth, and is so complete that it fully covers the disobedience of men, so that it is not reckoned against them for eon demnation. Christ is our righteousness, there fore, only in so far as in His entire person the most perfect obedience is exhibited, which He was able to render, in that lie was neither God alone nor man alone, but both in one, God and man.
According to Calvin (Institutes, 1559), if one asks how Christ has reconciled us with God, and purchased a righteousness which made Him favorable to us, it may be answered, gen erally, that He accomplished this by the whole course of ills obedience. But although the life of Christ is to be regarded as paying the price necessary for our deliverance, the Scriptures ascribe our redemption especially to His death.
Calvin attached great importance to the par ticular mode of His death—any other mode of death would not have rendered the same satis faction to God. Ile, however, says little or nothing about Christ's fulfilling the law for us, but dwells upon His delivering us from its curse. He does not, therefore, exhibit Ms active obedience separated, as an essential part of His satisfaction for sin, from His passive obedience. The importance attached to the obedience of His life arises from its natural and necessary con nection with His suffering and death. And the great importance attached to Ilis death is drawn rather from the view of its subjective necessity than from the idea of the divine righteousness— namely, that without such a death there would have been no sufficient ground for the subjective realization of deliverance from sin and guilt. Calvin's view differs from that of the Lutheran Coneordienformel in that he does not regard the relationship of God to man merely from the standpoint of punitive and satisfying righteous ness, which always leads to the merely negative notion of a redeemer from guilt and punish ment; but looks upon Christ as the highest mediator, through whom the nature of God is communicated to man. There was a necessity for Christ's incarnation, not merely because, apart from the suffering of the God-man, the divine righteousness could not he atoned, but also because without such a divine mediator there could be no vital relation between God and man. "Had man remained free from all taint, he was of too humble a condition to pene trate to God without a mediator." Soeinus (De J. C. Serratore, 1577) endeav ored to prove the falseness of this theory. He shares with the Protestants the subjective prin ciple, which the period of the Reformation estab lished, hut developed it in a one-sided manner. Socinianism represents man as attaining to one ness with himself and with God by his own moral energy. It rejects that idea, of the righteousness of God which makes it impossible for Him to forgive sin without satisfaction, as imposing finite limitations upon the Divine Being; and also objects to the doctrine of satis faction, on the ground that satisfaction for sin and forgiveness of sin are incompatible with each other; and, moreover, objects that sin and punishment are of so personal a nature as not to allow of their being transferred. It further opposes the doctrine of the active and passive obedience of Christ, on the ground that the one excluded the other. Another objection main tained the actual impossibility of Christ's ren dering the supposed satisfaction for sin.