Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

39

CHAPTER III.

THE LATER FATHERS AND JOHN SCOTUS ERIGENA.

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 multiplied, both in East and West, and their works grow more voluminous. We can no longer examine in detail the statements of each Father, as during the earlier centuries, 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 accordingly be grouped under one or other of two classes. We have found both these lines of thought exhibited in Origen's theological system; succeeding writers were occupied in their development.

First and chiefly, we have seen that Origen regards the death of our Lord as a ransom paid for our deliver

ment.

ance from the power of Satan; and the three ideas involved in this theory, and expressly insisted on by him-of an actual right over us acquired by the Devil through sin, which could not justly be rescinded without some adequate compensation; of the deceit practised upon him, by which he was made the instrument of his own discomfiture; and of the necessity for the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 stateIt was shown, on the other hand, that Origen like his predecessors taught, 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 followed him; but the notion of a ransom paid to Satan continues to be the common explanation of the necessity for Christ's death till 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 separately, 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 followed him, I reserve 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 philosophy 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 infallibilityAugustine, Bishop of Hippo. It is these two writers, and especially St. Augustine, whom we shall find, here as elsewhere, the most prominent though by no means the solitary exponents of the theology of their age. If I make special mention after them of Gregory Nazianzen, Athanasius, Gregory the Great, and St. Leo, in connection with our present subject, it is by no means to the exclusion of other and still memorable names. Let us proceed, 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 extorted it, and its necessity.

1. It was Origen's argument, that Satan had acquired an actual right over men through the Fall, for which the Soul or Blood of Jesus was the only adequate ransom. That right is admitted more or less distinctly by all 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, distinguishes between the justice of our bondage and the injustice of our task-master; but he lived after St. Anselm had pointed out the distinction, and made it a ground for rejecting the whole scheme.† So late as the eighth century, the last Greek theologian,

Leo Serm. xxii. 3. Jus tyrannicum vindicabat, nec injusto dominatu premebat.

+ Pet. Lomb. Sent. Lib. iii. Dist. 19.

F

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.* 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 voluntarily placed ourselves under Satan's dominion, we could not justly be delivered 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 all 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 evil creditor, and Christ is not unjustly said to be made sin, 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 Himself;" and Eusebius, "He took the curse upon IIim, being made a curse for us; for what else is this than a ransom for our souls (arruxor)?" "This solution of the evil was left," says Proclus, "for neither man nor angel would suffice;" and Gregory the Great, "The Father being just dis

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.

Enarr, in Ps. 95.

poses all things justly, punishing the Just One;"* 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 full equivalent for all other things together, it was, as Gregory Nyssen says, a higher and greater discharge. God did more than justice to the Evil One. "The adversary," 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 likeness."+ But why, it may be asked, was this particular kind of ransom required? The answer, already suggested by Origen, seems to be this. Man had voluntarily succumbed in his conflict with Satan; and the tyrant could claim dominion over him till 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 holiest of them, were perfect. One alone could successfully contend with him; and here we see Irenæus' view of the Temptation illustrated.§ One alone could suffer a wholly unmerited punishment, 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

*Amb. De Virg. iii. ad fin. In Ep. ad Cor. ii. 5. Aug. Serm. xxxvii. in Luc. Ath. In Pass, et Cruce Dei. Euseb. De Dem. Ep. x. 1. Procl. Const. Hom. De Christ. Nat. Greg. Moral. iii. 13.

† Basil. Hom. in Ps. xlviii. The references to Greg. Nyss., where it is not otherwise stated, are to his Catechetics, ch. 25-28.

Ambr. In Luc. vii. 2.

Greg. Mag. In Luc. i., Hom: xvi. 2. Cf. supr. p. 31.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »