Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

concerning the efficacy of the death of Chrift, as inftrumental to the pardon of all fin, than their interpretation of fome of thofe texts in which the doctrine of atonement is now fuppofed to be contained.

Clemens Alexandrinus explains Rom. iv. 25, he was delivered for our offences, by faying that Chrift was the corrector and director of finners, fo that he alone can forgive fins, being appointed a pedagogue by the univerfal Father *. He explains Matt. xxvi. 28. in which our Lord calls the wine, bis blood which is fhed for many †, “ by "his words or doctrine, which was poured out "for many, for the remiffion of fins," and he interprets what our Lord fays in the 6th chapter of John's gospel, about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, of faith and hope, which fupports the foul, and to prove that blood may represent word or doctrine, he alledges Gen. iv. 10, in which it is faid, the blood of Abel cried unto God.

Upon the whole, I think it must appear fufficiently evident, that the proper doctrine of atonement was far from being fettled in the third or fourth centuries, though fome little approach was made towards it, in confequence of fuppofing that what is called a ransom in a figurative

* Pæd. lib. i. Opera, p. 110. + Page 158. Q4

+ Page 100.

fense,

fenfe, in the New Teftament, was fomething more than a figure; and therefore that the death of Chrift was truly a price paid for our redemption, not indeed directly from fin, but rather from death, though it was not fettled to whom this price was paid. In general the writers of those times rather feem to have confidered God as the person who paid the price, than he that received it. For, man being delivered into the power of the devil, they confidered the price of redemption as paid to him. As to the forgiveness of fins, it was represented by all the Fathers, and even by Auftin himself, as proceeding from the free grace of God, from which free grace he was farther induced to give up his Son, as the price of our redemption from the power of the devil. We muft, therefore, proceed farther, before we come to any regular fyftem of atonement, founded on fixed principles, fuch as are now alledged in fupport of it.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small]

SECTION VII.

Of the State of Opinions concerning the Doctrine of Atonement, from the Time of Austin to the Reformation.

AFTER Auftin we find but few writers of eminence for feveral centuries, owing to the great confufion of the times; fo that he being the last very confiderable writer in the western church, his works went down to pofterity with peculiar advantage, having no rival of any note. He was, therefore, confidered as an authority, and his opinions were seldom difputed. But having himself formed no fixed opinion with refpect to the doctrine of atonement, his doctrines of grace, original fin, and predeftination, were not connected with it, as they now are. We fhall find, however, that though not immediately, yet by degrees, fomething more like the present doctrine of atonement got established before the æra of the reformation.

About two centuries and a half after Austin, we find Gregory the Great, who was the most confiderable writer in his time. But he alfo was far from having any confiftent notions on this fubject. For at the fame time that he infifts

upon

upon the neceffity of fome expiation, he says, that our redemption might have been effected by Christ in some other way than by his death. He fays*, "The ruft of fin could not be purged "without the fire of torment; Christ therefore "came without fault, that he might subject him"felf to voluntary torment, and that he might "bear the punishment due to our fins." But he fays t," Chrift might have affifted us without fuffering, for that he who made us could de"liver us from fuffering without his own death. "But he chose this method, because by it he "fhewed more love to us."

In Theodorus Abucara, a Greek writer of the ninth century, we find fomething more like the doctrine of atonement, than in any writer in the Latin church. Indeed, as far as the extract given us by Grotius goes, it is very express to the purpose. But how he would have explained himself if he had written more largely on the fubject, I cannot tell. He fays, "God "by his judgments demanded of us all things "that are written in the Law; which when we "could not pay, the Lord paid for us, taking "c upon himself the curfe and condemnation to "which we were obnoxious." Again, he fays§, "Chrift, the mediator, reconciled us to God."

* In Job ii. cap. xii. Opera, fol. 13.
+In Job xxx. cap. xxvi. Opera, fol. 123.
Grottii, Opera, vol. iv. p. 347.

Page 348.

1

In the Latin church, however, the doctrine of atonement does not appear to have been fixed in the eleventh century; at least if we may judge of it by the writings of Anfelm, who was one of the greatest theologians of that age, and one of the first who diftinguished himself by that peculiar kind of acutenefs of fpeculation, which was carried much farther fome time afterwards, in what is called the age of the schoolmen. This, however, we may fay, that all the ideas of Anfelm on this fubject, would not be adopted by those who are advocates for the doctrine of atonement at prefent. He fays*, " that of in"numerable other methods, by which God,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

being omnipotent, might have faved men, he "chose the death of Chrift, that by it, he "might, at the fame time manifeft his love "to men." "Was the Father," fays he, "fo angry with men, that unless the Son had "died for us, he would not be appeased? No: "For the Father had love for us even when we "were in our fins." Yet he fays†, "Human "nature could not be restored unless man paid "what for fin he owed to God, and that which "Chrift ought not to pay but as man, he "was not able to pay but as God; fo that "here was a neceffity that God fhould be united " to man."

* Ad Rom. cap. v. Opera, vol. ii. p. 31.

+ Cur deus homo. lib. ii. cap. 18. Opera, vol. iii. p. 63.

« VorigeDoorgaan »