" Mystical Theories " and their Advocates (¢ 2).
3. Terminating on Man in the Way of Bringing to Bear on him Inducements to Action.
" Moral Influence Theories." The Essential Thought (§ 3).
Various Forms of these Theories (¢ 4)·
4. Terminating on Man Primarily and on God Secondarily.
" Rectoral or Governmental Theories " (§ 5).
Advocates of these Theories (§ 8). Horace Bushnell (17).5. Terminating on God Primarily and on Man Secondarily.
" Theories of Reconciliation " (§ 8). Certain " Sacrificial Theories " The Doctrine of " Satisfaction"nature, an expiatory offering, propitiating an
offended deity and reconciling him with man.
In thus characterizing the work of Christ, it does
no injustice to the New Testament
:. The New representation. The writers of the
Testament New Testament employ many other
Presents- modes of describing the work of Christ,
tion. which, taken together, set it forth se
much more than a provision, in his
death, for canceling the guilt of man. To mention
nothing else at the moment, they set it forth equally
as a provision, in his righteousness, for fulfilling
the demands of the divine law upon the conduct of
men. But it is undeniable that they enshrine at
the center of this work its efficacy as a piacular
sacrifice, eecuting the forgiveness of sine; that is
to say, relieving its beneficiaries of "the penal
consequences which otherwise the curse of the
broken law inevitably entails." The Lord himself
|
350 |
2. Development of the Doctrine. The exact nature of Christ's work in redemption was not made the subject of scientific investigation in the early Church. This was due partly, no doubt, just to the clearness of the New Testament representation of it as a piacular sacrifice; but in part also to the engrossment of the minds of the first teachers of Christianity with more immediately pressing problems, such as the adjustment of the essential elements of the Christian doctrines of God and of the person of Christ, and the establishment of man's helplessness in sin and absolute dependence on the grace of God for salvation. Meanwhile Christians were content to speak of the work of Christ In simple scriptural or in general language, or to develop, rather by way of illustration than of explanation, certain aspects of it, chiefly its efficacy as a sacrifice, but also, very prominently, its working as a ransom in delivering us from bondage to Satan. Thus it was not until the end of the eleventh century that the nature of the Atonement received at the hands of Anselm (d. 1109) its first thorough discussion. Representing it, in terms derived from the Roman law, as in its essence a "satisfaction" to the divine justice, Anselm set it once for all in its true relations to the inherent necessities of the divine nature, and to the magnitude of human guilt; and thus determined the outlines of the doctrine for all subsequent thought. Contemporaries like Bernard and Abelard, no doubt, and perhaps not unnaturally, found difficulty in assimilating at once the newly framed doctrine; the former ignored it in the interests of the old notion of a ransom offered to Satan; the latter rejected it in the interests of a theory of moral influence upon man. But it gradually made its way. The Victorines, Hugo and Richard, united with it other elements, the effect of which was to cure its onesidedness; and the great doctors of the age of developed scholasticism manifest its victory by differing from one another chiefly in their individual ways of stating and defending it. Bonaventura develops it; Aquinas enriches it with his subtle distinctions; Thomist and Scotist alike start from it, and diverge only in the question whether the "satisfaction" offered by Christ was intrinsically equivalent to the requirements of the divine justice or availed for this purpose only through the gracious acceptance of God. It was not, however, until the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith threw its light back upon the "satisfaction" which provided its basis, that that doctrine came fully to its rights. No one before Luther had spoken with the clarity, depth, or breadth which characterize his references to Christ as our deliverer, first from the guilt of sin, and then, because from the guilt of sin, also from all that is evil, since all that is evil springs from sin (cf. T. Harnack, Luther's Theologie, ii, Leipsic, 1886,16-19, and Kirn, ut sup., 467). These vital religious conceptions were reduced to scientific statement by the Protestant scholastics, by whom it was that the complete doctrine of "satisfaction" was formulated with a thoroughness and comprehensiveness of grasp which has made it the permanent possession of the Church. In this, its developed form, it represents our Lord as making satisfaction for us "by his blood and righteousness"; on the one hand, to the justice of God, outraged by human sin, in bearing the penalty due to our guilt in his own sacrificial death; and, on the other hand, to the demands of the law of God requiring perfect obedience, in fulfilling in his immaculate life on earth as the second Adam the probation which Adam failed to keep; bringing to bear on men at the same time and by means of the same double work every conceivable influence adapted to deter them from sin and to win them back to good and to God, --by tile highest imaginable demonstration of God's righteousness and hatred of sin and the supreme manifestation of God's love and eagerness to save; by a gracious proclamation of full forgiveness of sin in the blood of Christ; by a winning revelation of the spiritual order and the spiritual world; and by the moving example of his own perfect life in the conditions of this world; but, above all, by the purchase of the gift of the Holy Spirit for his people as a power not themselves making for righteousness dwelling within them, and supernaturally regenerating their hearts and conforming their lives to his image, and so preparing them for their permanent place in the new order of things which, flowing from this redeeming work, shall ultimately be established as the eternal form of the Kingdom of God.
3. Various Theories. Of course, this great comprehensive doctrine of "the satisfaction of Christ" has not been per-
|
351 |
A survey of the various theories of the Atonement which have been broached, may be made from
many points of view (cf. especially the survey in T. G. Crawford, ut sup., pp. 385-401; Bruce, ut sup., lecture 7; and for recent German views, F. A. B. Nitzseh, Lehrbuch der evangelischen Dogmati&, Freiburg, 1892, §§ 43-46; O. Bensow, Die Lehre von der Versohnung, Giltersloh, 1904, pp. 7-156; G. A. F. Ecklin, Erl6sung and Versohnung, Basel, 1903, part 4). Perhaps as good a method as any other is to arrange them according to the conception each entertains of the person or persons on whom the work of Christ terminates. When so arranged they fall naturally into five classes which may be enumerated here in the ascending order.
1. Theories which conceive the work of Christ as terminating upon Satan, so affecting him as to secure the release of the souls held in bondage by him. These theories, which have been described as emphasizing the " triumphantorial " aspect of Christ's work (Ecklin, ut sup., pp. 113 sqq.) had very considerable vogue in the patristic age (e.g.,
Irenzeus, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexr. The" Tri-andria, Origen, Basil, the two Greg-
umphan- ories, Cyril of Alexandria, down to and torial including John of Damascus and Theory." Nicholas of Methone; Hilary, Rufinus,Jerome, Augustine, Leo the Great, and even so late as Bernard). They passed out of view only gradually as the doctrine of " satisfaction " became more widely known. Not only does the thought of a Bernard still run in this channel, but even Luther utilized the conception. The idea runs through many forms,--speaking in some of them of buying off, in some of overcoming, in some even of outwitting (so, e.g., Origen) the devil. But it would be unfair to suppose that such theories represent in any of their forms the whole thought as to the work of Christ of those who made use of them, or were considered by them a scientific statement of the work of Christ. They rather embody only their author's profound sense of the bondage in which men axe held to sin and death, and vividly set forth the rescue they conceive Christ has wrought for us in overcoming him who has the power of death.
2. Theories which conceive the work of Christ as terminating physically on man, so affecting him as to bring him by an interior and hidden working upon him into participation with the one life of Christ; the so-cared " mystical theories." The fundamental characteristic of these theories is their discovery of the saving fact not in anything which Christ taught or did, but in what he was. It is upon the Incarnation, rather than upon Christ's teaching or his work that they throw stress, attributing the saving power of Christ not to what he does for us but to what he does in us. Tendencies to this type of theory are already traceable in the
Platonizing Fathers; and with the enz. "Mystical trance of the more developed Neo-
Theories" Platonism into the stream of Chris- and their tian thinking, through the writings of Advocates. the Pseudo-Dionysius naturalized in theWest by Johannes Scotus Erigena, a constant tradition of mystical teaching began which never died out. In the Reformation age this type
|
352 |
which was the occasion of much discussion about the middle of the nineteenth century-reproduce some of the characteristic language of the theory of " salvation by sample."
3. Theories which conceive the work of Christ asterminating on man, in, the way of bringing to bear on him inducements to action; so affecting man as to lead him to a better knowledge of God, or to a more lively sense of his real relation to God, or to a revolutionary change of heart and life with reference to God; the so-called " moral in-
3. "Moral fiuence theories." The essence of all Influence these theories is that they transfer the Theories" atoning fact from the work of ChristThe Essen- to the response of the human soul to tialThought. the influences or appeals proceeding
' from the work of Christ. The work of Christ takes immediate effect not on God but on man leading him to a state of mind and heart which will be acceptable to God, through the medium of which alone can the work of Christ be said to affect God. At its highest level, this will mean that the work of Christ is directed to leading man to repent ance and faith, which repentance and faith secure God's favor, an effect which can be attributed to Christ's work only mediately, that is, through the medium of the repentance and faith it produces in man. Accordingly, it has become quite common to say, in this school, that " it is faith and repent ance which change the face of God;" and advo cates of this class of theories sometimes say with entire frankness, " There is no atonement other than repentance " (Augusts Sabatier, La Doctrine de l'expiation et son evolution historique, Paris, 1903, Eng. transl., London, 1904, p. 127).Theories of this general type differ from one another, according as, among the instrumentalities by means of which Christ affects the minds and hearts and actions of men, the stress is laid upon his teaching, or his example, or the impression made by his life of faith, or the manifestation of the infinite love of God afforded by his total mission. The most powerful presentation of the first of these conceptions ever made was probably that of the Socinians (followed later by the rationalists, both earlier and later, Tollner, Bahrdt, Steinbart, Eberha,rd, Loffier, Henke, Wegscheider). They looked upon the work of Christ as summed
4. Various up in the proclamation of the willing-Forms of ness of God to forgive sin, on the sole These condition of its abandonment; and
Theories. explained his sufferings and death asmerely those of a martyr in the cause of righteousness Or in some other non-essential way. The theories which lay the stress of Christ's work on the example he has set us of a high and faithful life, or of a life of self-sacrificing love, have found popular representatives not only in the subtle theory with which F. D. Maurice pieced out his mystical view, and in the somewhat amorphous ideas with which the great'preacher F. W. Robertson clothed his conception of Christ's life as simply a long (and hopeless) battle against the evil of the world to which it at last succumbed; but more lately in writers like Auguste Sabatier, who does not stop short of transmuting Christianity into bald altru-
|
353 |
ism, and making it into what he calls the religion of " universal redemption by love," that is to say, anybody's love, not specifically Christ's love, for every one who loves takes his position by Christ's side as, if not equally, yet as truly, a savior as he (The Doctrine of the Atonement in its Historical Evolution, Eng. tranal., ut sup., pp. 131-134; so also Otto Pfleiderer, Das Christusbild des urchristlichen Glaubens in religionsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung, Berlia, 1903, Eng. transl., London, 1905, pp. 164-165; cf. Horace Bushnell, Vicarious Sacrifice, New York, 1865, p. 107: " Vicarious sacrifice was in no way peculiar "). In this same general category belongs also the theory which Albrecht Ritschl has given such wide influence. According to it, the work of Christ consists in the establishment of the Kingdom of God in the world, that is, in the revelation of God's love to men and his gracious purposes for men. Thus Jesus becomes the first object of this love and as such its mediator to others; his sufferings and death being, on the one side, a test of his steadfastness, and, on the other, the crowning proof of his obedience (Rechtfertigung and Versohnung, iii, §§ 41-61, 3d ed., Bonn, 1888, Eng. transl., Edinburgh, 1900). Similarly also, though with many modifications, which are in some instances not insignificant, such writers as W. Herrmann (Der Verkehr des Christen mit Gott, Stuttgart, 1886, p. 93, Eng. transl., London, 1895), J. Kaftan (Dogmatik, Tdbingen, 1901, pp. 446 sqq.), F. A. B. Nitzsch (Evangelische Dogmatik, Freiburg, 1892, pp. 504-513), T. Miring (in his Ueber das Bleibende im Glauben an Christus, Stuttgart, 1880, where he sought to complete Ritschl's view by the addition of the idea that Christ offered to God a perfect sorrow for the world's sin, which supplements our imperfect repentance; in his later writings, Zu Ritschl's Versohnungslehre, Zurich, 1888, Zur Versohnungslehre, Gottingen, 1893, he assimilates to the Grotian theory), E. Kohl (Die Heilsbedeutung des Todes Christi, Berlin, 1890), G. A. F. Ecklin (Die Heilswerth des Todes Jesu, Giitersloh, 1888; Christus Unser Mirge, Basel, 1900; and especially Erldsung and Vers6hnung, 1903, which is an elaborate history of the doctrine from the point of view of what Ecklin calls in antagonism to the " substitutional-expiatory " conception, the " solidario-reparatory " conception of the Atonement,-the conception, that is, that Christ comes to save men not primarily from the guilt, but from the power of sin, and that " the sole satisfaction God demands for his outraged honor is the restoration of obedience," p. 647). The most popular form of the " moral influence " theories has always been that in which the stress is laid on the manifestation made in the total mission and work of Christ of the ineffable and searching love of God for sinners, which, being perceived, breaks down our opposition to God, melts our hearts, and brings us as prodigals home to the Father's arms. It is in this form that the theory was advocated (but with the suggestion that there is another side to it), for example, by S. T. Coleridge (Aids to Re ftection), and that it was commended to English-speaking readers of the last generation with the highest
ability by John Young of Edinburgh (The Life and Light of Men, London, 1866), and with the greatest literary attractiveness by Horace Bushnell (Vi carious Sacrifice, New York, 1865; see below, § 7; see also article BUsHNxLL, HORACx); and has been more recently set forth in elaborate and vigorously polemic form by W. N. Clarke (An Outline of Christian Theology, New York, 1898, pp. 3413670), T. Vincent Tymms (The Christian Idea of Atonement, London, 1904), G. B. Stevens (The Christian Doctrine of Salvation, New York, 1905), and C. M. Mead (Irenic Theology, New York, 1905).
In a volume of essays published first in the An dover Review (iv, 1885, pp. 57 sqq.) and afterward gathered into a volume under the title of Progres sive Orthodoxy (Boston, 1886), the professors in Andover Seminary made an attempt (the writer here being, as was understood, George Harris) to enrich the " moral influence " theory of the Atone ment after a fashion quite common in Germany (cf., e.g., Haring, ut sup.) with elements derived from other well-known forms of teaching. In this con struction, Christ's work is made to consist primarily in bringing to bear on man a revelation of God's hatred of sin, and love for souls, by which he makes man capable of repentance and leads him to repent revolutionarily; by this repentance, then, together with Christ's own sympathetic expression of re pentance God is rendered propitious. Here Christ's work is supposed to have at least some (though a sec ondary) effect upon God; and a work of propitia tion of God by Christ may be spoken of, although it is accomplished by a " sympathetic repentance." It has accordingly become usual with those who have adopted this mode of representation to say that there was in this atoning work, not indeed " a substitution of a sinless Christ for a sinful race," but a " substitution of humanity plus Christ for humanity minus Christ." By such curiously com pacted theories the transition is made to the next class. 4. Theories which conceive the work of Christ asterminating on both man and God, but on man Primarily and on God only secondarily. The outstanding instance of this class of theories is supplied by the so-called " rectoral or governmental theories." These suppose that the work of Christ so affects man by the spectacle of the sufferings borne by him as to deter men from sin; and by thus deter-
ring men from sin enables God to forg. "Rector- give sin with safety to his moral goval or Gov- ernment of the world. In these ernmental theories the sufferings and death of Theories." Christ become, for the first time in
this conspectus of theories, of cardinal importance, constituting indeed the very essence of the work of Christ. But the atoning fact here too, no less than in the " moral influence " theories, is man's own reformation, though this reformation is supposed in the rectoral view to be wrought not primarily by breaking down man's opposition to God by a moving manifestation of the love of God in Christ, but by inducing in man a horror of sin, through the spectacle of God's hatred of sin afforded by the sufferings of Christ,-through which, no doubt, the contemplation of man is led on to
|
354 |
God's love to sinners as exhibited in his willingness to inflict all these sufferings on his own son, that he might be enabled, with justice to his moral government, to forgive sins.
This theory was worked out by the great Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius (Defensio fidei Christianm de satisfactions Christi, etc., Leyden, 1617; modern ed., Oxford, 1856; Eng. transl., with notes and introduction by F. H. Foster, Andover, 1889) as an attempt to save what was salvable of the established doctrine of satisfaction from disintegration under the attacks of the Socinian advocates of the " moral influence" theories (see GROTIUB, Huao).
It was at once adopted by those Ar6. Advocates minians who had been most affected
of These by the Socinian reasoning; and in the Theories. next age became the especial propertyof the better class of the so-called supranaturalists (Michaelis, Storr, Moms, Knapp, Steudel, Reinhard, Muntinge, Vinke, Egeling). It has remained on the continent of Europe to this day, the refuge of most of those, who, influenced by the modem spirit, yet wish to preserve some form of °' objective," that is, of Godward atonement. A great variety of representations have grown up under this influence, combining elements of the satisfaction and rectoral views. To name but a single typical instance, the commentator F. Godet, both in his commentaries (especially that on Romans) and in a more recent essay (published in The Atonement in Modern Thought by various writers, London, 1900, pp. 331 sqq. ), teaches (certainly in a very high form) the rectoral theory distinctly (and is corrected therefor by his colleague at Neuchlitel, Prof . Gretillat, who wishes an " ontological " rather than a merely " demonstrative " necessity for atonement to be recognized). Its history has run on similar lines in English-speaking countries. In Great Britain and America alike it has become practically the orthodoxy of the independents. It has, for example, been taught as such in the former country by Joseph Gilbert (The Christian Atonement, London, 1836), and in especially well worked-out forms by R. W. Dale (The Atonethem, London, 1876) and Alfred Cave (The Scriptural Doctrine o f Sacrifice, Edinburgh, * 1877; new ed. with title, The Scriptural Doctrine of Atonement and Sacrifice, 1890; and in The Atonement in Modern Thought, ut sup., pp. 250 sqq.). When the Calvinism of the New England Puritans began to break down, one of the symptoms of its decay was the gradual substitution of the rectoral for the satisfaction view of the Atonement. The process may be traced in the writings of Joseph Bellamy (171990), Samuel Hopkins (1721-1803), John Smalley (1736-1820), Stephen West (1735-1819), Jonathan Edwards, Jr. (1745-1801), Nathanael Emmons (1745-1800); and Edwards A. Park was able, accordingly, in the middle of the nineteenth century to set the rectoral theory forth as the " traditional orthodox doctrine " of the American Congregationalists (The Atonement: Discourses and Treatises by
Edwards, Smalley, May, Emmons, GriSn, Burg,, and Weeks with an Introductory Essay by ~dwards A. Park, Boston, 1859; cf. Daniel T. Fiske, in the Bibliotheca Sacra, Apr., 1861, and further N. S. S.
Beman, Sermons on the Atonement, New York, 1825, 2d'ed., 1846; N. W. Taylor, Lectures on the Moral Government o f God, New York, 1859; Albert Barnes, The Atonement in its Relation to Law and Moral Government, Philadelphia, 1859; Frank H. Foster, Christian Life and Theology, New York, 1900; Lewis F. Steams, Present Day Theology, New York, 1893). The early Wesleyans also gravitated toward the rectoral theory, though not without some hesitation, a hesitation which has sustained itself among Brit ish Wesleyans until to-day (of., e.g., W. B. Pope, Compendium of Christian Theology, London, 1875; Marshall Randles, Substitution, a Treatise on the Atonement, London, 1877; T. 0. Summers, Sys tematic Theology, 2 vols., Nashville, Tenn., 1888; J. J. Tigert, in the Methodist Quarterly Review, Apr., 1884), although many among them have taught the rectoral theory with great distinctness and decision (e.g., Joseph Agar Beet, in the Expositor, Nov., 1892, pp. 343-355; Through Christ to God, London, 1893). On the other hand, the rectoral theory has been the regnant one among American Methodists and has received some of its best statements from their hands (cf. especially John Miley, The Atonement of Christ, New York, 1879; Systematic Theology, ii, New York, 1894, pp. 65-240); although there are voices raised of late in denial of its claim to be con sidered distinctively the doctrine of the Methodist Church (J. J. Tigert, ut sup.; H. C. Sheldon, in AJT, viii, 1904, pp. 41-42).The final form which Horace Bushnell gave his version of the "moral influence" theory, in his Forgiveness and Law (New York, 1874; made the second volume to his revised Vicarious Sacrifice, 1877) stands in no relation to the rectoral theories; but it requires to be mentioned here by their side,
because it supposes like them that 7. Horace the work of Christ has a secondary ef-
Bushnell. feet on God, although its primary effectis on man. In this presentation, Bushnell represents Christ's work as consisting in a profound identification of himself with man, the effect of which is, on the one side, to manifest God's love to man and so to conquer man to him, and, on the other, as he expresses it, " to make cost " on God's part for man, and so, by breaking down God's resentment to man, to prepare God's heart to receive man back when he comes. The underlying idea is that whenever we do anything for those who have injured us, and in proportion as it costs us something to do it, our natural resentment of the injury we have suffered is undermined, and we are prepared to forgive the injury when forgiveness
is sought. By this theory the transition is naturally made to the next class.
5. Theories which conceive the work of Christ
as terminating primarily on God and secondarily
on man. The lowest form in which
8. " Theo- this ultimate position can be said to
ties of be fairly taken, is doubtless that set
Reconcilia- forth in his remarkably attractive
lion." way by John McLeod Campbell (The
Nature of the Atonement anal its ~te1a
tion to Remission of Sins and Eternal Life, Lon-
don, 1856; 4th ed., 1875), and lately argued out
afresh with even more than Campbell's winningneas
|
355 |
and far more than his cogency, depth, and richness, by the late R. C. Moberly (Atonement and Personality, London, 1901). This theory supposes that our Lord, by sympathetically entering into our condition (an idea independently suggested by Schleiermacher, and emphasized by many continental thinkers, as, for example, to name only a pair with little else in common, byGess and Hiring), so keenly felt our sins as his own, that he could confess and adequately repent of them before God; and this is all the expiation justice asks. Here " sympathetic identification " replaces the conception of substitution; " sodality," of race-unity; and " repentance," of expiation. Nevertheless, the theory rises immeasurably above the mass of those already enumerated, in looking upon Christ as really a Savior, who performs a really saving work, terminating immediately on God. Despite its insufficiencies, therefore, which have caused writers like Edwards A. Park, and A. B. Bruce (The Humiliation of Christ, ut sup., pp. 317-318) to speak of it with a tinge of contempt, it has exercised a very wide influence and elements of it are discoverable in many constructions which stand far removed from its fundamental presuppositions.
The so-called " middle theory " of the Atonement, which owes its name to its supposed intermediate position between the " moral influence " theories and the doctrine of "satisfaction," seems to have offered attractions to the latitudinarian writers of the closing eighteenth and opening nineteenth centuries. At that time it was taught in John Balguy's Essay on Redemption (London, 1741), Henry Taylor's Apology of Ben Mordecai (London, 1784), and Richard Price's Sermons on Christian Doctrine (London, 1737; cf. Hill's Lectures on Divinity, ed. 1851, pp. 422 sqq.). Basing on the conception of sacrifices which looks upon them as merely gifts designed to secure the
g. Certain good-will of the King, the advocates "Sacrificial of this theory regard the work of
Theories." Christ as consisting in the offering to God of Christ's perfect obedience even to death, and by it purchasing God's favor and the right to do as he would with those whom God gave him as a reward. By the side of this theory may be placed the ordinary Remonstrant theory of acceptilatio, which, reviving this Scotist conception, is willing to allow that the work of Christ was of 'the nature of an expiatory sacrifice, but is unwilling to allow that his blood any more than that of " bulls and goats " had intrinsic value equivalent. to the fault for which it was graciously accepted by God as an atonement. This theory may be found expounded, for example, in Limborch (Theologian Christians, 4th ed., Amsterdam, 1715, iii, chaps. xviii-xxiii). Such theories, while preserving the sacrificial form of the Biblical doctrine, and, with it, its inseparable implication that the work of Christ has as its primary end to affect God and secure from him favorable regard for man (for it is always to God that sacrifices are offered), yet fall so far short of the Biblical doctrine of the nature and effect of Christ's sacrifice as to seem little less than travesties of it.
The Biblical doctrine of the sacrifice of Christ finds full recognition in no other construction than that of the established church-doctrine of satisfaction. According to it, our Lord's redeeming work is at its core a true and perfect sacrifice offered to God, of intrinsic value ample for the expiation of our guilt; and at the same time is a true and perfect righteousness offered to God in fulfilment of the demands of his law; both the one and the other being offered in behalf of his people, and, on being accepted by God, accruing to their benefit; so that by this satisfaction they are relieved at once
from the curse of their guilt as breakers ro. The of the law, and from the burden of the Doctrine of law as a condition of life; and this by
"Satisfac- a work of such kind and performed lion." in such a manner, as to carry home
to the hearts of men. a profound sense of the indefectible righteousness of God and to make to them a perfect revelation of his love; so that, by this one and indivisible work, both God is reconciled to us, and we, under the quickening influence of the Spirit bought for us by it, are reconciled to God, so making peace -external peace between an angry God an
sinful men, and internal peace in the response f the human conscience to the restored smile/ of God. This doctrine, which has been incorporated in more or less fulness of statement in the creedal declarations of all the great branches of the Church, Greek, Latin, Lutheran, and Reformed, and which has been expounded with more or less insight and power by the leading doctors of the Churches for the last eight hundred years, was first given scientific statement by Anselm (q.v.) in his Cur Dens homo (1098); but reached its complete development only at the hands of the so-called Protestant Scholastics of the·'seventeenth century (cf ., e.g., Turretin, The Atonement of Christ, transl. by J. R. Willson, New York, 1859; John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, 1850, Edinburgh, 1845). Among the numerous modern presentations of the doctrine the following may perhaps be most profitably consulted. Of Continental writers: August Tholuck, Lehre von der Suede and von der Versohnung (Hamburg, 1823); F. A. Philippi, Kirchliche Glaubenalehre (Stuttgart, 1$64-82), IV, ii, 24 sqq.; G.. Thomasius, Christi Person and Werk (3d ed., Leipsic, 1886-88), Vol. ii; E. Bgbl, Dogmatik (Leipsic, 1887), pp. 361 sqq.; J. F. Bula, Die Yerst:hnung den Menschexi mil Gott (Basgl, 1874); W. Kolling, Die Satiafadio vicaria (2 vols., Giitersloh, 1897-99); Merle d'Aubign6, L'Expiation de la eroii (Geneva, 1868); A. Gretillat, Expose de th6ologie sysUmatiqus (Paris, 1892), iv, pp. 278 eqq.; A. Kuyper, E Yoto Dordraceno (Amsterdam, 1892), i, pp. 79 sqq., 388 sqq.; H. Bavink, Gereformeerde Dogmatik (Kampen, 1898), iii, pp. 302-424. Of writers in English: The appropriate sections of the treatises on dogmatics by C. Hodge, A. H. Strong, W. G. T. Shedd, R. S. Dabney, and the following separate treatises: W. Symington, On the Atonement and Intercession of Jesus Christ (New York, 1852; defective, as excluding the "active obedience " of Christ); R. S. Candlieli, The Atonement, its. Effccaey and Extent (London, 1867);
|
356 |
A. A. Hodge, The Atonement (Philadelphia, 1867; new ed., 1877); George Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Atonement as Taught by Christ Himself (Edinburgh, 1868; 2d ed., 1871); idem, The Doctrine of the Atonement as Taught by the Apostles (1870); T. J. Crawford, The Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures Respecting the Atonement (London, 1871; 5th ed., 1888); Hugh Martin, The Atonement in its Relations to the Covenant, the Priesthood, the Intercession of our Lord (London, 1870). See SATISFACTION.
BENJAMIN B. WARFIELD.
Bibliography:
</div3><div2 type="Article" title="Atonement, Day of">ATONEMENT, DAY OF: The great Hebrew and Jewish fast-day, occurring annually; called in Lev. xxiii, 27-28 yom ha-kippurim, in the Talmud simply yoma "the day "; in vulgar Hebrew yom kippur. The legal provisions are given in Lev. xvi (cf. Ex. xxx, 10); xxiii, 26-32; Num. xxix, 7-11. Since these enactments, in spite of their relative differences, are not sufficient to define the very important ritual in all details, a supplementary tradition became necessary; the Mishnaic treatise Yoma is devoted to the celebration of the day during the Second Temple. According to Lev. xvi, 29, xxiii, 27, Num. xxix, 7, the day fell on the tenth of the seventh month (Tishri); it was to be a Sabbath of rest ("sabbath of sabbaths," Lev. xvi, 31), on which all labor was prohibited, and the congregation had to meet in the sanctuary (Lev. xxiii, 27-28). A general fast - the only one enjoined in the Mosaic Law - was prescribed for the day. By this fast, the "afflicting of the soul," the members of the congregation were to bring themselves into a penitential mood appropriate to the serious atonement act. The day is therefore called sometimes simply "the fast-day " (Josephus, Ant., XIV, iv, 3, where, however, as in XIV, xvi, 4, the "third month" causes some difficulty; Philo, De septenario, 296 M) or "the fast" (Philo,.278 M; Acts xxvii, 9); by the rabbis also "the great fast" to distinguish it from the fast-days which were introduced after the Exile. The stranger who dwelt in the land was also obliged to rest from work, but he was not obliged to fast (Lev. xvi, 29).
The rite to be performed in the sanctuary is described in Lev. xvi, 3-28. Aaron (i.e., the high priest), attired in plain priestly clothing is to offer, first for himself and his house, a young bullock for a sin-offering. He is to bring its blood into the Holy of Holies and sprinkle with it the Kapporeth, the expiatory covering of the ark. In the same manner he has to deal with the blood of the goat, appointed as a sin-offering for the people. With this blood the other vessels of the sanctuary also were afterward sprinkled. Two goats were presented before God for the people, and the high priest cast lots, designating the one goat "for Yahweh" as a sin-offering, the other "for Azazel" (A. V. "acapegoat;" see AZAZEL); on this second goat the high priest laid his hands and confessed the sins of the people, which the goat was to carry away into the wilderness. Thither it was led by a man, so that it could not return (with the two goats compare the two birds, Lev. xiv, 4-7). The sin is to remain in the territory of the unclean desert-lemon Azazel (cf. Zech. v, 5-11). When this act was over the burnt offering for the high priest and the people and other offerings were brought. The great importance of this day is seen from the fact that the high priest officiates personally, and his functions are mostly performed in the Holy of Holies, which he could enter only on this day; furthermore, from the purpose of the whole, to purify priest and congregation, and the habitation of God and its vessels, from all defilement. On this account this day is also referred to as a type in the New Testament (cf. especially Heb. ix, 7, 11 sqq., 24 sqq.; also the Epistle of Barnabas vii).
The antiquity of this fast-day, its Mosaic origin, and even its preexilic existence, is denied by Vatke (Biblische Theologie, i, Berlin, 1835, 548), George (Feste, Berlin, 1835, 200 sqq.), Graf, Well hausen, Kuenen, Reuss, and others. It is indeed strange that this important festival is nowhere mentioned in preexilic writings except in the Law. But this may be accidental. At all events it is a rash inference that so solemn a festival must be of late origin, because the old festivals of the Hebrews were of a joyous character. In favor of the higher antiquity of this usage is the fact that the entire action takes place by the ark of the covenant, which did not exist after the Exile and of whose absence nothing is said in the Law. The desert-demon Azazel (for which in later times one would rather expect Satan as opposed to Yahweh) also points back to the Mosaic time of the abode in the wilderness. It may, however, rightly
|
357 |
be inferred from the fact that the Day of Atonement is not mentioned in preexilic literature that it did not pass into the consciousness and life of the people, like the three great festivals, Passover, Pentecost, and Feast of Tabernacles. It was a festival connected mainly with the priesthood and sanctuary, hence it was more strictly observed at the center of the legitimate worship. There came a change in the postexilic time, in which the Temple at Jerusalem exercised greater infiuence upon the people. But even then we see that in spite of the prescribed self-mortification the people knew how to indulge in joyful recreation; from the Mishnah (Taanit iv, 8) we learn that on the Day of Atonement (no doubt in the evening, after the high priest had returned to his home), the maidens all went forth, arrayed in white garments, into the vineyards around Jerusalem, where they danced and sang, inviting the young men to select their brides (cf. Delitzsch, Zur Geschichte der jüdischen Poesie, Leipsic, 1836, 195-196). The Gemara finds such joy perfectly legitimate on a day when atonement was made for Israel. After the destruction of Jerusalem the celebration of the Day of Atonement was continued, although the sacrificial rites could no more be performed. The grand festival with its solemn earnestness had so deeply impressed itself upon the people, that it could not be wholly dispensed with. (For the later usages see Orach Chayim, translated by Löwe, 150 sqq.; Buxtorf, Synagoga Judaica, chaps. xxv-xxvi.) In general the penitential prayers in the synagogue have taken the place of the atoning temple-sacrifices. Nevertheless, the cessation of the sacrifice is deplored; in some places the house-father takes a cock, the mother a hen, which are killed as a substitute for the sacrifice.
C. VON ORELLI.
The late date of the origin of the festival would seem to be made certain by the following considerations: (1) Its absence from the list of feasts given in the earlier books can not be accidental, especially in view of the radical character of its practical prescriptions. (2) These prescriptions and their moral sanction were not in keeping with the spirit of the earlier laws, in which there is no suggestion of fasting and contrition. (3) Transition stages between the prophetic and the priestly legislation are indicated in the ideal conception of Ezekiel, the prophet-priest, with its two single days of atonement (xlv, 18-20), also in the intervening institution by Ezra of a general fast on the twenty-fourth day of the seventh month, with no mention of the tenth day of the priestly code. (4) The old festivals of the Hebrews were of a joyous character, while the Levitical Day of Atonement was one of great solemnity.
J. F. M.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Mishna tract Yoma, translated into Latin with notes by R. Sheringham, London. 1648; the same, ed. H. L. Strack, Leipsic, 1904; an Eng. transl. is in J. Barclay, The Tahmud, London, 1878; the Tosephta on this tract and Jerusalem Gemara in Ugolini, Thesaurus, xviii, 153 eqq.; Maimonides, Yad ha-Hazakah, transl. by F. Delitzsch. Hebräerbrief, pp. 749 eqq., Leipsic, 1857; J. Lightfoot, Ministerium templi, chap. xv, in Opera, i. 671-756, Rotterdam, 1686; J. G. Carpsov, Apparatus historico-criticus antiquitatum sacri codicis, pp 433 sqq Frankfort, 1748; J. Lund, Jüdische Heiligthümer, pp. 1161 sqq., Hamburg, 1738; J. H. Otho, Lexicon rabbinico-philologicum, pp. 182 sqq., Geneva, 1675; J Meyer , De tamporibus sacris Hebræorum, in Ugolini, Thesaurus, vol. i; C. W. F. Bähr, Symbolik den mosaischen Cultur, ii, 664 sqq., Heidelberg, 1839; M. Brueck, Pharisäische Volkssitten und Ritualien, Frankfort, 1840; H. Kurtz, Der alt-testamentliche Op/erkultus, pp. 335 eqq., Berlin, 1862; B. Wechsler, Zur Geschichte der Versöhnungsfeier, in Jüdischs Zeitschrift, ii (1863), 113-125; Nowack, Archäologie, ii, 183-194; Benzinger, Archäologia, pp. 200, 398, 401, 427; the works on Old Testament theology, and the commentaries to Lev. xvi, particularly Driver's Leviticus, in SBOT, 1898. On the critical question consult Franz Delitzech, in ZKW, i (1880),173-183. For the later Judaism, consult J. F. Schröder, Satsungen and Gebräuche des talmudisch-rabbinischen Judenthums, 130 sqq., Bremen, 1851; S. Adler, in ZATW, ii (1882), 178 eqq., 272; L. Dembits, Jewish Services in Synagogue and Home, Philadelphia, 1898; M. Jastrow, in AJT, i (1898 ), 312 eqq.
</div3><div2 type="Article" title="Atrium"> ATRIUM: In the church architecture of the earlier centuries, an open space in front of the entrance to the church, surrounded by porticos, and provided with a fountain, or at least a large vessel containing water. Here the penitents who were not allowed to enter the church assembled, and begged the faithful to pray for them.
</div3><div2 type="Article" title="Atterbury, Francis"> ATTERBURY, FRANCIS: English Jacobite bishop; b. at Milton or Middleton Keynes (about 45 m. n.w. of London), Buckinghamshire, England, March 6, 1662; d. at Paris Feb. 22, 1732. He studied at Christ Church, Oxford, and received holy orders about 1687. His brilliant success as a controversialist, and his powerful eloquence in the pulpit, soon attracted attention; he was made chaplain to William and Mary in 1692, dean of Carlisle in 1704, dean of Christ Church in 1711, and bishop of Rochester and dean of Westminster in 1713. He was a Tory in politics, and in ecclesiastical affairs his sympathies were with the Highchurchmen. The succession of George I at the death of Queen Anne was unfavorable to his ambition, and, as a Tory; being coldly received by the new king, he took his place in the foremost ranks of the opposition, refused in 1715 to sign the paper in which the bishops declared their attachment to the House of Brunswick, and began in 1717 to correspond directly with the Pretender, and carried on his intrigues so skilfully that his most intimate friends did not suspect him. But in 1722 his guilt was manifested; he was committed to the Tower, and by an act of Parliament was banished for life in March, 1723, and all British subjects were forbidden to hold communication with him except by the royal permission. He went to the continent, and lived most of the time in Paris, in more or less constant correspondence with the Pretender, for whose sake he had suffered so much. The health and the death of a devoted daughter added to his afflictions. Atterbury was a man of restless and pugnacious disposition, with many striking qualities, and one of the foremost preachers and orators of his time. He had little learning, however, his talents were superficial, and his judgment was rash. In private life he is said to have been winning and amiable, and he counted among his friends most of the literary men of the day as well as many influential personages. He had much popular sympathy in his banishment. At his death his body was carried
|
358 |
to England and buried privately in Westminster Abbey.
The most important of Atterbury's controversial writings were: An Answer to Some Considerations on the Spirit of Martin Luther and the Original of the Reformation (Oxford, 1687), in reply to an attack upon the Reformation by Obadiah Walker; An Examination of Dr. Bentley's Dissertations on the Epistles of Phalaris and the Fables of Esop (London, 1698); Rights and Privileges of an English Convocation Stated and Vindicated (1700). Selections from his sermons have been many times printed and a collected edition in four volumes appeared in London, 1723-37. His Epistolary Correspondence, Visitation Charges, Speeches, and Miscellanies were edited by J. Nichols (5 vols., London, 1783-90).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The standard life is by T. Stackhouse, Memoirs of de Life, Character, Conduct, and Writings of Francis Atterbury, London, 1727; his biography by Macaulay is in the Encyclopedia Britannica; consult also F. Williams , Memoirs and Correspondence of Francis Atterbury, 2 vols.. London, 1869; DNB, ii, 233-238; W. H. Hutton, English Church (1685-1714), pp. 273, 278, 280. London, 1903.
</div3><div2 type="Article" title="Atterbury, William Wallace"> ATTERBURY, WILLIAM WALLACE: Presbyterian; b. at Newark, N. J., Aug. 4, 1823. He was educated at Yale College (B.A., 1843) and Yale Divinity School (1847). He held Presbyterian pastorates at Lansing, Mich., from 1848 to 1854 and at Madison, Ind., from 1854 to 1866. He traveled in Europe and the East and acted as a supply for various pulpits at Cleveland, 0., and other cities from 1866 to 1869, when he was chosen secretary of the New York Sabbath Committee. In 1898 he was relieved of much of his work in this capacity by the appointment of an assistant, to whom he relinquished his regular duties two years later. He has also been an active member of the United States branch of the Evangelical Alliance, and was its secretary in 1875. His writings, which are generally brief, are devoted chiefly to the various aspects of the Sunday question.
</div3><div2 type="Article" title="Atticus"> AT'TICUS: Patriarch of Constantinople 406-425 (or 427). He was born at Sebaste in Armenia, repaired early to Constantinople, and was one of the party opposed to Chrysostom (q.v.), who was expelled from Constantinople in June, 404; his successor, Arsacius, an old man of eighty years, died the following year, and after a few months Atticus was elevated to the patriarchate. He is described as a man of but moderate learning, whose sermons were not thought worth preserving, but possessed of much skill in affairs, and esteemed for charity and piety. He restored the name of Chrysostom to the diptychs in 412. Two of his letters with a fragment of a third, and two fragments of a homily on the birth of Christ are preserved; . consult MPG, lxv, 637-652.
</div3><div2 type="Article" title="Atto"> ATTO: The name of three churchmen.
(A. HAUCK.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Opera were edited by C. Burontius, 2 vols., Vercelli, 1768, and are in Mai, Veterum scriptorum nova collectio, vi, 2, pp 42 sqq., Rome, 1832, and in M PL, cxxxiv. Consult J. Schultz, Atto won Vercelli, Göttingen, 1885; A. Ebert, Geschichte der Literatur des Mittelalters, iii, 368 eqq., Leipsic. 1887.
</div3><div2 type="Article" title="Attributes of God"> ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. See GOD, II, § 3.
</div3><div2 type="Article" title="Attrition"> ATTRITION. See PENANCE.
</div3><div2 type="Article" title="Atwater, Lyman Hotchkiss"> ATWATER, LYMAN HOTCHKISS: Presbyterian; b. at Hamden, Conn., Feb. 23, 1813; d. at Princeton, N. J., Feb. 17, 1883. He was graduated at Yale 1831; was tutor there and student of divinity 1833-35; pastor of the First Congregational Church, Fairfield, Conn., 1835-54; professor (at first of mental and moral philosophy, after 1869 of logic and moral and political science) at Princeton College, 1854 till his death. He was also lecturer in Princeton Seminary and acting president of the college. He contributed many articles to the religious reviews and was one of the editors of the Biblical Repertory (1869-71) and its continuation (from 1872), the Presbyterian Quarterly and Princeton Review. He published a Manual of Elementary Logic (Philadelphia, 1867).
</div3><div2 type="Article" title="Atwill, Edward Robert"> ATWILL, EDWARD ROBERT: Protestant Episcopal bishop of Kansas City; b, at Red Hook, N. Y., Feb.18,1840. He was educated at Columbia College (B.A., 1882) and the General Theological Seminary (1864), and was successively rector of St. Paul's, Burlington, Vt. (1867-80), and Trinity, Toledo, O. (1881-90), until he was consecrated first bishop of the newly organized diocese of Kansas City in 1890.
</div3><div2 type="Article" title="Atwood, Isaac Morgan"> ATWOOD, ISAAC MORGAN: Universalist; b. at Pembroke, N. Y., Mar. 24, 1838. He was educated at Yale, but did not graduate. He was a tutor in Ferguson Boys' School in 1859 and principal of Corfu Classical Institute in 1859-80. In
|
359 |
1861; Eng. transl.,with memoir, Edinburgh, 1867). A Volume of sermons appeared in 1845; a volume of lectures on the Christian faith in 1861.
AUBERTIN, 8"bar"tan', EDME: French Reformed clergyman; b. at Chalons-Bur-Marae (90 m. e. of Paris) 1595; d. at Paris Apr. 5, 1652. He became minister at Chartres 1618, and at Charenton (Paris) 1631. To prove that the doctrine of the Reformed Church concerning the Eucharist was the same as that of the ancient Church, he wrote Conformit6 de la cr6ance de l'tglise avec celle de St. Augustin our Is sacrement de 1'Eucharistie (Paris, 1626), afterward enlarged and entitled L'Eucharistie de Z'ancienne tglise (1629). The work attracted attention and caused much controversy.
AUBIGNE, JEAN HENRI MERLE D'. SP.e MERLE D'AuBiGNA.
AUBIGHE, 8"bi"ny6', THEODORE AGRIPPA D : Huguenot soldier and writer; b. at St. Maury, near Pons (50 m. n. of Bordeaux), in Saintonge, Feb. 8, 1552; d. at Geneva Apr. 29, 1630. He grew up under influences which tended to make him a strong partizan in the religious disputes of the time; studied for a period under Beza at Geneva, but ran away to join a Huguenot regiment at the age of fifteen; fought with distinction through the wars which ended in the accession of Henry IV, and, notwithstanding his rough manners and unpolitic candor, retained the friend§hip of the king till his death. After the abjuration of Henry he retired from the court, and devoted the later years of his life to literary work. In 1620 to escape threatening persecution he took refuge in Geneva. One of his sons was the father of Madame de Maintenon. His most important work was the Histoire universelle depuis 1660 iusqu'd 1'an 1801 (3 vols., Maill6, 1616-20; new ed., by A. de Ruble, 9 vols., Paris, 1886-98). The Tragiques (1616; ed. C. Read, 2 vols., Paris, 1896), a long epic poem, treats in bad verse of the same subject as the Histoire universelle. These works, little read when published, and almost forgotten during the eighteenth century, in modern times have come to be regarded as valuable sources of French history. His complete works have been edited by E. Rhaume and F. de Caussade (6 vols., Paris, 1873-92).
BIBLIOGEAPHT: His autobiography was published by L. Lalaune, Mhnoirss de T. A. d'Aubipae, Paris, 1889. Consult further E. Prarond, Lea Polka hiatorisns; . . d'Aubipa aous Henri 111., Paris, 1873; P. Morillot, Diecmra our la vie et lea aiuvree d'Agrippa d'Aubipng, Paris, 1884; A. von Salis, Agrippa d'Aubipni, Heidelberg, 1886; G. Guisot, Agrippa d'Aubiflnb, Paris. 1890.
AUBURN DECLARATION: An incident of the Old and New School controversy in the Presbyterian Church in 1837. The General Assembly of that year, controlled by the Old School party, " exscinded " the synods of Utica, Geneva, and Genesee, in New York, and Western Reserve, in Ohio, declaring them to be " neither in form nor in fact a part of the Presbyterian Church." On the 17th of the following August a convention of about two hundred clergymen and a number of prominent laymen, representing all the presbyteries in these synods, met in Auburn, N. Y., to repel the charge
|
360 |
BIBLIOGRAPHY: C. W. F. Walch, Entwur/einervoliatandipen Hsdorie der Ketsereien. iii, 300-321, Leipsie, 1786; G. Hoffmann, Auwage Gus nriaehen Akkn persischer M8rtyrsr, pp. 122, Leipsic. 1880; J. Overbeok, S. Ephraemi Syri Rabulce opera, p 194, Oxford, 1865; L. E. Iselin, in JPT. xvi (1890). 298-305.
AUDIENTIA .EPISCOPALIS: The name given by the code of Justinian to the bishop's power of hearing and deciding judicial cases. This power in the early Church was based upon such passages of Scripture as Matt. xviii, 18-16 and I Cor. vi, 1 6. The Didache testifies to the exercise of this power by the presbyters, or by the college of pres byters with the bishop at their head; and the Apos tolic Constitutions forbid Christians to go to law, even with the heathen, before a pagan tribunal. Small differences are to be adjusted by the deacons; the more important are to be laid before the bishop sitting in judgment with his clergy every Monday; he is to decide after careful investigation and orderly examination of witnesses, by a procedure following closely that of the secular tribunals. The enforce ment of his sentence by the civil power could, of course, only follow when the act took on the form of a stipulation, which could be brought before the courts. But with the public recognition of Chris tianity, Constantine gave the bishops a read judicial power. The first of his three edicts on this sub ject is lost, and there have been many controver sies about the other two, of 321 and 333. Either party might appeal to the bishop at any stage in the proceedings, and his decision was final, though it required enforcement by the civil tribunals, for even Constantine gave the bishop no imperium. This privilege was abolished by Arcadius for the East (398) and by Honorius for the West (408); the regulations established by Valentinian III in 452 provide that no one shall be forced to appear before the episcopal tribunal, and reduce the power to something more like its original limits. In the form then fixed, it remained in Justinian's code. The bishops attempted, in virtue of their disciplin ary authority over their clergy, to compel the latter to submit even their civil differences to episcopal judgment; this Justinian approved, and extended to suits by laymen against clerics. The represent atives of the ecclesiastical tendency in the Frank ish kingdom went back to the edicts of Constan tine. Thus Florus of Lyons, in his commentary on the constitutions published later by Sirmond, dis regarded the facts that these had been reversed by Constantine's successors, and that in any case the edicts of Roman emperors were no authority for the Frankish kingdom; and Benedictus Levita wrote an introduction to the law of 333 in which he asserted that Charlemagne had proclaimed this as the law of his empire. Regino only quotes one passage from the edict of 333; but later collections down to that of Gratian include the whole of what is given by Benedictus Levita; and Innocent III (1198-1216) relied upon it as the basis of his De nunciatio evuagelica (see JURISDICTION, ECCLxsIAS TICAL). But the later development of systematic ecclesiastical judicature absorbed the function of the bishop as arbiter. (E. FRIEDBERG.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: B. Schilling , De oripine iurisdictionu ecele_ siastica in _us,@ eivilibw.Leipeio, 1825; Jungk. De oripi-|
361 |
BrHLI00SAPHt: P. I. Braun, fieschichfe der Biwhofe con Augsburg, 4 vole., Augsburg, 1813-15; A. 8teichele, Dee Bistum Augsburg . . . besshrieban, a vole., Augsburg, 1884-1901; consult also Rettberg, HD; Friedrich, RD; and Hauck, HD.
AUGSBURG CONFESSION AND ITS APOLOGY. Origin of the Confession ( f 1). Its Character and Contents ( f 2). Origin of the Apology (§ 3). History of the Confession and the Apology (f 4)·On Jan. 21, 1530, the Emperor Charles V issued
letters from Bologna, inviting the German diet
to meet in Augsburg Apr. 8, for the purpose of
discussing and deciding various important ques
tions. Although the writ of invitation was couched
in very peaceful language, it was received with
suspicipn by some of the Evangelicals. The far
seeing Landgrave of Hesse hesitated
:.Origin to attend the diet, but the Elector
of the Con- John of Saxony, who received the writ
fession. Mar. 11, on Mar. 14 directed Luther,
Jonas, Bugenhagen, and Melanchthon
to meet in Torgau, where he was, and present a
summary of the Protestant faith, to be laid before
the emperor at the diet. This summary has re
ceived the name of the " Torgau Articles." On Apr.
3 the elector and reformers started from Torgau
and reached Coburg on Apr. 23. There Luther
was left behind. The rest reached Augsburg
May 2. On the journey Melanchthon worked
on an "apology," using the Torgau articles, and sent
his draft to Luther at Coburg on May 11, who
approved it. Several alterations were suggested
to Melanchthon in his conferences with Jonas,
the Saxon chancellor Brack, the conciliatory bishop
Stadion of Augsburg, and the imperial secretary
Alfonso Valdez. On June 23 the filial form of the
text was adopted in the presence of the Elector
John of Saxony, the Landgrave Philip of Hesse,
the Margrave George of Brandenburg, the Dukes
Ernest and Francis of Luneburg, the represent
atives of Nuremberg and Reutlingen, and other
counselors, besides twelve theologians. After the
reading the confession was signed by the Elector
John of Saxony, Margrave George of Branden
burg, Duke Ernest of Laneburg, the Landgrave
Philip of Hesse, the Prince Wolfgang of Anhalt,
the representatives of Nuremberg and Reutlingen,
and probably also by the electoral prince John Fred
erick and Duke Francis of L(Ineburg. During the
diet the cities of Weissenburg, Heilbronn, Kempten,
and Wmdesheim also expressed their concurrence
with the confession. The emperor had ordered the
oonfeasion to be presented to him at the neat
session, June 24; but when the evangelical princes
asked that it be read in public, their petition was
refused, and efforts were made to prevent the
public reading of the document altogether. The
evangelical princes, however, declared that they
would not part with the confession until its
reading should be allowed. The 25th was then
fixed for the day of its presentation. In order
to exclude the people, the little chapel of the
episcopal palace was appointed in place of the
spacious city hall, where the meetings of the diet
were held. The two Saxon chancellors Br(lck
and Beyer, the one with the Latin copy, the other
|
362 |
with the German, stepped into the middle of the assembly, and against the wish of the emperor the German text was read. The reading lasted two hours and was so distinct that every word could be heard outside. The reading being over, the copies were handed to the emperor. The German he gave to the imperial chancellor, the Elector of Mainz, the Latin he took away. Neither of the copies is now extant.
The history of its origin shows that the document presented at Augsburg was confession and apology at the same time, destined s. Its Char- to serve the cause of peace and to
acter and refute the charge of deviating from Contents. the ancient doctrine of the Church and of having communion with sec taries; and the entire first part (Articuli prmcipui fidei, arts. i-xxi) was intended to prove that the Evangelicals agreed with the Catholic teaching, and wherever they differed from the transmitted form of doctrine they wished to restore the original, genuine teaching of the Church. The second part (Art%cudi in quibus recensentur abvsus mutati, xxii-xxviii) treats of abuses and proves how cer tain general abuses must be abolished for the sake of conscience and that such action was not only supported by. Scripture but also by the practise of the ancient Church and the acknowledged teachers of the Church.[The first part of the Confession, which treats of the chief articles of faith, speaks of the following subjects: art. i, of God; ii, of original sin; iii, of the Son of God; iv, of justification; v, of the ministry of the Church; vi, of the new obedience; vii, of the Church; viii, what the Church is; ix, of baptism; x, of the Lord's Supper; xi, of confession; xii, of repentance; xiii, of the use of sacraments; xiv, of ecclesiastical orders; xv, of ecclesiastical rites; xvi, of civil affairs; xvii, of Christ's return to judgment; xviii, of free will; xix, of the cause of sin; xx, of good works; xxi, of the, worship of saints. The second part recounts the abuses which have been corrected: art. i, of both kinds in the Lord's Supper; ii, of the marriage of priests; iii, of the mass; iv, of confession; v, of the distinction of meats and of traditions; vi, of monastic vows; vii, of ecclesiastical power.]
The hope that the opponents of the Confession would make a profession of their faith was not fulfilled. They refused to be con-
3. Origin sidered as a party. Nevertheless, of the Apol- it was decided to have the Confession
ogy. examined by intelligent and unpreju diced scholars, who were to acknowl edge that which .was correct and to refute that which was against the Christian faith and the Christian Church (Ficker: Die Confutation des Augs burger Bekenntnisaea, Leipsic, 1891, pp. 15 sqq.). Among the twenty scholars selected by Campeggi were some of the most malicious opponents of Luther, like Hack, Faber, Cochlaeus, Dietenberger, and Wimpina, and their refutation (reprinted by Ficker) was of such a character that it was rejected by the emperor and the estates siding with Rome. A revision, however, was accepted, and as R-PAuguatcnce con fessionis it was read on Aug. 3, 1530, in the same room in which the Con fession had been read. Since this reply, the Con futatio pond ficc, as it afterward came to be known (the Latin text in Kolde; 141 eqq.), was adopted by the emperor as his own and conformity to it was demanded, the Protestants thought necessary to refute it. No copy of the confutation was given to the Evangelicals, and, as negotiations led to no result, Melanchthon and others were requested to prepare an " Apology of the Confession," that is to say, a refutation of the charges of the Co»f2ctatio, and the same was approved by the Evangelical estates. In the circular for dismissing the diet which was presented to the estates, Sept. 22, the remark was found that the evangelical con fession " ° had been refuted." This remark was contradicted by the chancellor Brtick in the name of the Evangelicals, who presented at the same time Melanchthon's apology. But the emperor, to whom Ferdinand had whispered some thing, refused to accept it. This is the so-called Prima dzlineatio apologia, first made known in Latin by Chytrkus (Historic Augxictanx confes aionis, Frankfort, 1578, 328 sqq.; best edition of the Latin and German text in the Corpus refor matorwm, xxvii, 275 sqq.). Subsequently Melanch thon received a copy of the Confutation, which led to many alterations in the first draft of the Apology. It was then published in 1531 under the title Apologia confessionis Augustcnce. It follows the articles of the Augustana (i.e., the Augsburg Confession), and on account of its theo logical exposition is rather a doctrinal work than a confession.Although the emperor prohibited the printing of the evangelical confession without his special permission, during the diet six German 4. History editions and one in Latin were pubof the Con- fished (cf. Corpus refornuttorum, xxvi, fession and 478 aqq.). Their inaccuracy and the Apology. incorrectness induced Melanchthon to prepare au edition to which he added the Apology. Thus originated the no-called editio princeps of the Augustana, and Apology, which was published in the spring of 1531. This edition was regarded as the authentic reproduction of the faith professed before the emperor and empire. Whereas the first recension of the Apology was composed in behalf of the evangelical states, the edition now issued by Melanchthon was evidently a private work to which he attached his name as author, which is not the case with the Augustana. Nevertheless, the Apology was accepted everywhere and the German translation of Justus Jonas made it accessible to the laity. In 1532 the Apology was officially accepted at Schweinfurt by the evangelical estates as an " apology and exposition of the confession along with the confession." Ever
since the Augustana and Apology have been regarded as the official principal confessions of the nascent Evangelical church. Their recognition was a condition of membership in the Schmalkald League; both were adopted is the Concord of Wittenberg of 1536 and again at Schmalkald in 1537. Meanwhile Melanchthon worked continually to improve the text. The German edition of
|
363 |
the Augustana published in 1533 shows changes in arts. iv, v, vi, xii, xv, xx, which are of no doctrinal consequence. The same is the case with subsequent editions. More important was the new Latin edition of 1540, where the apology is said to have been dil~genter recognita. But the Augustana appears here in such a form, especially in art. x, that it afterward received the name variata. Although attention had been called in 1537 to Melanchthon's changes in the text, and the Elector John Frederick criticized them as arrogant (Corpus reformatorum, iii, 366), we find that the " Variata " when published gave no offense. The assertion that Luther condemned it, can not be confirmed (cf. Kdllner, Symbolik, i, Hamburg, 1837, 239). The new edition was used freely, as a new edition is preferable to an older; even such strict Lutherans as Johann Brenz praised Melanchthon for it (Corpus reformatorum, iv, 737). Even the fact that Johann Eck at the Worms Colloquy in 1541 mentioned the change of the original text (Corpus reformatorum, iv, 34 sqq.; Ranks, Deutsche Geschichte, iv, 176) had so little effect upon the contemporaries and Melanchthon, that when a new edition became necessary in 1542 the latter introduced other changes. After the death of Luther, when dogmatic controversies widened the chasm between Melanchthonians and the strict Lutherans and the edition of 1540 became the party-symbol of the former and later also of the Crypto-Calvinists, it naturally became an object of suspicion to the stricter Lutherans and it was but natural that in preparing the Book of Concord the original text was adopted. The Latin text represents the ed4io priracepa of 1531, whereas the German was made from a Mainz copy.
(T. KoLDE.)131BLIOGRAPIEY: The beat text of the Confession in Lat. and Germ. is by Tsohaekert. Leipaie, 1901; given also by T. Kolde, Gotha, 1896, of. the ed. by E. Rausoh, Die unpednderte aupaburgiwhe Confession, Dresden, 1874; the Lat. with Eng. tranal. by C. B. Krauth is in Schaff, Creeds, iii, 3-73; the Krauth tranal. of the Confession and Eng. trans]. of thetApology by H. E. Jawbs are in the latter's Book of Concord, i, 69-302, Philadelphia, 1893, while full information as to the history of these documents is given in the same, ii, 24-41. For early history and collections of sources consult D. Chytr#us. Historic der Augsburper Confession, Rostock, 1576, and often; J. J. Miiller, Hiatorie von der eoangeliachen Stsnde Protestation wie such von dern sur Augsburg aberpebenen Glaubmabekanntniase. Jena, 1705; E. S. Cyprian, Historic der Augaburger Confession, Gotha, 1730; C. A. Salig, Yallattindipe Historic der Augsburper Confession. 3 vole., Halls. 1730; G, G. Weber, KritiwAe Geschichts der Aupaburper Confession, aus ardhioalischen Nachrichten, 2 vole.. Frankfort, 1785. For history of the text consult CR, gvi, 280; G. W. Panzer, Die unverdnderte aupeburpiache Confession, Nuremberg, 1782 (Germ. and Lat.); G. P. C. Kaiser, Beitrapsu einer n Literdrpeschichts der Melandhonachen O ripinalauspabx, ib. 1830. For the sources commit C. E. FSrstenunn. Urkundenbuch sur fiewAicM des ReidUfaps su Augsburg. 1880, Halls, 1830; idem. Archie far die Gosrhiehte der kirrVidien Reformation, vol. i, part 1. Halle, 1831; Luther's Briefe, ed. M. L. de Wette, vol. iii, Berlin, 1826; CR, ii; T. Kolde, Analecfa Lutherans, pp. 119 oiq·. Goths, 1883; F. Schirrmacher, Brisfe and Akten zur Gesehichte des ReligionVesprtkAs and des Reichstaps zu Augsburg, ib. 1876. On the history and interpretation consult G. L. Plitt, Eintaitunp in die Augeuuana, 2 vols., Erlangen, 1867-68; O. Z5okler. Die aupaburpiwhe Corfeamn eels symbolisrhe Lehrprundlagt, Frankfort, 1870; C. P. Krauth, The Conservative Rejormotion and its Theology as represented in the Augsburg Confession, Philadelphia, 1871;
L. von Ranks, Deutsche Gewhiehte, iii, 172 sqq., Leipsie, 1881; J. Fieker. Die Kontufatian des aupsburgiachanBakennh nisaes. Are crate Gestalt and Are Geschichte, ib. 1891: H. E. Jacobs, Book of Concord, ut sup. (the best edition for English readers); T. Raids, Martin Luther, ii, 324 sqq.. Goths. 1893; Schaff, Christian Church, vi, 706-718; J. W. Richard. Philip Melanchthon, pp.190-218, New York, 1898; J. Kbstli ~, Martin Luther, ii, 192 eqq., Berlin, 1903. AUGSBURG, INTERIM OF. See INTERIM.
AUGSBURG, RELIGIOUS PEACE OF: A convention concluded in a diet at - Augsburg Sept. 25, 1555, intended to settle the religious question in Germany. After his victory over the Schmalkald League (1547), the Emperor Charles V thought he was near his goal, the religious and ecclesiastical unity of the empire. But the desertion of Duke Maurice of Saxony, and the Treaty of Passau (1552) changed the situation, because by the latter public recognition was ,given to the Lutheran faith as among the ecclesiastical institutions of the empire. Such recognition meant a complete rupture with the ecclesiastical and political development inherited from the Middle Ages, and a peace on the basis of the equal recognition of both religions was highly unacceptable to the emperor. As he could not prevent it, he withdrew from the negotiations and transferred all power to his brother Ferdinand, who felt like himself, but was ready to accept the inevitable. When the diet at Augsburg was finally opened Feb. 5, 1555, Ferdinand's endeavor was directed more toward strengthening the peace of the country than to religion. But the Protestants insisted upon settling the question of the religious peace first, without regard to a council. The opposite party yielded reluctantly. With the exception of the Augsburg cardinal, Otto von Truchsess, the spiritual princes agreed that " there should be concluded and established a continual, firm, unconditional peace lasting forever," between the professors " of the old religion and the estates belonging to the Augsburg Confession." The stipulations of the peace were as follows: All adherents of the Augsburg Confession were to be included, without regard to its various editions (see AUG& BURG CONFESSION AND ITB APOLOGY), those sects alone being excluded which 'had been condemned by decrees of the diet, as already provided in the Treaty of Passau. Spiritual jurisdiction in Protestant territory was to be suspended, but the chapters were not to be expelled from Protestant cities. Confiscated spiritual estates, which did not belong to those immediately subject to the emperor and which at the time of the Treaty of Passau or later were no longer in the possession of the clergy were to remain in the hands of the Evangelicals. To the secular estates alone was unrestricted freedom of religion granted, and they were mmtefd Of th0 religion of their subjects, for " where there is one Lord, there should be one religion." The conversion of a spiritual prince to the Augsburg Confession, according to the reservatum ecclesiasticum added by the king, carried with it the loss of his spiritual dignity and his office as well as of the imperial fief. The imperial chamber, to which Protestants were now admitted, was to watch over the continuance of the peace. Considered all in all, the success of the Protestants was small. Prot-
|
364 |
In Austria and its dependencies Lutheranism profited greatly by the peace. Many nobles having become Protestant claimed and exercised the right to promote the Protestant cause in their possessions. To be sure, the Hapsburgs claimed for themselves the exclusive right to determine the religion of the people in all their dependencies; but they found it impossible to enforce their views upon the nobles.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Lehenmann, De pace religionis acta publica et originalis, Frankfort, 1631; L. von Ranks, Deutsche Geschichte vol. v, book x, Leipsie, 1882; M. Ritter , DeutwAe Geschichte im Zeitalter der Gepenre%rmation, i, 79 eqq, Stuttgart, 1889; G. Wolff, Der Aupsburger Re- lipionatriede, ib. 1890; F. von Besold, Geschie" der deut- sehen Reformation p. 866, Berlin, 1890· G. Egelhaaf, Deutsche Geschichte in sechnehmen Jahrhundert, ii, 587 eqq., Stuttgart, 1891.
| Calvin College. Last modified on 10/03/03. Contact the CCEL. |  |