Glass _ Book Copyright N?. I COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. WORKS OF JOHN MILEY, ATONEMENT IN CHRIST... LL.D. ....$1 20 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY. VOL. 1 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY. VOL. II CLASS MEETINGS .... 3 00 .... 3 00 45 the: ATONEMENT is CHRIST 0£OC 71V EV XpCGTUl KOOJUOV tidTaXkaGGlOV idVTif-i 2 Cor. v. ig. BY JOHN MILEY, D.D. Professor of Systematic Theology in Drew Theological Seminary Madison, N. J. ELEVENTH THOUSAND NewYork: EATON & MAINS. Cincinnati: JENNINGS & GRAHAM. *s UBRABYoTe JUL • As3 o- CO' 3 Ha V Copyright, 1879* b Y PHILLIPS &, HUN' New York Copyright, 1907, by JOHN MILEY CONTENTS CHAPTER I. Introduction. PAGB L Scope of the Subject 13 2. Broader Scope in Calvinism 13 3. Narrower Scope in Arminianism 16 4. No Fact of Soteriology Neglected 16 5. Treatment under Offices of Christ 16 6. Distinction of Fact and Doctrine 11 1. Question of Fact the more Yital 11 8. Specially a Question of Revelation 19 9. The Doctrine must Interpret Scripture. 19 10. Its Scientific Relation to Theology 19 11. Definition of Atonement 23 CHAPTER H. Reality of Atonement. I. WITNESSING FACTS. 1. A Message of Salvation 26 2. The Salvation in Christ 26 3. Salvation in his Suffering 21 4. His Redeeming Death Necessary 28 5. Only Explanation of his Suffering 30 6. Necessity of Faith to Salvation 30 1. Christ a Unique Saviour 35 II. WITNESSING TERMS. 1 . Atonement 39 2 Reconciliation 42 3. Propitiation 45 4. Redemption 47 5. Substitution 52 4 Contents. ni. PRIESTHOOD AND SACRIFICE. MM 1. The Priesthood of Christ 54 2. His Sacrificial Office 55 3. Himself a Sacrifice for Sin 55 4. Typical Sacrifices 56 6. Priestly Intercession in Heaven 58 CHAPTER III. Necessity for Atonement. 1 Limitation of the Question 60 2. The Necessity a Truth of Scripture 61 3. Proof in the Mode of Mediation 61 L NECESSITY IN MORAL GOVERNMENT. 1. None without such Ground 63 2. Fact of a Moral Government 64 II. REQUISITES OF MORAL GOVERNMENT. 1. Adjustment to Subjects G5 2. Specially for Man 66 »'. A Law of Duty 66 it. The Sanction of Rewards 67 3. Divine Apportionment of Rewards 68 IH. MEASURE OF PENALTY. 1. No Arbitrary Appointment 69 2. Determining Laws 69 i. The Demerit of Sin 69 it. The Rectoral Function of Penalty 69 IY. NECESSITY FOR PENALTY. 1 . From its Rectoral Office 11 2. From the Divine Holiness ?2 3. From the Divine Goodness 73 4. A Real Necessity for Atonement 73 5. Nature of the Atonement Indicated 73 Contents. 6 CHAPTER IV. Schemes without Atonement I. AFTER THE PENALTY. pAM 1 Salvation Excluded 71 2 Final Happiness not a Salvation 11 3. Impossible in Endless Penalty , , 18 TL m SOVEREIGN FORGIVENESS. 1. An Assumption against Facts 19 2. Contrary to Divine Government 19 8. Subversive of all Government 80 III. THROUGH REPENTANCE. 1. Repentance Necessary 81 2. Only Kind Naturally Possible 81 3. Such Repentance Inevitable 82 4. Sin Unrealized 83 5. True Repentance only by Grace. , . 84 IV. SPECIAL FACTS. 1. Forgiving one Another 85 2. Parental Forgiveness 86 3. Parable of the Prodigal Son \ 81 CHAPTER V. Theories of Atonement. L PRELIMINARY. 1. Earlier Views , „ . 90 2. Scientific Treatment 92 3. Popular Number of Theories 95 4. Scientific Enumeration 96 6. Only two Theories 100 6 Contents. n. SUMMARY REVIEW. PA „ 1. Theory of Vicarious Repentance 102 2. Theory of Redemption by Love 104 3. Self -propitiation in Self-sacrifice 106 4. Realistic Theory 112 5. Mystical Theory 114 6. Middle Theory 114 7. Conditional Penal Substitution 115 8. Three Leading Theories 119 CHAPTER VL Theory of Moral Influence. I. FACTS OF THE THEORY. 1. The Redemptive Law 121 2. Socinian 122 3. Its Dialectics 123 4. Truth of Moral Influence 125 II. ITS REFUTATION. 1. By the Fact of an Atonement 129 2. By its Necessity. . . , 131 3. By the Peculiar Saving Work of Christ 132 4. Not a Theory of Atonement 133 CHAPTER VII. Theory of Satisfaction. I. PREFATORY. 1. Position in Theology 135 2. Formation L36 3. Two Vicarious Factors 137 4 Concerned with Penal Substitution 1 38 II. ELEMENTS OF THE THEORY. 1. Satisfaction in Punishment 139 2. By a Substitute in Penalty 140 Contents. 7 PA4H S. Three Senses of the Substitution 140 *. In Identical Penalty 140 ii. In Equal Penalty 141 Hi. In Equivalent Penalty 142 4. Absolute Substitution 142 m. JUSTICE AND ATONEMENT, 1. Their Relation. 144 2. Distinctions of Justice 144 i. Commutative L45 tt. Distributive ...... 145 t tt. Public 145 3. Punitive Justice and Satisfaction. 145 IV. PRINCIPLES OP THE THEORY. 1. The Demerit of Sin 146 2. A Divine Punitive Justice. 147 3. Sin Ought to be Punished. 148 4. Penal Satisfaction a Necessity of Justice 149 5. The Determining Principle 149 V ANALYTIC TESTING OP THE THEORY. 1. Justice as Satisfiable 150 t. Mistake Easy 151 tt. Satisfiable only in Personality 152 Hi. True of Divine Justice 152 2. Question of Necessity for Penal Satisfaction 153 3. No Necessity in Divine Disposition 154 4. As Concerning the Divine Rectitude 156 5. No Necessity of Divine Veracity. , .... 158 6 No Necessity of Judicial Rectitude 162 7 Elements of Punitive Satisfaction. 167 8. No Satisfaction in Mere Suffering 167 9. Only Satisfaction in Punishing Sin 167 10. Satisfaction by Substitution Impossible 168 i. The Satisfaction Necessary 169 tt. The Substitution Maintained 172 8 Contents. Hi. No Answer to the Necessity 113 iv. No such Answer Possible 176 11. The Theory Self-destructive 118 VI. FACTS OP THE THEORY IN OBJECTION. 1 The Punishment of Christ 119 2. Redeemed Sinners without Guilt 180 3 A Limited Atonement 186 4 Element of Commutative Justice 181 CHAPTER VIU. Governments Theory. I. PRELIMINARY FACTS. Substitutional Atonement 190 Conditional Substitution 191 Substitution in Suffering 191 The Grotian Theory 198 The Consistent Arminian Theory 209 IL PUBLIC JUSTICE. 1. Relation to Atonement 211 2. One with Divine Justice 218 3. One with Distributive Justice 218 4. Ground of its Penalties 219 6. End of its Penalties 221 6. Remissibility of its Penalties 228 1. Place for Atonement 229 8. Nature of Atonement Determined 229 ni. THEORY AND NECESSITY FOR ATONEMENT. 1 An Answer to the Real Necessity 230 2. Grounded in the Deepest Necessity 231 3. Rectoral Value of Penalty 233 4. Rectoral Value of Atonement 231 5. Only Sufficient Atonement 243 6. True Sense of Satisfaction 244 Contents. 9 IY. THEORY AND SCRIPTURE INTERPRETATION. PASS 1. Terms of Divine "Wrath 245 2, Terms of Divine Righteousness. 247 3,, Terms of Atonement 248 4. Terms of Atoning Suffering 250 V. THEORY AND SCRIPTURE PACTS. 1. Guilt of Redeemed Sinners 255 2. Forgiveness in Justification 258 3. Grace in Forgiveness 259 4. Universality of Atonement 261 5. Universal Overture of Grace 261 6. Doctrinal Result 261 7. Relation of Atonement to Childhood 262 CHAPTER IX. Sufficiency of the Atonement. L THE HOLINESS OP CHRIST. 1. A Necessary Element 266 3. Scripture Yiew 267 II. HIS GREATNESS. 1. An Element of Atoning Yalue 267 2. An Infinite Yalue in Christ , 268 m. HIS VOLUNTARINESS. 1. A Necessary Fact 269 2 Christ a Voluntary Substitute 269 3 Atoning Yalue 269 IY. HIS DmNE SONSHTP. 1. Sense of Atoning Yalue 270 2. Measure of Yalue 271 10 Contents. V. HIS MUMAN BROTHERHOOD. PAaB 1. Mediation must Express an Interest 273 3. The Principle in Atonement 2*3 VL HIS BUTTERING. 1 Extreme Views 274 2. A Necessary Element 275 3. An Infinite Sufficiency 276 CHAPTER X. A Lesson for all Intelligences. 1. Atonement for Man only 280 2. Broader Relation to Moral Beings 281 3. One Moral Constitution of All 282 4. The same Moral Motivity in All 283 5. The Cross a Power with All 283 6. Higher Orders Interested in Redemption 283 7. Universal Lordship of Christ 286 8. Grandeur of the Atonement . . . 290 CHAPTER XL Objections to the Atonement. I. AN IRRATIONAL SCHEME. 1. A Pretentious Assumption 294 2. Analogies of Providence 295 II. A VIOLATION OP JUSTICE. 1. No Infringement of Rights 296 2. Analogy of Vicarious Suffering 296 3. Atonement Clear of Injustice 296 4 Vantage-ground against Moral Theory 297 ni. A RELEA8EMENT FROM DUTT. 1. Fatal if Valid ... 298 2. Nugatory on a True Doctrine 299 Contents. 11 IV. AN ASPERSION OP DIVINE GOODNESS. TASK 1. Reason of Law and Penalty 300 2. No Aspersion of Goodness 300 3. Divine Love Magnified 300 CHAPTER XLL Universality of the Atonement. I. DETERMINING LAW OP EXTENT. i. Intrinsic Sufficiency for All 304 2. Divine Destination Determinative 305 3. The True Inquiry 310 n. PLEASURE OP THE FATHER. 1. Question of his Sovereignty 311 2. In one Relation to All -. 312 3. A Common State of Evil 313 4. Voice of the Divine Perfections 313 m. PLEASURE OP THE SON. 1. Application of Preceding Facts 315 2. Atoning Work the Same 316 3. A Question of his Love 316 IV. S0RD7TURE TESTIMONY. 1 . Proof -texts for Limitation 31 8 2 Proof-texts for Universality .... 321 3. In Extent of the Evil of Sin 322 4. The Great Commission 324 i. The Gospel for All 325 ii. Salvation the Privilege of All 325 *«. Saving Faith the Duty of All 325 w. The Atonement for All 328 12 Contents. V. FALLACIES OT LIMITATION. 1. Facts Admitted. 329 2. Inconsistent with the Divine Sincerity 330 3. Sufficiency of Atonement in Vindication 330 4. True Sense of Sufficiency • • • 331 5. Sufficiency only with Destination 332 6. Limited in Satisfaction Scheme 333 7. Only a Seeming Inconsistency 338 8. Mixed State of Elect and Non-elect 339 9. Secret and Preceptive Divine Will 341 lm»K S* 3 THE ATONEMENT IN CHEIST. ♦ »» CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. rPHE preliminary statement of a few facts and prin- ciples will be helpful in the more formal discussion of atonement. 1. Scope of the Subject. — The atonement may be treated in a broader or in a more restricted sense. In the former sense it may include the whole of soteriol- ogy, while in the latter it may be treated specially as the ground of justification, or the forgiveness of sin. In each case the comprehension is logically determined by cardinal doctrines of the system in connection with which the subject is treated. 2. Broader Scope in Calvinism. — The present discus- sion, so far as concerned with the doctrinal relations of the atonement, will not be limited to its connection with the Calvinian and Arminian systems. Yet their prominence in the circle of evangelical doctrines, and in the maintenance of a real and necessary atonement in the mediation of Christ, will justify a chief attention to its scientific relations to them. It will, therefore, be proper thus early to indicate the comprehension of the question in these two systems respectively. Both Calvinism and Arminianism assert the forgive- 14 iNTEODucnoir. ness of sin in justification. Bit the former cannot con- sistently maintain the same sense of forgiveness as the latter ; while it includes much more in justification, and accounts for the same on its own distinctive grounds. In Calvinism the active obedience of Christ supple- ments his passive obedience in the atonement. His penal suffering is a substitute for the merited punish- ment of the elect, and in full satisfaction of the penalty of justice against them. Such a substitution must dis- charge the subjects of its grace from all personal amenability to penal retribution.' But the divine law also requires personal righteousness ; and to supply this lack in the elect there is accounted to them the per- sonal righteousness of Christ. Thus, according to this doctrine, two vicarious elements — a substituted punish- ment and a substituted obedience — unite in the suffi- ciency of the atonement. The two must combine in such a justification of the elect as the divine law im- peratively requires. This is the radical idea in the Re- formed soteriology. The nature of the atonement is determined accordingly. It follows that in this scheme the history of the doctrine of atonement is largely a history of the doctrine of justification. 8 But the justi- fication is not the same as that in Arminianism. In such a scheme both the active and passive o*be- dience of Christ must go to the account of the elect. Any principle which would admit the latter would equally admit the former. And both are for the elect 1 Chap, vii, VI, 2. • Ritschl : " History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation." Facts and Principles. 16 by compact between the Father and the Son. Any failure in such result would, therefore, be a failure in the very covenant of redemption. A sovereign bestow- ment of the saving benefits of such an atonement is an integral part of the redemptive economy. 1 In such facts we have the logical reason for so full an inclusion of soteriology in the question of atonement. 3. Narrower Scope in Arminianism. — According to the Arminian soteriology we are justified in the for- giveness of sin. This is not the same as a discharge after merited punishment. And the personal holiness of Christ, while necessary to his redemptive mediation, is not accounted to us as an element in our justification. The atonement in his blood is the true and necessary ground of forgiveness. Yet it is not such a ground that the forgiveness must accrue to the redeemed. Justifi- cation or forgiveness is conditioned on a true faith in Christ. The required faith may be exercised, but is subject to no necessitating power of grace. Hence the atonement is only a provisory ground, not an intrinsic- ally causal ground, of forgiveness and salvation. This is the view of atonement in the Arminian sys- tem. Such it must be in scientific consistency, how- ever it may be historically. No system receives com- pleteness at once ; but such is the historic as well as the consistent doctrine in Wesley an Arminianism. This position is verified, not so much by Methodistic litera- ture directly on the doctrine of atonement — of which there is very little — as by that on intimately related cardinal truths ; most of all by the common faith of 1 " Westminster Confession," chap, viii, 1. 13 Intboduction. Methodism and the uniform utterance of its many pul pits. In such faith and utterance there has ever been given forth, and without hesitation, the universality oi the atonement in a real sufficiency for all, notwithstand- ing many perish ; the true conditionality of salvation ; the common gracious ability to believe in Christ and be saved. The atonement in accord with such facts is provisory, not absolute or directly saving. Hence the logical reason for its treatment in the Arminian system in its more special and restricted relation to the for- giveness of sin. While it is the ground of all the ben- efits of grace in a completed salvation, such benefits, as really conditional, properly form a distinct part of the soteriology of the Gospel. 4. No Fact of Soteriology Neglected.— -Nor does such restriction imply a neglect or slight estimation of any fact in the economy of redemption. The benefits of redemptive grace in an actual salvation, while traced to the atonement as their only source, are treated sep- arately from the nature of the atonement itself. As conditional to us, and conditional in the truest sense of synergism as against monergum, any proper method must assign them a distinct place of treatment. 5. Treatment wider Offices of Christ.— The atonement has often been treated under the three offices of Christ as prophet, priest, and king. This is legitimate in a theory which makes it comprehensive of soteriology. It is, therefore, proper for Calvinism, and has been common with this system. It would answer for the Socinian atonement, and for any particular phase of it, provided there were held in connection with it such Facts and Pbinciples. 17 a Christology as would render a proper account of these offices. For on this theory the functions of the prophetic and kingly offices of Christ enter into his redemptive mediation as really as the functions of his priestly office. But such a method is not in accord- ance with the Arminian scheme. In this, as in any true view, the prophetic office of Christ fulfilled no function in his specific atoning work. And his kingly office, so far as related to the atonement, has its proper function in the dispensation of its benefits. The atone- ment in itself appertains to the priestly office of Christ, and could be treated under it alone with higher pro- priety of method than under the three offices. 6. Distinction of Fact and Doctrine. — We should distinguish between the fact and the doctrine of atonement. Are the vicarious sufferings of Christ the ground of forgiveness and salvation? In what sense are they such a ground ? These are distinct ques- tions, and open to distinct answers. The first concerns the fact of an atonement in the sacrifice of Christ; the second concerns its nature or doctrine. Nor does an affirmative answer to the first question determine the answer to the second. Were this so, all who hold the fact of an atonement would agree in the doctrine. But such is not the case. Different schemes of the- ology — and of an evangelical theology — while in the fullest accord on the fact, are widely divergent re- specting the theory. 7. Question of Fact the more Vital. — Both questions are important, but that concerning the fact is the more vital. This gives us the reality of an atonement 18 Introduction. in Christ. That atonement we may accept in faith, and receive the benefit of its grace before we attain to its philosophy. So accepted, it has the most salu- tary influence upon the religious life. To this both the experience of individual Christians and the his- tory of the Church bear witness. And the fact of an atonement has a deeper religious significance than any theory of its nature. Yet the question of theory is far from being an indif- ferent or merely speculative one. The atonement is most fundamental in Christianity. Hence the theory of it must hold a commanding position in any system of Christian doctrine, and largely draw into itself the interest of the system. This is apparent upon a ref- erence to the three great systems, which may be desig- nated as the Arminian, the Calvinian, and the Socinian. As are other cardinal doctrines of each, so is its doc- trine of atonement, or, conversely, as its doctrine of atonement, so are its other doctrines. In all profounder study the mind, by an inevitable tendency, searches for a philosophy of things. There is the same tendency in the deeper study of Christian truth. Thus, beyond the fact of an atonement, we search for a doctrine. We seek to understand its nature; what are its elements of atoning value; how it is the ground of divine forgiveness. We attempt its ratiwiale. It must have a philosophy; and one clear to the divine mind, whatever obscurity it may have to the human. Its clear apprehension would be helpful to faith in many minds. 1 1 Marshall Randies: "Substitution: Atonement," pp. 2, 3. Facts and Pbinciples. 19 8. /Specially a Question of Revelation. — The question respecting the fact of an atonement must be taken to the Scriptures for the only correct and authoritative answer. Nor is the answer so found in any ambiguity or doubt. It is decisively given in the many sacred facts and utterances which set forth the mediation of Christ, especially in his sufferings and death, as the true and only ground of forgiveness and salvation. These facts and utterances are so numerous and con- current, so direct and explicit, as to settle the question respecting the reality of an atonement in the most affirmative sense. 9. The Doctrine must Interpret Scripture. — A doctrine of atonement, having its only sufficient ground in the Scriptures, must, in a strict and full sense, be scriptural. There can be no true scheme which does not fairly in- terpret the Scriptures. To construct a theory, and then to press all interpretation into conformity with it, would be as grievous a violation of scientific method in the- ology as in the case of a student of nature who should first formulate a law and then bend all relative facts into agreement with it. As the scientist should first study the facts, and then generalize them into such a law as they may warrant, and which, in turn, will prop- erly interpret them; so a true doctrine of atone- ment must be a construction in the light of Scripture facts and utterances, and such as will fairly interpret them. 10. Its Scientific Relation to Theology. — That a doc- trine of atonement must fairly interpret the facts and terms of Scripture in which it is expressed, we hold to 20 Introduction. be an imperative law. There is also a law of the high- est authority in logical method. It is the law of scien- tific accordance in intimately related doctrinal truths. It has its application to all scientific systems, and to the science of theology equally as to any other. In any and every system truth must accord with truth. In systematic theology doctrine must accord with doc- trine. Under this law a doctrine of atonement must be in scientific accord with cardinal doctrines vitally re- lated to it. This law, while imperative, neither leads us away from the authority of Scripture nor lands us in a sphere of mere speculation. All Christian doctrine, to be true, must be scriptural. Doctrines in a system, to be true, must be both accordant and scriptural. If dis- cordant or contradictory, some one or more must be both unscriptural and false. Hence this law of a scien- tific accordance in vitally related truths is consistent with the profoundest deference to the authority of rev- elation in all questions of Christian doctrine. This law may render valuable service in the con- struction and interpretation of Christian doctrine. As we may interpret Scripture by Scripture, so may we in- terpret doctrine by doctrine. Only, the interpreting doctrine must itself be certainly scriptural. As such, no Christian doctrine can fie out of accord with it. In any distinction of standard or determining doctrines, preference should be given to the more fundamental; especially to such as are most certainly scriptural. Accepting such a law in the interpretation of atone- ment, or in the determination of its nature, we are still Facts and Principles. 21 rendering the fullest obedience to the authority of the Scriptures in Christian doctrine. In the line of these facts and principles this law may be of special service in testing different theories of atonement as they belong to different systems of the- ology. We shall the better understand the legitimacy and service of this application if we hold in clear view the two leading facts previously noted, that in any sys- tem of Christian theology the several doctrines, as con- stituting a system, must be in scientific agreement, and, as Christian, must be scriptural. Hence, as leading doctrines of the system are true or false, so is the doc- trine of atonement which is in accord with them. For illustration we may refer to the three leading systems previously named. If other peculiar and leading doctrines of the Socin- ian theology be true and scriptural, so is its atonement of Moral Influence. If its Christology and anthropology be true and scriptural, this atonement is in full harmony with the system ; and, further, is the only one which it needs or will admit. Clearly, it cannot admit either the Satisfaction or the Governmental theory. Both are out of harmony with its more fundamental and deter- mining doctrines, and hence are excluded by the law of a necessary accordance of such truths when brought into scientific relation. The Socinian scheme, by the nature of its anthropology and Christology, denies the need of such an atonement, and has no Christ equal to the making of one. But if on the leading doctrines of Christianity the truth is with the Calvinian or the Ar- niinian system, then the Socinian atonement is false. It 22 Intboductiom: is so out of harmony with such doctrines that it cannot be true while they are true. If other cardinal doctrines of Calvinism are true, its doctrine of atonement is true. It is an integral part of the system, and in full harmony with every other part of it. The doctrines of divine sovereignty and decrees, of unconditional election to salvation, of the effectual calling and final perseverance of the elect, and that their salvation is monergistically wrought as it is sovereignly decreed, require an atonement which in its very nature is and must be effectual in the salvation of all for whom it is made. Such an atonement the sys- tem has in the absolute substitution of Christ, both in precept and penalty, in behalf of the elect. He fulfills the righteousness which the law requires of them, and suffers the punishment which their sins deserve. By the nature of the substitution both must go to their ac- count. Such a theory of atonement is in scientific ac- cord with the whole system. And the truth of the sys- tem would carry with it the truth of the theory. It can admit no other theory. Nor can such an atonement be true if the system be false. If the cardinal doctrines of the Arminian system, such as differentiate it from Calvinism, be true, then the atonement of Satisfaction, in the Calvinistic sense of it, cannot be true. If, as before noted, the atonement is really for all, and in the same sense sufficient for all, then it must be only provisory, and its saving benefits really conditional. And no other truths are more deeply wrought into Arminianism, whether original or Wes- leyan; none have a more uniform, constant, unqualified Facto and Pbincifles. 28 Methodistic utterance. They are such facts of atone- ment, or facts in such logical relation to it, that they require a doctrine in scientific agreement with them. Such a doctrine is the special aim of this discussion — not without regard to consistency in the system, but specially because these facts are scriptural and the doc- trine agreeing with them scriptural and true. Certain it is, that the law of a necessary accordance in cardinal truths wrought into the same system, must bar the ad- mission of the Calvinistic doctrine of Satisfaction into the Arminian system. For such an atonement is nec- essarily saving, and must, therefore, bring with it un- conditional election, effectual calling, final persever- ance, monergism. A doctrine inseparably linked with such tenets never can be wrought into scientific accord- ance with the cardinal and distinctive doctrines of Ar- minianism. Nor can it be true while they are true. 11. Definition of Atonement. — A true doctrine of atonement can be fully given only in its formal exposi- tion. Yet we give thus early a definition, with a few explanatory notes, that, so far as practicable by such means, we may place in view the doctrine which this discussion shall maintain. The vicarious sufferings of Christ are an atonement for sin as a conditional substitute for penalty, fulfilling y on the forgiveness of sin, the obligation of justice and the office of penalty in moral government. The sufferings of Christ are vicarious, not as incidental to a philanthropic or reformatory mission, but as en- dured for sinnerfe under divine judicial condemnation, that they might be forgiven and saved. 24 Introduction. They are a substitute for penalty, not as the punish- ment of sin judicially inflicted upon Christ, but in such a rectoral relation to justice and law as renders them a true and sufficient ground of forgiveness. They are a conditional substitute for penalty, as a provisory measure of government, rendering forgive- ness, on proper conditions, consistent with the obliga- tions of justice in moral administration. Subjects of the atonement are none the less guilty simply on that account, as they would be under an atonement by pe- nal substitution, wherein Christ suffered the judicial punishment of sin in satisfaction of an absolute retrib- utive justice. Under a provisory substitution, the gracious franchise is in a privilege of forgiveness, to be realized only on its proper conditions. Thus the substitution of Christ in suffering fulfills the obligation of justice and the office of penalty in their relation to the ends of moral government. Justice has an imperative obligation respecting these ends ; and penalty, as the means of justice, a necessary office for their attainment. But penalty, as an element of law, is the means of good government, not only in its immi- nence or execution, but also through the moral ideas which it expresses. 1 Hence its infliction in punishment is not an absolute necessity to the ends of its office. The rectoral service of its execution may be substi tuted, and in every instance of forgiveness is substi- tuted, by the sufferings of Christ. The interest of moral government is thereby equally conserved.* The ends of justice thus concerned involve the pro- 1 Ch. viii, HI, 3. » IbicU 4. Facts and Principles. 26 foundest interest. They include the honor and author ity of God as ruler in the moral realm ; the most sacred rights and the highest welfare of moral beings ; the ut- most attainable restraint of sin and promotion of right- eousness. Divine justice must regard these ends. In their neglect it would cease to be justice. It must protect them through the means of penalty, except oh the ground of such provisory substitute as will render forgiveness consistent with that protection. Such a substitute is found only in the vicarious sacrifice of Christ. As fully answering for these ends, his suffer- ings are an atonement for sin, fulfilling, on forgiveness, the obligation of justice and the office of penalty in moral government. 26 Reality of Atonement. CHAPTER H. REALITY OF ATONEMENT. T N this chapter we treat the atonement simply as a fact, not as a doctrine. The sense in which the vicarious sacrifice of Christ constitutes the objective ground of divine forgiveness is for future discussion. L Witnessing Facts. There are certain facts that all should receive as scriptural, however diversely they may be interpreted. We claim for them a decisive testimony to the reality of an atonement for sin in the mediation of Christ. 1. A Message of Salvation. — The Gospel is pre-em- inently such a message to a sinful and lost world. Its very style as the Gospel — Td evayyeXtov — sets it forth as good tidings. It is " the glorious Gospel of the blessed God ;" ' " the Gospel of the grace of God ;" * " the Gospel of salvation." s A free overture of grace in forgiveness and salvation crowns the Gospel of Christ. 2. The Salvation in Christ. — While the great fact of Revelation is the mission of Christ, the great purpose of this mission is the salvation of sinners. The Scriptures ever witness to this purpose, and specially reveal Christ as the Saviour. The Angel of the Annunciation gave charge respecting the coming Messiah : " And thou »1 Tim. 1:11. 'Acts 20:24. , Eph.l:13. Witnessing Facts. 27 ■halt call his name Jesus ; for he shall save his people from their sins." ' The announcement of the blessed Advent to the shepherds was in a like strain : " And the angel said unto them, Fear not : for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord." 8 Addi- tional texts could only emphasize these explicit utter- ances of the salvation in Christ. " For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world ; but that the world through him might be saved." 8 " This is, indeed, the Christ, the Saviour of the world." * " And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world." 5 These texts, though but a small fraction of a great number, are suf- ficient for the verification of the fact that the salvation so freely offered in the Gospel is a salvation in Christ. 3. Salvation in his Suffering. — This truth is declared by the very many texts which set forth the mission of Christ as the Saviour of sinners. They are so numer- ous that their full citation would fill many pages. We may give a few in part. " But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities : the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." 8 This whole chapter is full of the same truth, and clearly anticipates the higher revelation of the New Testament. " Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins." 7 1 Matt 1 : 21. a Luke 2: 10, 11. ■ John 3 : 17. 4 John 4: 42. 5 1 John 4: 14. a Isa. 53 : 6. ' Rom. 3 : 26. 28 Reality of Atonement. " Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him/' ' " For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit." 9 "And the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.'" " Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and domin- ion for ever and ever. Amen." 4 These words, so ex- plicitly attributing our salvation to the vicarious sacri- fice of Christ, might well be heard as from the very border-land between the earthly and heavenly estates. Then like words, and equally explicit, come from be- yond the border, attributing the salvation of the saints in heaven to the same atoning blood. " These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple." 6 These texts sufficiently verify this third fact as a fact of Script- ure, that the salvation so freely offered in the Gospel of Christ is a salvation provided in his suffering and death. 4. His redeeming Death Necessary.— The vicarious sacrifice of Christ was not a primary or absolute neces- sity, but only as the sufficient ground of forgiveness. And not only is salvation directly ascribed to his blood, but his redeeming death is declared to be necessary to >Rom. 5:9. »1 Pet 3: 18. »1 John 1:1 * Rev. 1 : 5, 6. • Rev. 1 : 14, 16. Witnessing Facts. 29 this salvation. "Thus it is written, and thus it be- hooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, be- ginning at Jerusalem." 1 Thus it behooved Christ to suffer, not for the fulfillment of the prophetic Script- ures, but in order to the salvation which, long before his advent, they had foretold as the provision of his vicarious sacrifice. Only on the ground of his suffei ing and death could there be either the preaching of re- pentance, or the grace of repentance, or the remission of sins. This was the imperative behoof. " Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." 2 The emphasis of this text is in the fact that these things are affirmed of the crucified Christ. " For if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." 3 In the context St. Paul is as- serting his own realization of a spiritual life through faith in Christ, who loved him, and gave himself for him. This life in salvation he declares to be impossible by the law, and possible only through the sacrificial death of Christ. Were it otherwise, Christ has died in vain. The necessity for his redeeming death in order to for- giveness and salvation could not be given more ex- plicitly, nor with deeper emphasis. " For if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." 4 Here is the same truth of necessity. Life is by the redeeming Christ, and has no other possible source. 1 Luke 24 : 46, 47. a Acts 4:12. ■ Gal. 2 : 21. 4 Gal. 3 : 21 30 Reality of Atonement. 5. Only Explanation of His Suffering.— The sufferings of Christ were for no sin of his own. Nor were they officially necessary, except as an atonement for sin. He had power to avert them, and endured them only through love to a lost world, and in filial obedience to his Father's will. 1 They were not chosen for their own sake on the part of either, but only in the interest of human salvation. They were a profound sacrifice on the part of both. And while the Son went willingly down into their awful depths, his very nature shrank from them. Three times the prayer of his soul was poured out to his loving Father, " O, my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me." 2 There must have been some profound necessity for his drinking it. Clearly that necessity lay in this— that only thereby could salvation be brought into the world. And these profound sufferings of the redeeming Son witness to the reality of an atonement for sin. 6. Necessity of Faith to Salvation.— The facts already given and verified by the Scriptures are decisive of an atonement for sin in the sufferings and death of Christ. They go beyond its reality and conclude its necessity. It is also a significant fact, and one bearing on the same point, that faith in Christ, and as the redeeming Christ, is the true and necessary condition of forgiveness and salvation. The application is to those who have the Gospel. This condition cannot be required of those who have not the Gospel. We doubt not the possi- bility of their salvation : but their only salvation is in Christ; and for them God has his own method in Ids 1 John 10:18 " Matt 26 : 39, 42, 44. Witnessing Facts. SI own wisdom and grace. Their case, however, has nothing to do with the requirement of faith on the part of all who have the Gospel. And the fact of this requirement will answer for the proof of an atone- ment in the sacrifice of Christ. Generally, faith in Christ, with the associated idea of his redeeming death, is set forth as the true and nec- essary condition of salvation. Proof -texts are numer- ous and familiar. We may instance the great com- mission : " And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned." 1 As Christ laid this solemn charge upon his ministers to preach the Gospel in all the world, and which should be so es- pecially the preaching of himself crucified, it was very proper and profoundly important that he should distinctly set forth the condition of the great salva- tion so proclaimed. This he did in the most explicit terms. Faith in Christ is the condition so clearly given. This is the imperative requirement. And the Lord emphasizes the fact by declaring the different consequences of believing and not believing. Were this the only proof-text, it would conclude the fact of faith in Christ as the true and necessary condition of forgiveness and salvation. We may add another in this general view. "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal 1 Mark 16: 15, 16. 32 Reality of Atonement. life." 1 As the Israelites, bitten by the fiery serpents and ready to perish, were recovered only in looking upon the brazen serpent which Moses lifted up in the midst of the camp; 5 so is our salvation conditioned on our faith in Christ lifted up upon the cross as a sacri- fice for sin. Yet more directly is this fact given. " Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believetb in Jesus." 3 Here the forgiveness of sin is through the propitiatory blood of Christ as its ground, and on faith therein as its condition. Such is the economy of redemption, whereby the divine righteousness is vindi- cated in the justification of sinners. Faith could not be so required were not the blood of Christ a true and necessary atonement for sin. Were repentance a sufficient ground of forgiveness, it would still be necessary to believe certain religious truths for the sake of their practical force. Only thus could there be a true repentance. But such is not the faith on which we are justified. There is a clear distinction of offices in the two cases. The faith necessary to repent- ance is operative through the practical force of the religious truths which it apprehends; but the justifying faith apprehends the blood of Christ as a propitiation for sin, trusts directly therein, and receives forgiveness as the immediate gift of grace. No other view will in- 'John 3: 14, 15. a Num. 21: 7-9. 'Bom. 3: 26, 26. Witnessing Facts. 33 terpret the Scriptures, which most explicitly give us the truth of justification by faith in Christ. 1 The justi- fication is in the forgiveness of sin, and must be, as it is the justification of sinners. And the direct and nec- essary connection of justification with faith in the re- demption of Christ, together with the immediateness of the forgiveness itself, concludes this distinct office of justifying faith. Hence, to confound such a faith with another faith in Christ as salutary simply through the practical force of spiritual truths and motives so apprehended, is to jumble things egregiously. There is such a practical faith in Christ, and of the highest moral potency. It may precede or follow the justifying faith. It apprehends the great practical lessons embodied in the Gospel of Christ. Their ap- prehension in faith is the necessary condition of their practical force. The soul thus opens to their moral motives, and realizes their practical influence. This is the philosophy of a chief element of the practical power of faith. It gives the law of moral potency in all prac- tical appeals in view of the love of God and the sacri- fice of Christ in the redemptive mediation. Such is the only office of faith in the scheme of Mora influence. We fully accept the fact of a great practi cal lesson in the mediation of Christ; and our own doc trine combines the weightiest elements of its potency But we object to the accounting this moral lesson, how ever valuable, an element of the atonement proper- most of all, the very atonement itself. This is the error of the theory of Moral influence. It is all the 'Rom. 3: 19-22; 4: 5; Gal. 2: 16; 3: 22-24. 34 Reality of Atonement. same when the advocate is in the fellowship of ecclesi astic orthodoxy. Dr. Bushnell, in his first monograph on atonement, is an instance. 1 We have another in Frederick Denison Maurice: "Every deed of love to those tormented with plagues and sicknesses, every parable to the multitude, every discourse with his disciples, was letting his light shine before men, tJmt they, seeing his good works, might glorify his Fatlwr in heaven. That was the work which he came to do, and which he finished when he gave up the ghost." 2 Thus the sacrifice of Christ fulfills its atoning office through the practical force of a moral lesson. By the principles and references of the author, given with his own itali- cising, the sermon on the mount, the miracles, teach- ings, charities of Christ, go into his atonement for sin, in the same manner as his sacrifice upon the cross. It follows, that Christians, through the light of their good works, are atoning for sin by the same means, and the only means, whereby Christ himself atoned for it. Surely these facts are enough for the refutation of the scheme. But our special objection to this view here is, that it denies a distinct office of faith in the propitiatory work of Christ as the condition of forgiveness in justification. It consistently and necessarily does this. But there is such an office of faith, and one clearly distinguished from its office as a practical force in the religious life. And the distinct requirement of faith in the propitia- tory sacrifice of Christ, in order to forgiveness, is con- 1 " The Vicarious Sacrifice." • "The Doctriue of Sacrifice," p. 223. Witnessing Facts. 35 elusive of a true and necessary atonement for sin in his sufferings and death. 7. Christ a Unique Saviour. — Christ is a person in history ; but his history is unique, and his character and work unique. Often designated the Son of man, he yet cannot be classed with men. No law of science or philosophy would warrant or even permit such a classi- fication. In the fashion of a man, he is yet above men. The facts of his life constitute a new history, distinct and different from all others. They reveal a personal consciousness alone in its kind. A manifest fact of this consciousness is the profound sense of a divine vocation, original and singular in the moral history of the world, and which he only can fulfill. The moral impression of his life upon the souls of men is peculiar to itself, and fitly responsive to the originality of his own char- acter and work. Amid men and angels, he stands apart in his own personality and mission. His religion is unique. It is such because he, as a religious founder, is original and singular. Here, also, he cannot be classed with others in any exact scientific sense. Every religion is, more or less, what its founder is. His thoughts and feelings are wrought into it. It takes its molding from the cast of his mind. Its aims and forces are the outgoing of his own subjective life. Most eminently has Christ wrought his own soul and life into his own religion. In the highest sense, its aims and forces are the outgoing of his own mind: so much so, that to come into the same mind with him is the highest realization of the Christian life. What he is his religion is. But his distinctive peculiarity, as the S6 Reality op Atonement. founder of a religion, is not so much in the highei measure of his own life wrought into it, as in the qual- ity of that life. Hence his religion differs so much from all others, because he differs so much from all other religious founders. His religion is unique as one of salvation. And it is not only the fact of a salvation, but especially the distinctive character of it, that constitutes the pecul- iarity. It is a salvation in forgiveness of sin, and in moral regeneration. So it is realized in the gracious experience of many souls. And this salvation comes not as the fruit of culture, nor in reward of personal merit, nor as the purchase of penance or treasure. A religion grounded in such profound truths respecting God and man, and especially respecting man's moral state and spiritual destiny and needs, never could offer such a salvation on such conditions. The means have no sufficiency for the end. This salvation is provided for and possible only in the grace and spiritual agen- cies of a redemptive economy. Here sin is taken away, and the soul renewed. There is a new life in Christ. In this life is salvation — such a salvation as no other religion provides. Most of all, is Christ a unique Saviour in that he saves u£ by the sacrifice of himself. The salvation is not in his divinity, nor in his humanity, nor in his unique personality as the God-man, nor in the lessons of religion which he taught, nor in the perfect life which he lived and gave to the world as an example, nor in the love wherewith he loved us, nor in all the moral force of life, and lesson, and love combined, but Witnessing Facts. 37 in his cross — in the blood of his cross as an atonement for sin. The voice of revelation is one voice, ever distinct, unvarying, and emphatic, in the utterance of this truth. This utterance comes forth of all the facts and words which reveal the distinctively saving work of Christ. They need no citation here. A few have already been given. Others will appear in their proper place. For the present, the position need only be stated and emphasized : Christ is a Saviour through an atonement in his blood as the ground of forgiveness. He is such a Saviour singularly, uniquely. The fact is too clear and certain for denial. No one familiar with the Scriptures, and frank in his spiritual mood, can question it. This is a cardinal fact, and one not to be overlooked in the interpretation of the redeeming work of Christ. No other has ever claimed to put his own life and blood into the saving sufficiency and efficiency of his religion. No other is, or can be, such a Saviour as Christ. If a Saviour only through a moral influence, good men are saviours as truly as he, and in the same mode, differing only in the measure of their influence. Can such a theory interpret the Scriptures, or find a response in the highest, best form of the Christian consciousness ? Who is there in all the Christian ages whom we can regard as a saviour in the same sense as Christ, and differing only in the measure of his saving influence ? As revealed in the Scriptures, and appre- hended in the living faith of the Church, and realized in the truest Christian experience, Christ is the only Saviour. And he is a Saviour only through an atone- 38 Reality of Atonement. ment in his blood. This is his highest distinction as a Saviour, and one that places him apart from all others Any scheme of Christianity contrary to this view is false to the Scriptures, false to the soteriology of the Gospel, false to the living religious faith and conscious- ness of the Christian centuries. And unless we can surrender all essentially distinctive character in the saving work of Christ, and so do violence to all de- cisive facts in the case, we must maintain a true atone- ment in his death as the only and necessary ground of forgiveness and salvation. n. Witnessing Terms. Advocates of an objective atonement in Christ, while differing on the doctrine, are quite agreed on the Scripture proofs of the fact. Their interpretations are much the same, except where they go beyond the real- ity of an atonement and press their respective doctrinal views into the exposition. It is in the order of a better method to keep, as far as practicable, to one question at a time. This we shall endeavor to do in treating the leading terms for the fact of atonement. The doctrine which they contain will still be held for future discussion. A full treatment of these terms for the purpose iv hand would require a volume. The discussion has often been elaborately gone over, and very conclu- sively for the fact of an atonement. There is, there- fore, the less occasion to repeat it. Any one inter- ested in the question will readily find its full and Witnessing Terms. 39 able treatment in the standard works on systematic theology, and in treatises exclusively on the atone- ment. This discussion has no prescriptive method. Some deal with individual texts; some follow the order of the sacred writers, treating successively what each one gives on the question; others proceed in an order of the more specific terms of atonement, grouping under these severally the facts and texts which properly be- long to them. We shall follow this method as the best, and as specially suited to the brief discussion which we propose. 1. Atonement — This term is of frequent use in the Old Testament, but occurs only once in the New. The original, "123, signifies to cover ; then to cover sin, to forgive sin, to discharge from punishment: in its noun form, an expiation, a propitiation, a redemption. 1 In its primary meaning the term has no proper sense of atonement. 2 It has such a sense in its appropriated use. Its meaning, as in the history of many other terms, is broadened in its use. A rigid adherence in such a case to the primary sense is false to the deeper ideas conveyed. Atonement, as expressed by this term, was often for the removal of ceremonial impurities, or in order to a proper qualification for sacred services. It has this sense in application to both things and persons. 8 We 1 Gesenius, "Hebrew and English Lexicon;" Magee, "Atone- ment and Sacrifice," dissertation xxxvi ; Dr. John Pye Smith, " Sacri- fice and Priesthood," pp. 136, 301-304; Rev. Alford Cave, "The Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice," pp. 482^86. *Gen. 6:14. 'Lev. 16: 11, 16, 18, 33. 40 Reality of Atonement. have not yet, however, the full sense, but a foreshadow- ing of its deeper meaning. In the more strictly moral and legal relations cf the term, we may admit a lower and a higher sense, and without any concession to those who, on the ground of the former, would exclude the latter. In many in- stances atonement was made for what are designated as sins of ignorance. 1 It may not be rightfully assumed that these sins were without amenability in justice and law. The contrary is apparent. "The ignorance in- tended cannot have been of a nature absolute and in- vincible, but such as the clear promulgation of their law, and their strict obligation to study it day and night, rendered them accountable for, and which was consequently in a certain degree culpable." a Nor does it follow that there is no true sense of atonement be- cause such sins have not the deepest criminality. But were such instances without culpability, and therefore without evidence of an atonement, the fact would not affect the instances of atonement for sins of the deepest responsibility. There are such instances. 8 And to put the lower sense upon examples of the higher ; most of all, to deny the higher because there is a lower, is without law in Scripture exegesis. In the higher moral and legal relations of atone ment there are the facts of sin and judicial condem- nation. The offender is answerable in penalty Then there is a vicarious sacrifice, and the forgiveness of 'Lev. 4: 13-26; 5: 17-19; Num. 15: 24-28. 'Magee, "Atonement and Sacrifice," dissertation xxxviL 'Lev. 6: 2-7. Witnessing Terms. 41 the sinner. There is an atonement for sin. The fact is clear in the Scripture texts given by reference, Others, equally conclusive, will be given in another connection. There are in the use of the term instances of atonement without any sacrifice. Moses, by an intercessory prayer, made an atonement for Israel after the sin of idolatry in worshiping the golden calf. 1 Aaron, with his censer, atoned for the congregation after the rebellion of Ko- ran. 9 Phinehas, by his religious zeal, made an atone- ment for the people, and turned away from them the divine wrath. 8 In view of such facts, it is urged that there is no direct and necessary connection between sacrifices of atonement and the divine forgiveness, and hence, that there is no proof in the sacrificial system of an atone- ment for sin in the sacrifice of Christ. This is incon- sequent. The sacrifices of the law were an atonement only typically, not intrinsically. 4 While, therefore, certain kinds might have special fitness for this service, yet mere typical fitness has nothing essential. Hence these sacrifices of atonement might be varied or even omitted, while the atonement in the sacrifice of Christ, as intrinsically such, is both real and necessary. The proof of atonement from the sacrificial system will be treated in connection with the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ. We get the proof of an atonement in Christ, not so much from the direct application of the original term 1 Exod. 32 : 30-32. * Num. 16 : 46-48. • Num. 25 : 11-13. * Heb. 10 : 1-11. 42 Reality of Atonement. to him as from certain significant types fulfilled in him, and especially from the application of equivalent terms in the Greek of the New Testament to his redemptive mediation. We may give one instance in which the original term is applied to the atoning sacrifice of Christ. 1 The pas- sage referred to is clearly Messianic. It determines by historic connections the time of Christ's advent. Then it gives certain ends to be accomplished: "to make an end of sins " — to terminate the typical sacrifices of the law by the one sufficient sacrifice of himself; "and to make reconciliation — i3dS^ — for iniquity." The pas- sage clearly shows that Christ makes an atonement for sin by the sacrifice of himself. And this sense is em- phasized in the further fact, that " Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself," especially as viewed in the light of intimately related facts and utterances of the Gospel. As previously noted, the term atonement occurs but once in the English version of the New Testament, and then as the rendering of KaraXXayrj, usually rendered reconciliation.' The text, therefore, properly belongs to this term. 2. Reconciliation. — Reconciliation, and to reconcile — KaraXkayri, KaraXXdaaeiv — are terms frequently applied to the redemptive work of Christ, and with the clear sense of a real atonement. "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being re- conciled, we shall be saved by his life." 9 This is the 1 Dan. 9 : 24-26. * Rom. 6:11. * Rom. 6: 10. Witnessing Terms. 43 reconciliation of enemies, and, therefore, ol persons un- der God's displeasure and judicial condemnation. The reconciliation is by the death of his Son. The assurance of salvation lies in the fact of such a reconciliation of enemies. The divine acceptance in favor comes after this reconciliation as its provisory ground. The death of Christ renders forgiveness consistent with the re- quirements of justice in moral administration. Such a reconciliation is the reality of atonement. With such a fact St. Paul might well add: " And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received — rrjv KaraXXayrjv — the re- conciliation." 1 Here is the joy of an actual reconcilia- tion through the death of Christ. " And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation," etc. 2 The facts of this text give the sense of a real atonement. The reconciliation is in Christ. It includes a non-imputation of sin; that is, we are no longer held in absolute condemnation, but have the gracious privilege of the divine forgiveness and friendship. Hence there is committed to us the minis- try of reconciliation, with its gracious overtures and entreaties. And the manner in which God reconciles us to himself in Christ is deeply emphasized: " For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin ; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." J Any fair exposition of this text must find in it the fact of an atonement. 8 1 Rom. 5:11. * 2 Cor. 6 : 18-21. ■ See also Eph. 2:16; Col. 1 : 20-22 ; Heb. 2 : It. 44 Reality of Atonement. It is urged in objection, that in these texts we are said to be reconciled to God, not God to us. The fact is admitted, while the validity of the objection is denied. It falsely assumes that the only bar to God's friend- ship with his rebellious subjects is in their hostility to him; and hence illogically concludes that the reconcil- iation in Christ is an atonement, not as a rectoral ground of the divine forgiveness, but simply as a moral influence leading them to repentance and loyalty. This is contradicted by many principles and facts previously discussed. It is contrary to those texts according to which God, by the reconciliation in Christ, puts himself into a relation of mercy toward us, and then, on the ground of this reconciliation, urges and entreats us in penitence and faith to accept his offered forgiveness and love. Thus upon the ground of a provisory divine rec- onciliation there will follow an actual reconciliation and a mutual friendship. Further, this objection falsely assumes that reconcil- iation is simply the cessation of hostility in the party said to be reconciled. It properly means, and often can only mean, that he is reconciled in the sense of finding the forgiveness and friendship of the party -to whom he is reconciled. Of this there are familiar instances in Scripture. 1 As applied to rebellious subjects, the term has its first relation to the ruler. "To be reconciled, when spoken of subjects who have been in rebellion against their sovereign, is to be brought into a state in which pardon is offered to them, and they have it in their power to render themselves capable of that par- J l Sam. 23:4; Matt. 6:23, 24 Witnessing Teems. 45 don; namely, by laying down their enmity. . . . Wherefore, the reconciliation received through Christ is God's placing all mankind, ever since the fall, under the gracious new covenant procured for them through the obedience of Christ; in which the pardon of sin is offered to them, together with eternal life, on their ful- filling its gracious requisitions." ' This is an accurate statement of the reconciliation in Christ, and gives us the fact of an atonement therein. 3. Propitiation. — To be propitious is to be disposed to forgiveness and favor. To propitiate is to render an aggrieved or offended party clement and forgiving. A propitiation is that whereby the favorable change is wrought. Hence the mediation or blood of Christ as a propitiation for our sins, and the ground of forgive- ness, is an atonement. It is an atonement because a propitiation for sin in its relation to the clemency and forgiveness of the divine Ruler. There are two points to be specially noticed : the nature of the divine propitiousness toward sinners; and the relation of the redemptive mediation of Christ to that propitiousness. God is propitious to sinners in a disposition toward forgiveness. This is in the definition of the term. The same sense is given in Scripture, without any direct reference to a propitiatory sacrifice. The fact will render the clearer the propitiatory office of the blood of Christ. We will cite a few texts in illustration; but for a clearer view of the sense stated, the original terms — appropriate forms of ^B3, nSo, iXaaKo\iai — should - T - T 1 Macknight: " On tlie Epistles," Rom. 5 : 10. 46 Reality of Atonement. be consulted, as the term propitioue, or to bo pro- pitious, is not given in our translation. "For thy name's sake, O Lord, pardon mine iniquity ; for it is great." ' " But he, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity, and destroyed them not: yea, many a time turned he his anger away, and did not stir up all his wrath." * " O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive." 3 " God be merciful to me a sinner." 4 " For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their in- iquities will I remember no more." 5 These texts, selected from many similar ones, suffice for the position that God is propitious in a disposi- tion toward forgiveness, and in the fact of forgiveness as the exercise of such clemency. Here are sins, and the divine displeasure against them. Here are sin- ners with a deep sense of sin, and of the divine con- demnation. Here are their earnest prayers to God, that he would be propitious and forgive. And he for- gives them, turns away his wrath and accepts them in favor, as he is propitious to them. These facts determine the meaning of a propitiation. It is that which renders an aggrieved or offended party clement and forgiving; that which is the reason or ground of forgiveness. Such a propitiation is an atonement. Christ is a propitiation for sin. He is such in his sacrificial death, and in relation to the divine clemency and forgiveness. " Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his 'Pea 25: 11. 'Psa. 78: 33. *Dan. 9: 19. 4 Luke 18: 13. •Heb. 8: 12. Witnessing Terms. 47 righteousness for the remission of sins that are past."' Here are all the facts of a true propitiation: the pre- supposed sins as an offense against God, and his dis- pleasure against them; the blood of Christ as a pro- pitiation for sins; the divine clemency and forgiveness through this propitiation. The blood of Christ fulfills its propitiatory office with God. There is, therefore, an atonement in his blood. Other Scripture texts give the same truth. " And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." 2 Such a propitiation for sin is the reality of an atonement in Christ. 4. Redemption. — Under this term might be classed many texts which, with the utmost certainty, give us the fact of an atonement. Redemption has a clear and well defined sense. To redeem is to purchase back, to ransom, to liberate from slavery, captivity, or death, by the payment of a price. This gives the sense of redemption or to redeem — kvTpoh) — in both its classic and Scripture use. 8 Under the Mosaic law, alienated lands might be re- covered by the payment of a ransom or price. This would be a redemption. Such alienated property, if not previously ransomed, reverted without price at the jubilee; but this reversion was not a redemption, be- cause without any ransom-price. 4 A poor Israelite 1 Rom. 3: 25. 3 1 John 2: 2; 4: 10. 8 Dr. John Pye Smith: "Sacrifice and Priesthood," pp. 204-201; Dr. Hill : " Lectures in Divinity," pp. 414, 4T5. 4 Lev. 25 : 23-28. 4:8 Reality of Atonement. might redeem himself from slavery by the payment of a sum reckoned according to the time remaining for which he had sold himself. This would be his redemp- tion. But the freedom which came with the jubilee was not a redemption, because it came without any price. 1 These facts confirm the sense of redemption as previously given. Further, in the case of one who has forfeited his life : " If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatever is laid upon him." a This is an instance of redemption. The same meaning lies in the fact, that for the life of a murderer no ransom was permitted. 3 Occasional applications of the term simply in the sense of a deliverance, are not contrary to the truer and deeper meaning. There is a deliverance as the result of a redemption. The ransom is paid in or- der to the deliverance. And it is a proper usage to apply the name of a thing to its effect, or to what con- stitutes only a part of its meaning. This use is entirely consistent with the deeper sense of redemption, while the deeper sense cannot be reduced to that of a mere deliverance. This is true of the instances previously given, and will be found true of the redemption in Christ. We shall here select but a few of the many texts whioh apply the terms of redemption to the saving work of Christ. " The Son of man came ... to give his life a ransom for many." " Who gave himself a ransom for all." * The 1 Lev. 25 : 47-64. ' Exod. 21 : 30. 3 Num. 35 : 31. * Matt 20 : 28 ; 1 Tim. 2 : & Witnessing Teems. 49 original terms — Xvrgov, avriXvrgov- — are the very terms which signify the ransom or price given for the libera- tion of a captive, the recovery of any thing forfeited, or the satisfaction of penal obligation. So, for our de- liverance from sin and death, and for the recovery of our forfeited spiritual life, Christ gives his life — himself — as the ransom. Redemption in its deeper sense could not have a clearer expression. Truly are we "bought with a price ; " " Not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, . . . but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." 1 As in other cases silver and gold constituted the ransom, so the blood of Christ is the price of our redemption from sin. "Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity;" "And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance."* Here are facts of redemption which give us a real atonement. We are sinners, with the penal liabilities of sin; and Christ gives his own life as the price of our ransom. " Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree;" "But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the 1 1 Cor. 6: 20; 1 Pet 1: 18, 19. a Titus 2: 14; Heb. 9: 15 50 Reality of Atonement. adoption of sous." ' In the second text we have a dif- ferent original word- -kZayogafa — but of like meaning. The subjects of the redemption are under the law, and under the curse of the law — the former state implying all that the latter expresses. Whether "the law" be the law of nature or the Mosaic, the facts of redemp- tion are the same. Under both men are sinners, and by neither is there salvation. The redemption is from the penalty of sin — from the curse of the law. The same sense is determined by the fact, that the redemp- tion is to the end, " that we might receive the adoption of sons." The death of Christ upon the cross is the redemption. "Being justified freely by his grace through the re- demption that is in Christ Jesus." " In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace." 2 Here we have the same facts of redemption. We arc sinners and un- der divine condemnation. The redemption through Christ, and in his blood, is in order to our justification, or the forgiveness of our sins. Such are the facts of redemption by Jesus Christ. And with the sin and condemnation of men as its sub- jects, with the forgiveness and salvation which it pro- vides, with the blood of Christ as the ransom whereby the gracious change is wrought, it is unreasonable to deny the fact of an atonement in his redeeming death. "Every one feels the effect of introducing the nouns \v7p0v or avTiXvrpov, in connection with the verb Avw, when applied to the case of a discharged debtor or re- 1 GaL 3: 13; 4: 4, 6. ■ Rom. 3: 24; Eph. 1: 1 Witnessing Tebms. 51 leased captive, as making it perfectly clear that his re- demption is not gratuitous, but that some consideration is given for the securing it. Nor is the significancy of these nouns in the least diminished when it is from penal consequences of a judicial nature that a person is released. The hvrpov, indeed, in that case, is not a price from which the lawgiver is to receive any per- sonal advantage. It is the satisfaction to public law and justice upon which he consents to remit the sen- tence. But still, the mention of it, in this case as well as in others, is absolutely inconsistent with a gratuitous remission." 1 This statement holds true, with all the force of its facts, in application, as intended, to the redemption in Christ. The deeper ideas of redemption were wrought into the minds of the writers of the New Testament by both their Hebraic and Hellenic educa- tion. Nor may we think that they used its terms out of their proper meaning in applying them to the saving work of Christ. Such a redemption is the reality of atonement. Redemption holds a prominent place in the nomen- clature of atonement; indeed, is often used for the des- ignative term instead of atonement itself. It may be pressed into the service of an erroneous doctrine. The result is, a commercial atonement. But this is carrying the analogy in the case to an unwarranted extreme. Re- demption is modified by the sphere in which it is made. The ransom price of a captive, or slave, goes to the 1 Dr. George Hill : " Lectures in Divinity," vol. ii, p. 483. The passage varies from the same one in the American edition, anc is given as quoted by Professor Crawford. 52 Reality of Atonement. personal benefit of the party making the surrender; it is his compensation. The transaction is one of barter. When a penalty of death was commuted for a sum of money, the ransom was penal and of rectoral service, but also of pecuniary value with the government. In the divine government there can be no such element of re- demption. The redemption does not thereby lose the sense of an atonement, but should, therefore, be guarded against an erroneous doctrine. The gist of analogy is in the fact of a compensatory ransom. This is consistent with a wide distinction in the nature of the compensa- tion. There is a wide distinction in fact: in the one case a personal, pecuniary compensation; in the other, a compensation in rectoral value. In the one case money redeems a captive, or slave, as a commercial equivalent; in the other, the blood of Christ redeems a soul as the rectoral equivalent of penalty. The ransom price is as vitally related to the result in the latter case as in the former. This gives us the reality of an atone- ment in the redemption of Christ, and will give us a doctrine without any commercial element. 5. Substitution. — Substitution is not formally a Scripture term, but well expresses the sense of numer- ous texts in their application to the saving work of Christ. Like the term " redemption," it may be pressed into the service of an erroneous doctrine. This, how ever, can be done only by a wrong interpretation of the substitution. But we are still only on the fact of an atonement, and, for the proof of this, here require nothing more than the substitution of Christ in suffer- ing as the ground of forgiveness. Witnessing Tbbms. 53 The fifty-third chapter of Isaiah is clearly Messianic, aDd as clearly gives the fact of substitutional atonement. We shall attempt no elaborate or critical exposition. This has often been done, and successfully for the sense of a real atonement. 1 We cite the leading utterances: "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities : the chastisement of oar peace was upon him ; and with his stripes we are healed. . . . The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. . . . He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter. . . . For the transgression of my people was he stricken. . . . Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin. . . . And he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." 2 These words are decisive of a substitutional atonement in the sufferings of Christ. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die : yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." 3 Surely here is atone- ment in substitution. Those for whom Christ died are noted as ungodly, sinners, enemies. Hence they are in a state of condemnation. In the death of Christ for them is the ground of their justification, which is 1 Alexander, Lowth, Delitzsch, severally on Isaiah, and a thorough treatment of the entire chapter by Rev. M. S. Terry, D.D., in the "Methodist Quarterly Review" for January, 1880. a Isa. 53 : 6-12. * Rom. 5 : G-8. 64 Reality of Atonement. impossible by the deeds of the law. These facts give us atonement by substitution. This sense is confirmed by the suppositive case of one dying for another. It is a supposition of the substitution of one life for an- other, the rescue of one by the vicarious sacrifice of another. So Christ died for us as sinners, and in order to our forgiveness and salvation. It is a substitution in law ; not penal, but rectoral, so that law might ful- fill its office in the interest of moral government. This is vicarious atonement. "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness : by whose stripes ye were healed." ' Here is a clear reference to the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, and also the same sense of atonement by sub- stitution. " For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God." a Our sins separate us from God, and bring us under his con- demnation. There can be reconciliation and fellowship only through forgiveness. Christ provides for this by suffering for our sins in our stead — the just for the unjust. This is the reality of atonement by substitu- tion in suffering. m. Priesthood and Sacrifice. 1. The Priesthood of Christ. — His priesthood has its prophetic utterance: "The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever aftei the order of Melchizedek." 8 The fullest unfolding of his priest- 1 1 Pet 2: 24. ■ 1 Pet. 3: 18. » Psa 110: 4. Peiesthood and Saceipice. 55 hood, with its sacrificial and intercessory offices, is in the Epistle to the Hebrews. " Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high-priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people." " Seeing then that we have a great high- priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession." "Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such a high-priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens." l These texts will suffice for what is really placed beyond question. 2. His Sacrificial Office. — As it was an office of the priesthood, under the law, to offer sacrifices in atone- ment for sin, so Christ as our high-priest must offer a sacrifice for sin. This is not a mere inference, but the word of Scripture: " For every high-priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer." 9 3. Himself a Sacrifice for Sin. — Nor are we left in any doubt respecting His sacrifice. He offers up Him- self. The fact is so often stated, and in such terms, as to give it the prof oundest significance. " Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savor." 8 " Who needeth not daily, as those high-priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's, for this he did once, when he offered up himself." 4 " How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, >Heb, 2: 11; 4: 14; 8: 1. 'Heb. 8: 3. 'Eph. 5: 2. 4 Heb.7: 21. 56 Reality of Atxxscment. purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God ? " " Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high-priest entereth into the holy place every year with the blood of others; for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." 1 No critical exegesis is required to find in these texts the fact of an atonement in the mediation of Christ. It lies upon their face, and enters into their deepest life. He is a sacrifice, self -offered, in atonement for sin; a sacrifice offered to God in such atonement, that we might be forgiven and saved. The sufiiciency of this one sacrifice, asserted with such emphasis, affirms the fact of an atonement. 4. Typical Sacrifices.— In the statements respecting the sacrifice of Christ there are clear references to the ancient sacrifices; and its interpretation in the light of these references gives us the same fact of an atonement. But we shall not discuss this system; and a brief refer- ence will answer for our purpose. The great annual atonement has special prominence. Its many rites, divinely prescribed with exactness of detail, were sacredly observed. Its leading facts were few and simple, but of profound significance. The high-priest sacrificed a bullock in atonement for him- self and family, and, entering with its blood into the holy of holies, sprinkled it upon the mercy-seat. Thus he found access into the divine presence. Then he se- lected two goats for an atonement for the people. One 1 Heb. 9 : 14, 25 ; see also chap, x, 5-12. Priesthood and Sacrifice. 57 he sacrificed, and entering with its blood into the most holy place, sprinkled it upon the mercy-seat before the Lord. Then with his hands upon the head of the other, he confessed over it the sins of the people, and sent it sway into the wilderness, thus signifying the bearing away of their sins. 1 Thus the high-priest made aii atonement for sin. 2 The whole idea of atonement may here be denied on an assumption that the means have no adequacy to the end; that it is not in the nature of such a ceremony or such a sacrifice to constitute a ground of forgiveness. It is conceded that there is therein no intrinsic atone- ment. This, indeed, is the Scripture view. 8 But the idea of atonement is not, therefore, wanting. The divine reconciliation is real, the forgiveness of sin act- ual, but on the ground of the vicarious sacrifice of Christ — "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." 4 His atonement was not yet formally made, but already existed as a provision of the redemptive economy, and efficacious for salvation. And the idea of atonement is as real in the typical sacrifice . as in that which is intrinsically sufficient. Otherwise, the Levitical atonement has no typical office, and hence is utterly inexplicable. We have thus the idea of atonement in the Levitical sacrifices, and the fact of a real atonement in the sacri- fice of Christ. The former were substitutes for men in atonement for sin — typically, not efficaciously; while the latter, represented by them, and the ground of their 1 Lev. 16: 6-22. a Dr. John Pye Smith on Sacrifice, pp. 246, 247. » Heb. 10 : 1-11. 4 Rev. 13 : 8. 68 Reality of Atonement. acceptance, is intrinsically the atonement. As divinely appointed in their sacrificial office, and typical therein of the priestly sacrifice of Christ, they give decisive testimony to the fact of an atonement in his death. That the Levitical sacrifices of atonement, particu- larly in the great annual atonement, were typical of tLe atoning sacrifice of Christ, is clearly given in the Script- ures. 1 And combining type and antitype, with their characteristic facts, in one view, the proof of a real atonement is conclusive. Respecting the former, " Shall we content ourselves with merely saying that this was a symbol; but the question remains, of what was it a symbol ? To determine that, let the several parts of the symbolic action be enumerated. Here is confession of sin — confession before God, at the door of his taber- nacle — the substitution of a victim — the figurative transfer of sins to that victim— the shedding of blood, which God appointed to make atonement for the soul — the carrying the blood into the holiest place, the very permission of which clearly marked the divine ac- ceptance — the bearing away of iniquity — and the actual reconciliation of the people to God. If, then, this is symbolical, it has nothing correspondent to it; it never had or can have any thing correspondent to it but the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, and the communication of the benefits of his passion in the forgiveness of sins to those that believe in him, and their reconciliation with God." ■ 5. Priestly Intercession in Heaven. — The intercession 1 Heb. 9:8-12; 10:1. ' Watson : " Theological Institutes," vol. ii, p. 167. Priesthood and Sacrifice. 59 of Christ in a priestly office fulfilled in heaven, is a fact clearly given in the Scriptures: "Who is he that con- demneth ? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us." 1 "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he en- tered in once into the holy place, having obtained eter- nal redemption for us." " For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us." a Now mere intercession does not prove atonement; but such intercession does. It is in the order of the priestly office of Christ. This is clear from the texts cited, es- pecially with their connections. It follows the atoning sacrifice of himself, and with clear reference to the service of the Levitical atonement. As the high-priest entered with the blood of the sacrifice into the most holy place, and sprinkled it upon the mercy-seat, the very place of the divine presence and propitiation ; so Christ entered with his own blood — not literally with it, but with its atoning virtue and the tokens of his sac- rifice — into heaven itself, into the very presence of God, in the office of intercession. Such an intercession, the very pleas of which are in his vicarious sacrifice and blood, affirms the reality of atonement. 1 Bom. 8: 34. ■ Heb. 9: 12, 24 60 Necessity for Atonement. CHAPTER III. NECESSITY FOR ATONEMENT. 1. Limitation of the Question. — An inquiry into the necessity for an atonement might easily lead us into a very wide discussion. In its logical relations it is con- cerned with many leading topics of the question. There is specially a most intimate logical connection between the two questions of necessity and theory. It may be well to illustrate the fact. This may easily be done by reference to a few theories. With a scheme of Moral influence all intrinsic neces- sity for an atonement is consistently denied. Sinners may be saved on their own repentance. Forgiveness is just as free without Christ as with him. The atone- ment is merely a provision of moral influence in aid of the required repentance. The Mystical theory — a redemption in the mode of a spiritually sanitary union of Christ with humanity, either as a nature, or in its individuated personalities. or in its corporate organization as the Church— grounds the necessity for an atonement, accordingly, in some subjective imperfection of man rather than in his eth ical state. The theory of Satisfaction, in its distinctive Calvinian form, must base this necessity in the divine justice as absolutely requiring perfect obedience, or, on its failure and the occurrence of sin, an equivalent vicarious right- A Truth of Scripture. 61 eousness and punishment as the necessary justification and only salvation. In the Governmental theory, the scientifically consist- ent necessity arises in the interest of moral government, and as an imperative requirement of some provision which may fulfill the rectoral office of penalty in the case of forgiveness. In view of such an intimate connection between ne- cessity and theory as concerned in the atonement, the whole question of necessity might be treated in con- nection with that of theories. Yet its separate discus- sion, at least so far as it is concerned in the doctrine which we shall maintain, will be in the order of a better method. So far as required in other theories it will be treated in connection with them. 2. The Necessity a Truth of Scripture. — In our wit- nessing facts we have given Scripture proofs of a ne- cessity for atonement in the sufferings of Christ. 1 This necessity, as divinely revealed, is asserted in the most explicit and emphatic terms. It is given with all the force of logical implication in the requirement of faith in the redeeming Christ as the necessary condition of forgiveness and salvation. It is further verified as the only explanation of the sufferings and death of Christ, Further proof will be given in its proper place. 3 Proof in the Mode of Mediation. — The facts of the redemptive mediation of Christ are of no ordinary character. Indeed, they are so extraordinary as to require the profoundest necessity for their vindication under a specially providential economy. The incar- 'Chap. ii: I, 4, 5, 6. 62 Necessity for Atonement nation of the Son of God is a marvelous event. Its deeper meaning we read only in the light of his own character and rank. In the form of God, he has a rightful glory in equality with him. This he surren- ders, and takes, instead, the form of a servant, in the likeness of men. His estate is in the deepest abase- ment. He is a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief. He bears the reproaches and hatreds of men. His sufferings have unfathomed depths. After the profound self-humiliation in the incarnation, he yet fur- ther humbles himself and becomes obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 1 The will of the Father is concurrent with the will of the Son in this whole transaction. While the Son comes in the gladness of filial obedience and the com- passion of redeeming love, the Father sends him forth, and prepares for him a body for his priestly sacrifice." The infinite sacrifice of this concurring love of the Fa- ther and the Son affirms the deepest necessity for an atonement as the ground of forgiveness. Thus, on the authority of the Scriptures, in their most explicit and emphatic utterances, and by the re- quirement of faith in Christ as the condition of the salvation which he brings, and by the logic of all the cardinal facts which enter into his redeeming work, we have the necessity for an atonement in his vicarious sufferings and death. 1 Psa 69: 9; Rom. 15: 3; PhiL 2:6-8; 1 Tim. 3: 16. *Psa. 40: 6-8; Heb. 10: 5-9. in Moral Government. 68 1. Necessity in Moral Government. Whether the necessity for an atonement m manifest in the reason of the case or not does not directly affect the utterances of Scripture thereon ; but indirectly, it is a question of special interest. Such a necessity, clearly ascertained, will be helpful in determining the true doctrine, as the nature of the atonement must an- swer to its necessity. It will, also, be of service in the defense of the atonement, and in its commendation to a common acceptance in faith. Did cardinal facts, in intimate relation to the atonement, pronounce against it, or were they merely silent respecting its necessity, its maintenance would be far more difficult. The Scriptures are sufficient for evangelical minds. But many minds are not in such a state. To such the con- currence of reason with revelation is specially helpful to faith. There is such a concurrence on the necessity for atonement. In treating the question of necessity, either of two methods might be adopted : first, to determine the re- lation of the atonement to forgiveness, and hence de- duce its necessity ; or, second, to ascertain the hinder- ance to a mere administrative forgiveness, and thus find the necessity. The latter is the better method, especially as it mainly defers the question of theories to a more appropriate place. We ground the necessity in the fact and requirements of moral government. 1. None without such Ground. — Only in the fact of a divine moral government can there be a reason for any Q4 Necessity for Atonement question respecting the necessity for an atonement. If we are not under law to God we are without sin. If without sin, we have nothing to be forgiven. Hence there could be for us no necessary ground of forgive- ness. , 2. Fact of a Moral Government.- God being God. and the Creator of men, and men being what they are, a moral government is the profoundest moral necessity. We have a moral nature, with the powers of an ethical life. Our character is determined according to the development and use of these powers in active life. Herein is involved our profoundest personal interest. We also deeply affect each other, and after the man- ner of our own life. Here is a law of great evil. Nor would the fact be other, except infinitely worse, were we wholly without law from heaven. The less men know of a divine law, with its weightier obligations and sanctions, the lower they sink into moral corrup- tion and ruin. The moral powers and the forces of evil are full of spontaneous impulse. Nor do they await the occasion of a revealed law for their corrupt- ing and ruinous activity. And however the absence of all divine law might change our relation to judicial penalty, our moral ruin would be, nevertheless, inevita- ble and utter. Now, should we even concede God's indifference to his own claims upon our obedience and love, it would be irrational, and blasphemous even, to assume his indifference to all the interests of virtue and well-being in us. He cannot overlook us. His own perfections constrain his infinite regard for our welfare. Under the condition of such facts there is, in Moral Government. 65 and there must be, a divine moral government over us. The moral consciousness of humanity affirms the fact of such a government. 1 IL Requisites of Moral Government. 1. Adjustment to Subjects. — Within the moral realm subjects may differ: possibly, in some facts of their personal constitution; certainly, in their moral state and tendencies. A wise government must vary its pro- visions in adjustment to the requirement of such differ- ences. In some facts the divine law must be the same for all. It must require the obedience of all; for such is the right of the divine Ruler, and the common obli- gation of his subjects. It must guard the rights and interests of all. Beyond such facts, yet for the reason of them, the provisions of law, as means to the great ends of moral government, should vary as subjects dif- fer. The same principles which imperatively require a moral government for moral beings, also require its economy in adjustment to any considerable peculiari ties of moral condition and tendency. 2. Specially for Man. — This law has special signifi- cance, and should not be overlooked in the present inquiry. We are seeking for the necessity of an atone- ment in the requirements of moral government; and we shall more readily find it in view of our own moral tendencies and needs. The atonement, while directly for man, has infinitely wider relations than the present 1 Bishop Butler : " Analogy of Religion," part i, chapters ii, iii. Dr. Gillett : " The Moral System." 66 Necessity foe Atonement sphere of humanity. Indirectly it concerns all intelli- gences, and is, no doubt, in adjustment to all mora) interests. 1 Still, in its immediate purpose, it is a pro- vision for the forgiveness and salvation of sinful men. The atonemeLt is, therefore, a measure introduced into the divine government as immediately over us, and itt special necessity must arise from the interests so direct- ly involved. i. A Law of Duty. — Subjects should know the will of the Sovereign. There are things to be done, and things not to be done. Nor can such things always be known either by reason or experience. This may be true even with the highest in perfection, and with every thought and feeling responsive to duty. Most certainly is it true of us. The mode in which the law of duty shall be given is not first in importance. It is the law itself that is so essential. How God may reveal his will to angels we know not, because we know neither his modes of expression nor their powers of apprehension. In some mode it is made known, and so becomes the law of their duty. And God has made known his will to us. This is chiefly done through revelation, though we have some light through the moral reason and the di- rect agency of the Holy Spirit. God gave a law to Adam, communicated his will to the patriarchs, wrote the decalogue on tables of stone for Israel and for man, spake often to the people by the prophets. And Christ summed up the law of Christian duty in the two great commandments. It is not requisite that every particu- lar duty should be given in a special statute. This 1 Chapter x. in Morai, Government. 67 would be for us an impracticable code. We have the law of duty, in a far better form, in the great moral principles given in the Gospels. And thus we have the divine will revealed to us as the law of our duty. ii. The Sanction of Rewards. — In the highest conceiv- able perfection, with the clearest apprehension of duty, with every sentiment responsive to its behests and with no tendency nor temptation to the contrary, obedience would be assured without the sanction of rewards. In such a state, however munificent the divine favors might be to such obedience, penalty would have no necessary governmental function. But when obedience is difficult and its failure a special liability — where there is spiritual darkness and apathy, a strong tendency to evil, and the incoming of much fierce temptation — the case is very different. In such a state, duty must have the support of pending rewards. They must form a part of the law, and have as distinct an announce- ment as its precepts. Otherwise, government is void of a necessary adjustment to the moral state of its subjects. Such is the requirement of our moral condition. With us there are many hinderances to duty, and the liability to sin is great. There is moral darkness, spir- itual apathy, a strong tendency to evil, and the incom- ing of much temptation. We deeply need the moral sanctions of law in the promise of good and the immi- nence of penalty. And however defective the virtue wrought merely under the influence of such motives, they are clearly necessary to the ordinary morality of life. Whether in view of human or divine law, or of (58 Necessity foe Atonement the history of the race, every candid man must confess the necessity of such support to the social and public morality, and that without it there could be no true civil life. It was in the conviction of such a truth that the ancient sages asserted the necessity of religion to the life of the State and the well-being of society, and that the ancient lawgivers and rulers maintained relig- ious institutions and services for the sake of the support which the expectation of rewards in a future state gave to law and duty in the present life. 1 And for us as a race there is the profoundest need of penalty as a fact of law. With the vicious, as the many would be with- out the law as a school-master, the imminence of penalty is a far weightier sanction of law than the promise of reward. 3. Divi?ie Apportionment of Rewards. — It is the pre- rogative of the divine Ruler to determine the rewards of human conduct. No other can determine them either rightfully or wisely. Specially are we void of both the prerogative and the capacity for their proper apportionment. Even on the plane of secular duties and interests, and with the gathered experience of ages, questions of penalty are still the perplexing problems of the most highly civilized States. And surely we should not assume a capacity for the adjustment of law and its rewards to the requirements of the divine gov- ernment. But God comprehends the whole question, and has full prerogative in its decisions. He knows what measure of rewards is befitting his justice and 1 Bishop Warburton : " The Divine Legation of Moses ; " books ii, iii. in Moral Government. 69 goodness, and required by the interests of his moral government. And, accordingly, he has given us the law of our duty, with its announced rewards of obe- dience and sin. III. Measure of Penalty. 1, No Arbitrary Appointment. — God determines the measure of penalty, but not arbitrarily. His infinite sovereignty asserts no disregard of the principles of justice, nor of the rights and interests of his subjects. He is a wise and good Sovereign, as he is a just and holy one. 2. Determining Laws : — i. The Demerit of Sin. — Sin has intrinsic demerit. It deserves to be punished. And God has the exact measure of its desert. Whether divine justice must, in the obligation of judicial rectitude, punish sin in the full measure of its demerit, we shall have a more ap- propriate place to inquire. But so far penalty may be carried. Divine justice, in its distinctive retributive function, has no reason for pause short of this. In its own free course it would so punish all sin. But justice cannot carry its penalties beyond the demerit of sin. Nor can it suffer any interests of moral government to carry them beyond this limit. Nay, punishment cannot go beyond. Whatever transcends the intrinsic demerit of sin ceases in all that transcendence to be punishment. Hence, while the inherent turpitude of sin is the real and only ground of punishment, its own measure is a limitation of the penalty of law. ii. The Hector al Function of Penalty. — It is an impor- 70 Necessity fob Atonemeni tant office of penalty to conserve the interests of tLe government. And we here use the term government, not in any ideal or abstract sense, but as including the divine Sovereign ruling in its administration, and the moral beings over whom he rules. The rights and glory of God are concerned: the profoundest inter- ests of men are concerned. So far we may speak with certainty, however it may be with other orders of moral beings. Hence the rectoral function of penalty is a most important one. Its imjjortance rises in the meas- ure of the interests which it must conserve. It must fulfill its rectoral office specially as a restraint upon sin. It must, therefore, be wisely adjusted in its measure to this specific end. Two facts condition its restraining force: one, the strength of our tendency to sin; the other, the tone of our motivity to penalty as an impending infliction. Both of these facts deeply concern the measure of penalty required by the highest interests of moral government. With a strong tend- ency to sin, and a feeble motivity to the imminence of penalty — facts so broadly and deeply written in human history — penalties must be the severer. The interests of moral government may require them even in the full measure of the demerit of sin. Up to this limit, whatever God may see to be requisite to these interests will not fail of his appointment as the penalty of sin All the fundamental principles which determine his in- stitution of the wisest and best government must so determine him respecting the measure of penalty. in Moral Government. 71 IV. Necessity for Penalty. We do uot allege such a necessity for penalty as arises in physical causation. The physical evil and moral wretchedness which follow upon our sinful con* duct, but really as consequent to our constitution and relations, are not strictly of the nature of punishment, thougli such is a very common view. That sin brings misery is in the order of the divine constitution of things. It is not clear that there could be such a con- stitution of moral beings that suffering would not fol- low upon sin. Indeed, the contrary is manifest. But what so follows as a natural result, though in an order of things divinely constituted, is not strictly penal. Such naturally -consequent evil may have in the divine plan an important ministry in the economy of moral government. But punishment, strictly, is a divine in- fliction of penalty upon sin in the order of a judicial administration. The necessity for penalty, therefore, is not from necessary causation, but from sufficient moral grounds. Penalty has such a necessity in the in- terest of moral government, except as its office may be fulfilled by some substitutional measure. In the moral realm there is a divine moral Ruler; and the vital truth of the present question must be viewed in the light of his perfections and rectoral relations. In such light the moral necessity for penalty is manifest. 1. From its Rectoral Office. — Omitting other things for the present, penalty has a necessary office in the good of moral government. Justice itself is directly 72 Necessity for Atonement concerned. Nor is any requirement of justice more imperative. The honor and authority of government must be maintained for the sake of the divine Ruler therein, and for the sake of the moral beings over whom he rules. Sin must be restrained and moral order main- tained for the honor of God and the good of moral be- ings. The innocent must be protected against injury and wrong. Justice cannot overlook these profound interests. In such neglect it would cease to be justice. It must sacredly guard them. A necessary power for their protection lies in its penalty. This it may not omit, except through some measure equally fulfilling the same rectoral office, while forgiveness is granted to re- penting sinners. 2. From the Divine Holiness.— God, as a perfectly holy being, must give support to righteousness, and place barriers in the way of sin. He must seek, in the use of all proper means, the prevention or utmost restraint of sin. But in the moral state of humanity penalty is a necessary force for such limitation. Lift the restraint of its imminence from the soul and con- science of men, and, wicked as they now are, they would be immensely worse. Even a presumptive hope of impunity emboldens cm. The divine forbearance in the deferment of merited punishment is made the oc- casion of a deeper impenitence, and a more persistent impiety : " Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil." ' And a re- leasement from all amenability to penalty would bo to 1 Ecclesiastes 8 : 11. in Moral Government. 73 many a divine license to the freest vicious indulgence. The divine holiness, therefore, must require the re- straint of sin through the ministry of penalty, except as the interest of righteousness may be protected through some other means. 3 From the Divine Goodness. — Nor less must the divine goodness support the punitive office of justice. Sin brings misery. It must bring misery, even in the absence of all infliction of penalty. The race would be far more wretched in the absence of all penalty than it is under an amenability to its rectoral inflic- tions. While, therefore, God punishes with reluc- tance, and with profound sympathy for the suffering sinner, yet, as a God of love, he must maintain the office of merited penalty in the interest of human hap- piness. The only ground of its surrender, even on the part of the divine goodness, must be found in some vicarious measure equally answering the same end. 4. A Meal Necessity for Atonement. — The logical result is, the necessity for an atonement. Without such a provision sinners cannot be forgiven and saved. The impossibility is concluded by the facts and princi- ples which this chapter unfolds. The necessity for the redemptive mediation of Christ lies ultimately in the perfections of God as moral Ruler. It is, therefore, most imperative. 5. Nature of the Atonement Indicated. — We have not yet reached the place for the more formal discussion of the true theory of atonement; yet certain facts and principles have already come into view which so clearly 74 Necessity for Atonement indicate its nature, that their doctrinal meaning may properly be noted here. We have the truth of a divine moral government as the ground-fact in the necessity for an atonement. We have found the facts and principles of such a gov- ernment strongly affirmative of this necessity. Thoy thus respond to the explicit affirmations of Scripture thereon. Further, we have found this necessity to be grounded in the profoundest interests of moral govern- ment, for the protection of which the penalties of the divine justice have a necessary function. Here we have the real hinderance to a mere administrative for- giveness, and, therefore, the real necessity for an atonement. The true office of atonement follows ac- cordingly. The vicarious sufferings of Christ answer for the obligation of justice and the office of penalty in the interest of moral government, so that such interest does not suffer through the forgiveness of sin. This is, however, not the whole service of the redemptive medi- ation of Christ, but a chief fact in its more specific office, and one answering to the deepest necessity foi an atonement. The nature of the atonement is thus determined. The vicarious sufferings of Christ are a provisory sub- stitute for penalty, and not the actual punishment of sin. He is not such a substitute in penalty as to pre- serve the same retributive administration of justice as in the actual punishment of sinners. The sufferings of Christ, endured for us as sinners, so fulfill the obliga- tion of justice and the office of penalty in the interest of moral government as to render forgiveness, od in MoRAx Government. 75 proper conditions, entirely consistent therewith. Such is the nature of the atonement. Such a view fully answers to the correlate relation of God and men as Sovereign and subjects, and to the facts of their sinfulness and subjection to his righteous displeasure and judicial condemnation. Sin offends his justice and love, incurs his righteous displeasure, and constitutes in them punitive desert. Such are the facts which the Scriptures so fully recognize. And God, as a righteous Ruler, must inflict merited penalty upon sin, not, indeed, in the gratification of any mere personal resentment, nor in the satisfaction of an absolute re- tributive justice, but in the interest of moral govern- ment, or find some rectorally compensatory measure for the remission of penalty. Such a measure there is in the redemptive mediation of Christ. The conclusion gives us an atonement, not by an absolute substitution in punishment, but by a provisory substitution in suf- fering. 76 Schemes Without Atonement. CHAPTER IV. SCHEMES WITHOUT ATONEMENT. QOME hold the fact of salvation who yet deny a vicarious atonement. Such consistently deny its necessity. There is, in their view, no element of di- vine justice, nor interest of moral government, which makes it necessary. Sin may be forgiven, or ultimate salvation attained without it. These great blessings have other grounds or modes. In the order of this position, and as consistency requires, certain grounds or modes are alleged as entirely sufficient for our forgive- ness or future happiness. Thus we have schemes of salvation without an atonement in Christ, and in the denial of its necessity. It may be proper to test such schemes. I. After the Penalty. Universalism and Calvinism differ widely in their completed systems — if we may speak of the former as a system. They are infinitely apart respecting the demerit of sin and the measure of its merited penalty. Yet the two are at one in the cardinal principle that sin must be punished according to its desert. We speak of these systems in their more regular form, not in all their phases. But such a principle in Universalism, as in any non-atonement scheme, gives no place for sal- vation. After the Penary. 77 1. Solvation Excluded. — In any true sense of the term, salvation is possible only as a real forgiveness of sin, or its substitutional punishment, is possible. Where the penalty is fully suffered by the offender, as Uni- versalism asserts it must be, there is no salvation. When a criminal has suffered the full penalty awarded him, his discharge is no matter of grace, and his further pun- ishment would be an injustice. There is neither for- giveness nor salvation in his releasement. On the scheme of Universalism, the same is true in every in- stance of divine penalty. Such a scheme is false to the clearly revealed fact of forgiveness; false to the soteriology of the Scriptures. The fact is deeply wrought into the Gospel of Christ that he is a Saviour through the forgiveness of sin; a Saviour from the punishment of sin; and such a Saviour through an atonement in his blood. These facts have been set forth and verified by the Scriptures, and need not here be repeated. 2. Final Happiness not a Salvation. — The denial of ultimate happiness as a salvation is a logical sequence of this scheme. The same is true whether merited punishment is limited to this life or continues for a greater or less time in the next. There is no salva- tion in the termination of such a punishment, whether in the present or future world. Justice has no fur- ther penal claim. And while the happiness then be- ginning and flowing on forever might be far above any merit in us, still it would not be a salvation. Certain- ly it would be no such a salvation as the Scriptures reveal in Christ. In the truest and deepest sense fu- 78 Schemes Without Atonement. ture happiness is a salvation through his atonement. 1 Hence the scheme which precludes this fact cannot be true. 3. Impossible in Endless Penalty. — A scheme of ulti« mate and endless happiness, after a full person il satis- faction of justice in penalty, must limit the duration of punishment, however long it may continue in a fu- ture state. If penalty be eternal, there can be no after- state of happiness. Here arises a great question, the discussion of which would lead us quite aside from the subject in hand. We simply note in passing, that the Scriptures express the duration of penalty in terms most significant of its eternity. What seems specially decisive is, that it is so expressed when placed in im- mediate contrast with the endless reward of the right- eous: "And these shall go away into everlasting pun- ishment: but the righteous into life eternal." 2 The same original word — aluviov — expresses the duration in the two cases; and there is no more apparent reason for its limitation in the former than in the latter. In such a destiny on account of sin there can be no state of happiness after the penalty. Nor can the necessity for an atonement be so set aside. H. In Sovereign Forgiveness. The necessity for an atonement is denied on the as sumption that God, in mere sovereignty or on a merely personal disposition of kindness, and without regard to 1 John 3 : 14-16 ; 6 : 47-51 ; 10 : 27, 28 ; Rom. 5 : 20, 21 ; 6 : 23 ; 2 Tim. 2: 10; Heb. 5 : 9; 9: 15; 1 Pet. 5: 10; Rev. 5: 9, 10; 7 : 14-17. a Matt. 25 : 46. In Sovereign Forgiveness. 79 the ends of justice in the interest of moral government, may and doe3 freely forgive sin. There are many ob- jections to this view, and such as entirely discredit it. 1. An Assumption against Facts. — That God for- gives and saves sinners on a mere arbitrary sovereignty or pleasure, and without regard to the requirements of moral government, is without proof, and the sheerest assumption. Moreover, the facts of a providential his- tory, now stretching away through many centuries, are full in its contradiction. Were the mere pleasure of God, as a kindly personal disposition, his only law, as this position assumes, there would be no instance of punishment. But there are many such. No one can rationally deny it. Now these facts are contradictory to such a mode of forgiveness. As the generations press to their altars with conscience of sin and with sacrifices of atonement, the voice of humanity, in the deepest utterances of its religious consciousness, pro- nounces against it. Revelation, in words the most expli- cit and emphatic, confirms the judgment of humanity. 2. Contrary to Divine Government. — There is a moral government. There is such a government as divinely instituted. It is without any provision for a mere ad- ministrative forgiveness. Nor can it admit any such forgiveness, because contrary to its own principles anrl measures. God, in full view of our moral state, and with infinite regard for our good, has instituted his government in adjustment to our duty and welfare. Penalty itself arises out of the requirement and inter- est of moral government. Hence its suspension with- out regard to any new provision would be contrary to 80 Schemes Without Atonement. government as divinely instituted, and also to the di- vine perfections in so ordering its provisions. Farther, it would set the divine administration in direct oppo- sition to the divine word. In clearest terms God has announced the penalties of sin. Now it is presumed that lie will sovereignly interfere, and, without regard to any new provision, grant a universal forgiveness. Surely it is a bold assumption that God will so contra- dict himself, and set his administration against his own law. 3. Subversive of all Government.— If forgiveness is so granted it must be universal. There could be no other law of salvation. And, otherwise, it would nei- ther answer for our need nor for the divine impartial- ity. But with such universal forgiveness government really no longer exists. Justice makes no practical dis- tinction between obedience and sin. A law of duty without a penalty for transgression is a mere advisory rule of life, and, for us, void of neces- sary enforcing sanction. It would virtually say to every man, Do as you please; when it is certain that most men would please to do wrong, and moral ruin be the result. How long could civil government be thus maintained ? A partial uncertainty of penalty, a pre- sumptive hope of impunity, emboldens crime. The license of a universal forgiveness would open the flood- gates of evil and hasten the social and political ruin. As a race we are even more propense to the disre- gard of moral duty and to sin against God. It may be claimed, and freely granted, that the grace of divine forgiveness is a most weighty reason for grateful piety. Through Repentance. 81 But the common moral apathy would be insensible to its persuasive force. Facts clearly show that with most men the divine goodness pleads in vain. Even the cross, with the admission of its atoning love, so pleads in vain. Delays of punishment, with salvation for their end, are perverted to a more persistent evil doing. For such a race the free remission of all penalty would be subversive of all government, and whelm in ruin the profound moral interests which the divine government must conserve. Such inevitable consequences utterly discredit the assumption of forgiveness and salvation on mere sovereignty. III. Through Repentance. It is specially urged that repentance is a proper and entirely sufficient ground of forgiveness, and, hence, that there is no necessity for an atonement. This is a common position with Rationalistic schemes. 1. Repentance Necessary. — The necessity for a true repentance, in order to forgiveness and salvation, is not only conceded, but firmly maintained in any proper doctrine of atonement. No provision of a redemptive economy could supersede this necessity. Impenitence after sinning is self -justification, and the very spirit of rebellion; while penitence is the only self-condemnation, and the only return to obedience. There must, there- fore, be a genuine repentance. There can be neithei forgiveness nor any real redemption from sin without it. 2. Only Kind Naturally Possible. — The logic of this question will not concede the gratuitous assumption of a true repentance as possible in the resources of our 82 Schemes Without Atonement. own nature. A soul with the disabilities of depravity, and under the power of sin, cannot so repent. This ac- cords with the facts of our moral condition as clearly given in the Scriptures, and also with a common expe- rience and observation. There is a certain kind of re- pentance within our own power. We instinctively shrink from punishment, and, therefore, necessarily regret the sins which expose us to its infliction. But such regret implies no true sense of sin, and constitutes no necessary repentance. It is merely what the Script- ures designate as the sorrow of the world working death, and so discriminate it from a true godly sorrow for sin, working repentance unto salvation. 1 The former repentance, and the only kind naturally possi- ble, is no proper ground of forgiveness. Nor has it any true redemptive power in the moral life. 3. Such Repentance Inevitable. — As the product of an indestructible, element of our mental constitution, such a repentance is inevitable, and hence must be universal. As we necessarily shrink from penalty, so we necessa- rily regret the evil deeds which subject us to its inflic- tion. But what so arises naturally, and without any element of true contrition, can be no sufficient ground of forgiveness. Besides, as a necessary product, and therefore universal, it would involve a universal for- giveness. The result would be the subversion ol all government, just as on a universal sovereign forgive- ness. With such a policy no civil government could be maintained. Nor could a divine moral government be so maintained. »2Ck)r. 1: 9, 10. Through Repentance. 83 Nor is there validity in any rejoinder, that as the Gospel freely offers forgiveness on a repentance pos- sible to all, it might hence be universal. This is true, but only in an economy of grace which provides for a true repentance, and gives to the ministry of forgive- ness the moral support of the redemptive mediation of Christ. 4. Sin Unrealized. — In the repentance naturally pos- sible, sin is neither felt nor confessed, in a true sense of its intrinsic evil, but only selfishly, on account of its results in personal suffering. It, therefore, can have no real redemptive or reformative power in the moral life. And even were forgiveness permissible on the ground of so defective a repentance, a true salvation is not so possible. Forgiveness so easily granted never could bring the turpitude of sin home to the moral consciousness. To this extent would be the loss of moral benefit. The intenser the sense of sin, and the profounder the grateful love for the mercy of forgive- ness, the more thorough is the moral recovery and salvation. It is easy to decide where there are such experiences. They are realized only through the help- ing and forgiving grace of redemption. As souls gather around the cross, they have the deepest contrition for sin and the most grateful love for the gracious forgive- ness. 1 Innumerable facts of religious experience so witness. And even if we could set aside the deeper uecessity for an atonement, there is yet a profound moral necessity for the redemptive mediation of Christ in order to the moral recovery and salvation of the soul. 1 Ullman : " The Sinlessness of Jesus," p. 251. 84 Schemes Without Atonement. 5. True Repentance only by Grace. — The moral disa- bilities consequent upon depravity and sin render a true repentance impossible in the resources of our own nature. Such a state is one of spiritual blindness, in- sensibility, impotence, death. So the Scriptures repre- sent it. 1 Hence, they attribute a genuine repentance, both in its privilege and possibility, to the grace of the atonement and the agency of the Holy Spirit so pro- cured. Thus it behooved Christ to suffer and to rise again, that repentance and remission of sins might be preached in his name. And a special office of the Holy Spirit, in a mission provided through the redemptive mediation of Christ, is to bring the sense of sin home to the conscience in a conviction necessary to a true repentance. So Christ, having redeemed us with his blood, is exalted a Prince and a Saviour to give repent- ance and remission of sins. 3 The gracious ability and disposition to a true repent- ance are through the evangelical mission of the Spirit. Only thus have we an explanation of the mighty work wrought on that memorable day of Pentecost. The Spirit was shed forth, not only upon the apostles in the power of preaching, but also upon the people in the power of religious conviction. And no one who de- nies this mission of the Spirit as a procurement of the redemptive mediation of Christ, can account for the converting power of the Gospel on this day of Pente- cost, or for the work of religious revival in the history of Christianity. Hence it is an utterly futile attempt 1 John 6: 44; Horn. 5: 6; 8: 3,4; Eph. 2: 1,2; 4: 18; CoL 2: 13. * Luke 24: 46, 47 ; John 16: 7-11; Acts 6: 31. Special Facts. 85 to supersede the necessity for an atonement with the sufficiency of repentance, while the repentance itself i^ possible only through the grace of the atonement. 1 IV Special Facts. There are a few facts specially urged against the necessity for an atonement which should have a brief notice. They are such as may be presented in a plau- sible light, but are without logical force as urged in the argument. 1. Forgiving one Another. — We are required to for- give one another, and without any regard to an atone- ment. Now it is claimed, that if God requires us so to forgive, he will himself thus forgive. 2 Respecting our own duty no issue is made. Such a requirement is clearly given in the Scriptures. 3 But there is nothing, either in the nature or the manner of it, which furnishes any ground for the inference that the divine forgive- ness is without regard to an atonement. Indeed, one of the texts given in the reference, and which Wor- 1 On the insufficiency of repentance as a ground of forgiveness : Bishop Butler: "Analogy of Religion," part ii, chap, v, IV, V; Magec : "Atonement and Sacrifice," dissertations iv, v ; Richard Watson : "Theological Institutes," vol. ii, pp. 96-102; Joseph Gilbert: "The Christian Atonement," pp. 217, 466; Marshal Randies: "Substitu- tion : Atonement," pp. 179-186. Any argument in these works pro- ceeding on the ground of an absolute necessity for penal satis- faction, we think invalid. But there is little of this, as neither of these authors represents a doctrine of atonement grounded in such a principle. 1 Worcester : " The Atoning Sacrifice," pp. 121-129. • Matt. 18: 21, 22; Eph. 4; 32; Col. 3: 13. 86 Schemes Without Atonement. cester cites for his position, is entirely to the contrary. " Forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake nath forgiven you." Account is also made of texts in which there is a coupling of our forgiving with the divine forgiving. ii we forgive, we shall be forgiven ; if we forgive not, we shall not be forgiven. 1 But the matter is still our duty of forgiving one another, accompanied, indeed, with its conditional relation to the divine forgiveness, but with no intimation that this is without regard to the atonement in Christ. There is another view of this case, and decisive against the inference adverse to the necessity for an atonement. This duty of forgiveness is the duty of private persons simply, and without any rectoral pre- rogative or obligation. One must so forgive, as the offense concerns himself only. Even the Christian ruler must so forgive. But who ever thinks of his car- rying this duty into his administration? When the offense is a crime in the law it has public relations, and he has rectoral obligations in the case. What he may and should do in a merely private relation he must not do as a minister of the law. God is moral ruler. Hence our forgiving one another has no such analogy to the divine forgiveness as to be the ground of an in- ference adverse to the necessity for an atonement. 2. Parental Forgiveness. — There is properly such a forgiveness, yet there must be a limit even here, the disregard of which brings serious evil. Besides, the family circle is small, and rather private than public in 1 Matt. 6: 12, 14, 15; Luke 6: 3t. Special Facts. 87 its economy. It is constituted in peculiarly intimate and affectionate relations. It is, therefore, eminently a sphere for governing through the moral influences hence arising, or so rendered possible. But what may be fitting here is wholly inadmissible in a government of broad domain, and conditioned by very different influences and tendencies. The economy of the family will not answer for the government of the State, much less for the divine government of the world or the universe. God is ruler in a universal moral realm, and no propriety of mere parental forgiveness can prove that he may consistently forgive without an atone- ment. 3. Parable of the Prodigal JSon. — The attempt to press this beautiful parable into the service of anti- atonement schemes is in the natural movement of Ra- tionalistic thought. "It is remarkable how perfectly this parable precludes every idea of the necessity of vicarious suffering, in order to the pardon of the peni- tent sinner. Had it been the special purpose of our Lord to provide an antidote for such a doctrine, it is difficult to conceive what could have been devised bet- ter adapted to that end." ' Even Mr. Chubb, certainly without much sympathy with Christianity, has a trea- tise on this parable, in which he insists that by special design it teaches the sufficiency of repentance as the ground of forgiveness ; that the free and gracious for- giveness of this father exemplifies the free and gracious forgiveness of the heavenly Father; and that such is at once the dictate of reason and the Gospel of Christ. 'Worcester: "The Atoning Sacrifice," p. 216. 88 Schemes Without Atonement. But it is certainly a queer kind of exegesis and logic which will claim a passage of Scripture that is entirely silent upon the atonement as decisive against both its reality and necessity. There is the greater violation of the laws of interpretation, because so many passages dc specially treat the atonement, and in a manner decisive of its reality and necessity. Besides, all the freeness of the divine forgiveness which this parable represents, and which we gratefully accept, is in the fullest con- sistency with the doctrine of a vicarious atonement. There is in this hasty and illogical method a neglect of vital and determining facts, and the assumption of a completeness of analogy which does not exist. The father in this parable appears and acts simply as such. Had he been a ruler also, and his son a criminal in the law, then, however gracious his fatherly affection, his rectoral obligations would have required recognition and observance. The vicious logic of this hasty meth- od is thus manifest. It wrongly assumes that God's sole relation to moral beings is that of Father. This error utterly vitiates the conclusion. As we have pre- viously noted, God is a moral Ruler as well as a gracious Father. Here is the vital, yet utterly neglected, distinc- tion between the earthly and the heavenly Father. And what God might do simply as a Father, he may not do as moral Ruler. Nor do these facts rob this parable of its lesson of grace. It is still true that the doctrine of atonement is in the fullest consistency with such a lesson. As this father graciously forgave his repenting son, so does God graciously forgive his repenting children. Special Facts. 89 The one fact illustrates the other. But the Scriptures decide, and reason accords therewith, that it is through the atonement in Christ that God so forgives. He had no need for an atonement in his fatherly disposition, but only in the requirements of his rectoral obligations. Now that an atonement has been made, he may and does forgive his repenting children in all the fullness of his paternal grace and love. Thus we hold the full meaning of this lesson. We admire its grace. There is one of an infinitely deeper pathos. We read it in the sacrifice of the cross, as the atoning provision of the Father's love, that he might reach us in a gracious forgiveness. 90 Theories of Atonement. CHAPTER V. THEORIES OF ATONEMENT. I. Preliminary. 1. Earlier Views. — In the earlier history of the Church the redemption in Christ was received and given forth rather as a fact than as a doctrine. It was then, as it must ever be, the central truth of the Gos- pel. Christ was every- where proclaimed as a Sav- iour through his sacrificial death. Forgiveness and sal- vation were freely offered in his blood. But the great truth had its proclamation in the terms of Scripture rather than in the formulas of doctrine. This was proper, as it was natural. It is proper now, and will ever be so. Redemption, in all the preciousness of its truth and grace, has a living association with its own Scripture terms; and a disregard for this connection could not be other than a serious detriment. There were early utterances that well accord with strictly doc- trinal views; still there was no formal construction of a doctrine. 1 Then came the singular notion of redemption by a ransom to Satan. It is not agreed when, nor with whom, it originated. Some find in Irenaeus, of the second 1 Oxenham : " Catholic Doctrine of the Atonement," pp. 112-114 • Knapp : " Christian Theology," p. 480 ; Professor Smeaton : " The Apostles' Doctrine of the Atonement," pp. 480-493 ; Dr. Dale : " The Atonement," pp. 269-278. Preliminary Facts. 91 century, its first representative, while others would en- fcirely clear him of such a view. It certainly has a representative in the very gifted but speculative Origen, of the third century. Nor did it run its career without finding entertainment in the great and versatile mind of Augustine. It flourished in the Patristic period, and held its position until the beginning of the Scholastic, or the time of Anselm, late in the eleventh century. 1 This very strange opinion was, probably, first sug- gested by certain texts of Scripture which represent us as in captivity or bondage to Satan, and our redemp- tion by Christ as a deliverance from his possession and power. These representations may have suggested the idea of a right to us in Satan — such a right as that in which slaves or captives in war were held. He had conquered us, and brought us into his possession. In the prevalent ideas of the time this was a valid and rightful possession. Hence, probably, came the idea of the death of Christ as a ransom to Satan for the cancel- ing of this claim. The view has a commercial sense — such as at a later period constituted a phase of the theory of Satisfaction, but wherein the ransom is paid to God. But this Pa- tristic scheme could not be permanent, and the marvel is that it continued so long. It is so incongruous to all cardinal facts so related to the atonement as to be de- cisive of its nature, that its dismission was a necessary result of their intelligent apprehension. 1 Hagenbach: "History of Doctrines," vol. i, pp. 192, 193; Dr Shedd: "History of Christian Doctrine," vol. ii, pp. 212-226; Oxen- ham: " The Catholic Doctrine of the Atonement," pp. 114-124. 92 Theories of Atonement. 2. Scientific Treatment. — The treatment of the atone- ment in a scientific, or more exact doctrinal manner, really began with Anselm, late in the eleventh century. His book, 1 though but a small one, is not improperly characterized as an "epoch-making book." It fell far short of controlling the doctrine of the Church on the atonement, yet it exerted a strong influence upon after discussions and opinions, whether accordant or in dis- sent. It furnished, though not in the full scientific sense usually claimed, a basis for the doctrine of Satis- faction as constructed in the Reformed soteriology. Reviews of the scheme of Anselm are so common to histories of doctrine, systems of theology, and mono- graphic discussions of atonement, that there is little need of special reference. 3 We question neither the intellectual strength nor the intense religious earnestness of Anselm. And both are deeply wrought into his " Cur Deus Homo." That the usual estimate of his work greatly exaggerates the sci- entific result we as little question. Such exaggeration is specially with his more sympathetic reviewers. Dr. Shedd may be given as an instance.* The excess of merit, especially in its scientific phase, ascribed to the treatise of Anselm, must be apparent to any one upon a proper comparison in the case. "'Cur Deus Homo." Translated in "Bib. Sacra," xi, 729 ; xii, 52 3 Ritschl : " History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation," pp. 22-35 ; Hagenbach . " History of Doctrines," vol. ii, pp. 32- 38 ; Professor Smeaton : " The Apostles' Doctrine of the Alonement," pp. 510-520; "Oxenham: " The Catholic Doctrine of the Atonement," pp. 166-174. J " History of Christian Doctrine," voL ii, pp. 273-286. Preliminary Facts. 98 Anselni emphasizes certain principles or facts as fun- damental, and makes them the ground of his doctrine of atonement. Sin is the withholding from God his rightful claim, and is to him, on account of his charac- ter, an infinite wrong. The sinner is thus brought into an infinite indebtedness to the divine honor. This debt must be paid. God must not and cannot surrender his own personal right and honor, as he would do in a mere gratuitous forgiveness. The sinner never can, by any personal conduct, satisfy this claim. Therefore he must suifer the full punishment of his sins, or, as the only alternative, satisfaction must be rendered by an- other. It follows that the only salvation is through the com- pensatory service of a divine Mediator. In this exi- gency the Son of God, in compassion for perishing sinners, was incarnated in their nature, and in their be- half gave himself up in holy obedience and suffering to the Father. On account of his theanthropic character, his obedience and death are a full compensation to the violated honor of God, and, therefore, a true and suffi- cient ground of forgiveness. 1 But neither essential element of the Satisfaction atone- ment, especially as scientifically wrought into this doc- trine, is distinctly given by Anselm. There is wanting both the fact of substitution and of imputation as scien- tifically linked in the Reformed doctrine. By common consent, the substitutive office of the act- ive obedience of Christ is not in the scheme of Anselm. 1 Neander: "History of the Church," vol. iv, pp. 498, 499; Knapp: " Christian Theology," p. 402. 94 Theories of Atonement. This view was first opened by Thomas Aquinas, but long waited for its completion. 1 Nor did Anselm maintain the distinct view of penal substitution in redemption. He is so credited, but when interpreted after the ideas so fully wrought into the Reformed soteriology. Certain avowed principles re- specting the nature of sin and the necessity for divine satisfaction, in case of forgiveness, might imply a penal substitution, and do so imply in the doctrine of Satis- faction—a fact which gives occasion and currency to such interpretation of Anselm. But he never gave them such a meaning, nor found in penal substitution their necessary implication. He does assert that pun- ishment or satisfaction must follow every sin : "Necesse est ut omne peccatum satisf actio ant poena sequatur." 2 Here, however, punishment and satisfaction are dis- criminated and taken as alternately necessary, while, in the doctrine of Satisfaction the punishment of sin has no alternative. It is the only possible satisfaction of justice, and the two terms are really one in meaning; the ministry of justice varying only by an exchange of penal subjects, not in the execution of penalty. An- selm propounded no such doctrine of satisfaction by penal substitution. Nor are we without the support of good authority in so writing. 8 Anselm represents the mediation of Christ in holy Dr. Shedd: "History of Christian Doctrine," vol. ii, pp. 309, 310. Opera Omnia, (Migne's,) Toraus Primus, 381. 8 Neander: "History of the Church," vol. iv, p. 500; Prof. Bruce: " The Humiliation of Christ," p. 353 ; Oxenham : " The Catholic Doc trine of the Atonement," p. 172. Preliminary Facts. 95 obedience and suffering as infinitely meritorious, and, therefore, as justly entitled to an infinitely great re- ward. But as an absolutely perfect being, and in pos- session of all blessedness, be was not himself properly rewardable: therefore the merited reward may, and on his preference should, go to sinners in forgiveness and salvation. 1 But the doctrine, in its principles and structure, is very different from the doctrine of Satisfac- tion, and in some of its facts really very like the Middle theory. 2 3. Popular Number of Theories. — Historically, or in popular enumeration, theories of atonement are many. Nor is this strange. The subject is one of the pro- foundest. The facts which it concerns are of stupen- dous character. Its relations to the great questions of theology and philosophy are vitally intimate. In scien- tific treatment it should be accordant to the system of doctrines into which it is wrought, and to the philos- ophy in which the system is grounded. Further, some minds are given to speculation and to fanciful views, or, for a lack of proper analysis and construction, to take some one fact — perhaps a merely incidental one — for the whole truth, while others would timidly avoid the deeper principles of the question. In such facts we have reason enough for many theories. Yet authors widely differ respecting the number Dr. Hodge enumerates five, but omits material modi- fications, while yet bringing them fully into his discus- sion. 9 Professor Crawford names thirteen theories as ' "Bibliotheca Sacra," vol. xii, pp. 80-82. a Chap, v, IT, 6. 8 "Systematic Theology," vol. II, pp. 563-589. 96 Theories op Atonement. substitutes for what he chooses to call the Catholic doc- trine — the Calvinistic doctrine of Satisfaction. Then he adds the later theory of Dr. Bushnell, thus giving us in all fifteen. 1 The Rev. A] ford Cave names as many. 2 Such large enumeration, however, is super- ficial, and made with little regard to analysis and scien- tific classification. In the same manner the number might be carried much higher, as must be apparent to any one familiar with the current of opinion on the re- demptive work of Christ. 4. Scientific Enumeration. — The truth to be inter- preted in the doctrine of atonement is, the work of Christ in our salvation. But he can save us only by some work or influence within us, or with God for us, or by both. Such work or influence, whatever it is, must an- swer to the need in the case. Some need there must be, else a redemptive mediation has neither place nor office. Many who deny an absolute need will yet admit a rel- ative one, and so urgent as to give propriety and value to a redemptive economy. Two facts vitally concern the question of need, re- specting which there should be a common agreement: one, that we are sinful and of sinful tendency; the other, that we can be saved only in a deliverance from sin and in a moral harmony with God. Without such facts there is no place for the redemptive work of Christ and no saving office which he can fulfill. What, then, is the need for the redemptive mediation of Christ in a salvation so realized ? Why cannot man 1 "The Scripture Doctrine of Atonement," pp. 285-395. * "The Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice," pp 14-16 Pbeliminaey Facts. 97 achieve his own deliverance from sin and harmonize himself with God? Why cannot God achieve both without a mediation in Christ ? Every theory of atone- ment that may properly be called such, must answer to these questions. Every theory must, in logical con- sistency, accord with the answer given. The true the- ory will be found in accord with the true answer. We thus have principles whereby we may test theo- ries, and determine their legitimacy or truth. Some give a determining position to one fact in the need, some to another. Some find all the need in the moral disabilities of man; others find all in God. Every theory must take its place in a scientific classification according to the dominant fact of need which it alleges. By these same principles we may greatly reduce the popular number of theories — such as given by Professor Crawford. Such reduction is specially possible respect- ing theories wholly grounded in certain disabilities of our moral state. The subjective facts of moral disa- bility, out of which the need for a redemptive media- tion is alleged to arise, may be numerically many, and yet so one in kind that one objective law of redemptive help will answer for all. And the law of redemptive help, though revealed in many facts, may still be one law, and working only in one mode. Hence, theories of atonement popularly numbered after such many facts, may all be reduced to unity under one generic fact of moral need, or under one generic law of redemptive help. In a like mode there may be a reduction, though not an equal one, of theories which ground the necessity for an atonement in the requirements of the divine 98 Theories of Atonement. nature. In truth, the real necessity for an atonement m Christ arises in the nature of God, especially in his justice, and gives place for only two legitimate theories — two alternatively, one of which must be the true theory. For illustration, we may apply these principles of classification and reduction to theories, popularly given as such, which are grounded simply in a need arising out of moral disabilities in us. The theories which we shall name in the illustration are in fact but different phases of the theory of Moral influence. One theory is, that Christ died as a martyr to his prophetic mission, and for the confirmation of the les- sons of moral and religious truth which he gave to the world. This is the Marturial theory. It assumes our ignorance and our need of higher spiritual truth, and offers us redemptive help in Christ only through the moral influence of the lessons of higher religious truth which he gave. In another view, the death of Christ fulfilled its chief office as subservient to his resurrection, that he might thereby more fully disclose and verify the re- ality of a future life. Such disclosure is for the sake of its helpful religious influence in the present life. Men are strongly propense to a mere secular life. 1'hey greatly need, therefore, the practical influence of a re- vealed future life. Such help Christ brings through hie resurrection, for which his death served as the pre- requisite. FTe died as an example of self-sacrificing devotion to the good of others. He so died that through the Preliminary Facts. 99 moral force of so impressive a lesson we might be led into a life of disinterested benevolence. Man is selfish and needs such an example of self-sacrificing devotion to the good of others as Christ gives. Such are the facts which this view emphasizes. But all the redemp- tive help which it represents is in the practical force of a moral lesson. In another scheme the mission and work of Christ were for the manifestation of God as among men in an incarnation; that he might "show us the Father" in his sympathy and forgiving grace. Man lacks faith, is in doubt, is in a servile fear of God, and suffers the moral paralysis of such states of mind. He needs en- couragement, assurance of the kindness and love of God. This also is redemptive help only through the salutary influence of a moral lesson. Such, indeed, are all the popularly named theories which ground the need of a mediatorial economy merely in our own moral disabilities. If any exception should be made, it is in the case of the Realistic and Mystical schemes, in which, however, the chief difference is in the mode of redemptive help. But in all that class of which we have given examples, the need, revealed in many variant facts, is yet one; and the redemptive help, coming in various forms, is operative only in one mode. Man is ignorant, and needs higher religious Inith; of feeble motivity to duty, and needs its lessons in a more impressive form; of strong secular tendency, and needs the practical force of a revealed future life; selfish, and needs the helpful example of self-sacrificing love; in a servile fear of God, and needs the assurance LOfC. 100 Theories of Atonement. of his fatherly kindness. So Christ comes in all these forms of needed help. But in the deeper sense the need is one, and the redemptive help is one. And these theories, many in popular enumeration, are all one theory — the theory of Moral influence. Its claims will be considered a little further on. For the pros ent it may be said, that no issue will be joined re- specting either such need in us or such help in Christ as here alleged. But such is not the real necessity for an atonement, and such is not the true atonement. Any further application of these principles, whereby we may test and classify the various interpretations of the redemptive mediation of Christ, will be made in connection with our review of theories. 5. Only two Theories. — In a strict or scientific sense, there are but two theories of atonement. We have seen how many in popular enumeration are reducible to the one theory of Moral influence. Others, as will appear in this review, are so void of essential facts that they hold no rightful place as theories. Nor is the scheme of Moral influence in any strict sense a theory of atonement, because it neither answers to the real necessity in the case nor admits an objective ground of forgiveness in the mediation of Christ. Nor can there be more than two theories. This limitation is determined by the law of a necessary cor- relation between the necessity for an atonement, and the nature of the atonement as answering to that necessity. This fact we have, that the vicarious suf- ferings of Christ are an objective ground of the divine forgiveness. There is a necessity for such a ground; Summary Review. 101 his sufferings are an atonement only as they answer to this necessity. Hence the nature of the atonement is determined by the nature of its necessity. Now this necessity must lie either in the requirement of an ab- solute justice which must punish sin, or in the rectoral office of justice as an obligation to conserve the interest of moral government. There can be no other neces- sity for an atonement as an objective ground of for- giveness,, Nor does any scheme of a real atonement in Christ either represent or imply another. Thus there is place for two theories, but only two. There is place for a theory of Absolute Substitution, according to which the redemptive sufferings of Christ were strictly penal, and the fulfillment of an absolute obli- gation of justice in the punishment of sin. This is the theory of Satisfaction, and answers to a necessity in the first sense given. There is also place for a theory of Conditional Substitution, according to which the redemptive sufferings of Christ were not the punish- ment of sin, but such a substitute for the rectoral of- fice of penalty as renders forgiveness, on proper con- ditions, consistent with the requirements of moral gov- ernment. This answers to a necessity in the second sense given, and accords with the deeper principles of the Governmental theory. The truth of atonement must be with the one or the other of these theories. II. Summary Review. Most of the schemes noticed in this section we call theories only after popular usage. They are not strict- j.02 Theories of Atonement. ly such. W hiie some have peculiar phases or eleuu nts, they are mostly based on the principles of the Moral theory. We shall attempt but a summary leview of them. It will suffice to notice their leading facts, to ascertain the nature of the redemption in Christ which they represent, and to determine their place in a proper classification. A few words may be added upon their respective claims. 1. Theory of Vicarious Repentance. — We may so designate a scheme specially represented by Dr. John M'Leod Campbell. It is grounded in the idea of the profoundest identification of Christ with humanity in the incarnation. Therein he takes our experiences into his own consciousness; enters into the deepest sym- pathy with us, even in our sense of sin and of the di- vine displeasure. Thus he takes upon his own soul the burden and sorrow of our sins, and makes the truest, deepest confession of their demerit and of the just displeasure of God against them. Divine justice is therewith satisfied and we are forgiven. "This con- fession, as to its own nature, must have been a perfect A men in humanity to the judgment of God ontlte sin of many "He who so responds to the divine wrath against sin, saying, ' Thou art righteous, O Lord, who judgest so,' is necessarily receiving the full apprehen- sion and realization of that wrath, as well as of that *in against which it comes into his soul and spirit, into the bosom of the divine humanity, and, so receiving it, he responds to it with a perfect response — a response from the depths of that divine humanity — and in that perfect response he absorbs it. For that response has Summary Review. 103 all the elements of a perfect repentance in humanity for all the sin of man; a perfect sorrow; a perfect con- trition; all the elements of such a repentance, and that in absolute perfection; all, except the personal conscious- ness of sin; and by that perfect response in Amen to the mind of God in relation to sin is the wrath of God lightly met, and that is accorded to divine justice which is its due and could alone satisfy it." l This scheme recognizes the demerit of sin and a retributive justice in God. It is a scheme of vicarious atonement, but in entire dissent from the theory of Sat- isfaction, as it denies even the possibility of penal sub- stitution. It clearly holds repentance to be all that justice requires as the ground of forgiveness. In this it dissents from both the Anselmic and Grotian theo- ries, and identifies itself with the Socinian. It admits no necessity for an objective atonement, either in an absolute penal justice or in the interest of moral gov- ernment. Any necessity for redemptive help which the scheme may consistently allow, must be grounded in an inability in us to a true repentance. If a vicari- ous repentance is sufficient for our forgiveness, so must be a true repentance in us. This fact also classes the scheme with the Moral theory* This special view is open to many objections. The Scriptures give it no support. It will not interpret the explicit terms of atonement, nor answer to the real aecessity for one. Nor is there less difficulty in the QOtion of a vicarious repentance than in that of vicari- ous punishment. Then the logical sequence of such a 'Dr. Campbell: " The Nature of the Atonement," pp. 118, 119. 104 Theories of Atonement. vicarious repentance, with its attributed effects, is the releasement of all from the requirement of repentance, and the unconditional forgiveness of all. 1 2. Theory of Redemption by Love. — It is according to the Scripture? that our redemption has its original in the love of God. But this fact does not determine the nature of such redemption, nor whether it be an ob- jective ground of forgiveness originating in the divine love, or merely the moral influence of its manifesta- tion in Christ, operative as a subduing and reconciling power in the soul. Dr. Young is a special exponent of the latter view. There is really very little in his scheme peculiar to himself. This is specially true of its constituent facts. Any peculiarity lies rather in their combination and in the manner of their expres- sion. The author writes with perspicuity and force. His principles are clearly given. It is easy to deter- mine and classify his scheme. Certain facts are postulated respecting spiritual laws. Death is the necessary consequence of sin, as life is of holiness. The only salvation, therefore, is in the de- struction of sin as a subjective fact. This is the work of the redemption in Christ. " The laws of nature are owing solely to the will and fiat of the Creator. He ordained them, and had such been his pleasure they might have been altered in ten thousand ways. But the laws of the spiritual universe do not depend even on the highest will. The great God did not make them ; they are eternal as he is. The great God cannot repeal them ; they are immutable as he is." "Without 1 Cave : " The Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice," pp. 350-362. Summary Review. 105 aid from any quarter they avenge themselves, a ad exact, and continue without fail to exact, so long as the evil remains, the amount of penalty — visible and invisible — to the veriest jot and tittle which the deed of violation deserves." "~No term of punishment is fixed, none can be fixed. One thing, and one thing only, determines the duration of the punishment, and that is the con- tinuance of evil in the soul. The evil continuing, its attendant penalty is a necessity, which even God could not conquer." "There is one, but there is only one, way in which the tremendous doom of the sinful soul can be escaped, in consistency with the great laws of the spiritual universe. If sin were cast out, the death which issues solely from sin would be effectually pre- vented." 1 The theory of redemption is from facts so stated. There is no need of an objective ground of forgive- ness. The whole need is for a moral force working in the soul itself, and in a manner to destroy the power of subjective evil. All this is provided for in the mani- festation of the divine love in the sacrifice of the cross. Such is God's method of redemption. " By the one true sacrifice of Christ, an act of divine self-sacrifice by in- carnate, crucified love, he aims a blow at the root of evil within man's heart. . . . He breaks the hard heart by the overwhelming pressure of pure, almighty mercy, in our Lord Jesus Christ." a We specially object to the one-sided redemption so constructed. We fully accept the postulates respect- 1 John Young, LL.D.: "The Life and Light of Men," pp. 82, 85, 93, 97. " Ibid., p. 98. 106 Theories of Atonement. ing spiritual laws as involving an absolute distinction between holiness and sin; though we do not admit the extreme view of their self -execution, which might dis- pense with a moral government as under an actual divine administration. God ever rules in the moral realm, and dispenses rewards to both holiness and sin. The necessity of a deliverance from sin as a subjective evil in order to salvation, we have already affirmed. Indeed, it is a very familiar truth. And that the divine love revealed in the sacrifice of the cross has a great office in our moral reformation is also a very familiar truth. It ever finds utterance in Christian exhortation and entreaty to a new spiritual life. And it is an af- fected or mistaken originality when men give promi nence to such truths as original discoveries. In principle the scheme is one with the theory of Moral influence. The atonement is all in a power of moral motive as embodied in manifested love, and op- erative only through the soul's own cognition and mo- tivity. Like every such scheme, it utterly fails to answer to the real need of an atonement as revealed in the Scriptures and manifest in the reason of the case. It has no fair interpretation for the many Scripture texts which so directly attribute forgiveness to tb^ redemption in the blood of Christ; nor does it give any proper recognition to the mission of the Spirit through his mediation as the efficient agency in out subjective redemption from sin. 3. Self -propitiation in Self-sacrifice. — We may so for- mulate the last theory of Dr. Bushnell. In his own account it supplements rather than supersedes his for- Summary Review. 107 mer theory: " The argument of my former treatise 1 was concerned in exhibiting the work of Christ as a recon- ciling power in men. This was conceived to be the whole import and effect of it. ... I now propose to substitute for the latter half of my former treatise a different exposition; composing thus a whole of doc- trine that comprises both the reconciliation of men to God and of God to men." a He still holds the position that the main office of atonement is in its moral influ- ence with men. Now, however, he finds an element in the divine propitiation; but it is not one that identifies his scheme with either the Anselmic or Grotian atone- ment. The new theory alleges a similarity of moral senti- ment in God and men; and then, from an alleged requi- site to a thorough human forgiveness, deduces a law of the divine forgiveness. We have retributive senti- ments, disgust, and resentment against the turpitude and wrong of sin. It is admitted that these feelings have an important function in moral discipline, and that they must be treated in subservience to that end. " Filling an office so important, they must not be extirpated un- der any pretext of forgiveness. They require to be somehow mastered, and somehow to remain. And the supreme art of forgiveness will consist in find ing how to embrace the unworthy as if they were not unworthy, or how to have them still on hand when they will not suffer the forgiveness to pass. Which supreme art is the way of propitiation — always con- 1 " The Vicarious Sacrifice." 9 Dr. Buslmell: " Forgiveness and Law," p. 33. 108 Theories of Atonement. cerned in the reconciliation of moral natures separ« ated by injuries." ' What, then, is the mode of this supreme art of rec- onciliation ? What is the essential requisite to its real- ization in a free and full forgiveness ? The requirement is from the nature of the hinderance to the forgiveness in our moral resentments against sin; and hence for some measure of self-propitiation which will master these resentments, and issue in a thorough forgiveness. How, then, may this self-propitiation be realized ? By some manner of self-sacrifice for the good of those against whom we have such resentments. " Suffering, in short, is with all moral natures the necessary corre- late of forgiveness. The man, that is, cannot say, * I forgive,' and have the saying end it; he must somehow atone both himself and his enemy by a painstaking, rightly so-called, that has power to recast the terms of their relationship." a Such is the requisite to forgive- ness ; some personal sacrifice for the good of the of- fender, and not only as a power of moral influence with him but also as a necessary self-propitiation toward him in the party offended. Such is the law of human forgiveness. Then this same law is applied to the divine forgive- ness. It is so applied on the ground of a " grand anal- ogy, or almost identity, that subsists between our moral nature and that of God; so that our pathologies and those of God make faithful answer to each other, and he is brought so close to us that almost any thing that occurs in the workings or exigencies of our moral in- Dr. Bushnell : " Forgiveness and Law," p. 38. a Ibid., pp. 48, 49 Summary Review. 109 stincts may even be expected in his." ! It is hence con- cluded that God has such hinderance to forgiveness in his moral resentments against sin as we have, and, there- fore, requires the same measure of self-propitiation. He forgives just as we do. " One kind of forgiveness matches and interprets the other, for they have a com- mon property. They come to the same point when they are genuine, and require also exactly the same prepara- tions and conditions precedent." 2 So God must pro- pitiate himself to forgiveness in cost and suffering for our good. This he did in the sacrifice of the cross. Therein we behold " that sublime act of cost, in which God has bent himself downward, in loss and sorrow, over the hard face of sin, to say, and saying to make good, ' Thy sins are forgiven thee.' " 8 Many of these facts might be admitted without ac- cepting the doctrine of atonement thereon constructed. The retributive sentiment is with us an original fact, and in its own nature a hinderance to forgiveness. There are resentments against injury and wrong which may strengthen the hinderance. But this law is with- out uniformity. The retributive feeling rarely exists alone. It is usually in association with other feelings which may either greatly hinder or greatly help any disposition to forgiveness. In a cruel, hard nature the associated feelings may co-operate with the retributive sentiment to prevent all disposition to forgiveness, and equally to prevent all acts of personal kindness which might placate the vindictive resentment; while the 1 Dr. Bushnell: " Forgivei? jss and Law," p. 35. 2 Ibid., p. 35. 8 Ibid., p. 73. S 110 Theories op Atonement. tendencies of a generous, kindly nature may be helpful to a forgiving disposition. There are gracious, loving natures, ever ready with a full forgiveness without any self-atonement in charities to the offender going before. The more is this true as the soul is the more deeply imbued with the divine love. Now the multiformity and contrariety of such facts in men deny to Dr. Bushnell the analogy from which he concludes the necessary means of the divine propi- tiation and forgiveness. Self -propitiation in a sacri- ficing charity to the offender is not "with all moral natures the necessary correlate of forgiveness." And with error in the premise, the conclusion is fallacious. But were it even true that this is the only law of for- giveness with men, it would not hence follow that such is the only law of forgiveness with God. It should be distinctly noted that here we have no concern with any requirement of divine justice as main- tained either in the Satisfaction theory or in the Rec- toral. Dr. Bushnell rejects both, with all that is vital in them. Nor does he admit any necessity for an atonement on the ground of either. In his scheme the necessity lies in a personal disposition of God as a re- sentment against the injury and wrong of sin. It is not in the interest of our criticism upon this view to deny all hinderance in the divine resentment against sin to a propitious disposition ; but we confi- dently affirm such a transcendent love in God as would, in the absence of all other hinderance, wait for no placation of his personal wrath in self-sacrifice, but instantly go forth to the satisfaction of its yearnings Summary Review. Ill m the freest, fullest forgiveness. If men imbued with the divine love will so forgive, much more would the infinite love. The position has the highest a forti- ori proof. That divine love which finds its way to forgiveness through the blood of the cross, would suf- fer no delay by any personal resentment against sin requiring placation in costly ministries to the offender, The grace of redemption in the blood of Christ is in- finitely greater than the grace of forgiveness. Hence the free gift of the former in the very state of personal resentment alleged, denies the assumed hinderance therein to the freest, fullest forgiveness. 1 This scheme, therefore, does not answer to the real necessity for the redemptive mediation of Christ. Nor does it rightly interpret the office of his sacrifice. The necessity concerns the profoundest interest of moral government, and hence arises in the very perfections of God as moral ruler, not in his personal resentment against sin. And the sacrifice of Christ answers to this necessity in atonement for sin, by rendering forgiveness consistent with the interest concerned. Such a scheme is far deeper and grander than Dr. Bushnell's. Indeed, his is neither profound nor grand. It admits no principle or interest as concerned in for- giveness, the disregard of which would be as contrary to the divine goodness as to the divine justice. In the analogy of certain "pathologies," of personal resent ment against sin, the scheme lowers God into the like- ness of men ; so that in him, as in them, the great hin- derance to forgiveness is in these same personal resent- 1 Rom. 5 : 10 ; 8:32. 112 Theories of Atonement. ments. Thus "one kind of forgiveness matches and interprets the other, for they have a common property. They come to the same point when they are genuine, and require also the same preparations and conditions precedent." The scheme commands no lofty view of the divine goodness. Nor can it give any proper sig- nificance to the sacred proclamation of the divine love as the original of the redemptive economy. Such a love is held in no bonds of personal resentment. The scheme has no profound and glorious doctrine of divine love ; and, indeed, is found on a true sounding to be shallow. Its scientific position is easily given. As compared with the Moral theory, it has a somewhat differencing element, which carries the atonement into the reconcil- iation of God. But this element is insufficient to con- stitute a really distinct theory. Negatively, and there- fore fatally, it is one with the Moral theory. It equally denies all hinderance to forgiveness in the divine jus- tice, whether in its purely retributive function or in its rectoral office. This fact thoroughly differentiates it from both the Satisfaction and Governmental theories, and closely affiliates it with the Moral scheme. 4. Realistic Theory.— Closely kindred to this is the Mystical theory, next to be noticed. Each is multi- form, and the two often coalesce. These facts, with a lack of explicit and definitive statement, render it dif- ficult either to apprehend them or to present them in a clear view. In the Realistic theory some represent Christ as the Typical or ideal man, using these terms vaguely, but Summary Review. 113 with the assumption of some manner of relationship between him and us, whereby we are the recipients of a redemptive influence working for our moral renova- tion and salvation. Others carry the conception of Christ into the notion of a generic humanity, of which we are individuated forms. The notion must answer somewhat to the Scholastic realism, or to the higher Augustinian anthropology, which identifies the human race in a real oneness with Adam. We may instance such a type as represented by Dr. Baird,** especially that by Dr. Shedd. 2 But all such realism is utterly groundless, and the sheerest assumption. Nor did the incarnation bring Christ into any real- istic connection with human nature which is in itself redeeming and saving. It did bring him into union with human nature, but into a thoroughly individuated form — as much so as that of any individual man. So far from such a realistic identification, he stands apart from all human nature, except the one individuated form of his incarnation. Hence that incarnation had not in itself the efficiency of redemption, but was in order to an atonement in the death of Christ, that he might come to us severally in the grace of forgive- ness, and in the regenerating agency of the Holy Spirit. 3 Such is the Scripture doctrine of atonement and salva- tion, but which no Realism represents. 4 1 " The Elohim Revealed," pp. 133, 428, 496, 507. '"Discourses and Essays," pp. 259-261; "History of Christiaii Doctrine," vol. ii, pp. 7 7-80. »Gal. 4: 4, 5 ; Heb. 2: 14, 15. 4 Dr. Rigg: "Modern Anglican Theology," pp. 130-140; Prof Crawford: "The Scripture Doctrine of Atonement," pp. 303-318. 114 Theories of Atonement. 5. Mystical Theory.— This theory, as previously stated, is, at least in some of its facts, closely kindred to the Realistic. It is chiefly based in the idea of a real union of Christ with the human soul. In this personal union is realized his redeeming and saving efliciency. So far the theory finds salvation in a subjective sancti- tication, and makes little account of justification in the forgiveness of sin. Hence it makes slight account of an objective reconciliation in the death of Christ, in comparison of his subjective work of redemption. The weighty objection to this view is, that it gives us a one- sided soteriology. It offers the benefits of an objective atonement without the atonement itself. There is in our salvation a living union with Christ. 1 This is a truth of all evangelical theology. But in the order of nature forgiveness must precede this spiritual union. So the atonement in the blood of Christ as the only ground of forgiveness is a distinct fact from his saving union with us. Strictly, the Mystical scheme omits the atonement proper, and belongs to another part of soteriology. 8 6. Middle T/teory. — The same theory is also called the Arian — not, however, as originating with Arius, but because of an intimate association with an Arian Chris- tology. It holds that forgiveness is granted to repent- ing sinners for Christ's sake, or in view of his mediato- rial service. This is not a forgiveness on the ground of his death as a vicarious atonement for sin, but in re- 'John 15: 5, 6; Rom. 8: 10; Col. 3: 3, 4. •Dr. Hodge: "Systematic Theology," vol. 2, pp. 581-588; Prof. Bruce: "The Humiliation of Christ," pp. 342-351. Summary Review. 115 ward of his self -sacrificing service in the interest of the human race. Higher ground is thus taken than in the Moral scheme. The mediation of Christ has a higher office than a mere practical lesson: '.'Not only to give us an example; not only to assure us of remission, or to procure our Lord a commission to publish the for- giveness of sin; but, moreover, to obtain that forgive- ness by doing what God in his wisdom and goodness judged fit and expedient to be done in order to the for- giveness of sin; and without which he did not think it fit or expedient to grant the forgiveness of sin." * Yet, with all these facts, the scheme denies a proper substitutional atonement, and hence is unscriptural. It is in very thorough dissent from the theory of Satisfac- tion. In the maintenance of a fitness, or wise expedi- ency, in the mediation of Christ as the reason of forgive- ness, especially in its relation to the interest of moral government, it makes some approach toward the Rec- toral view, but in the full exposition falls far short of it. In some features it reminds one of the theory of Anselm, though the two are far from being identical. Dr. Hill reviews the theory in a clear analysis and statement, deriving his information of it from Dr. Thomas Balguy, Dr. Price, and others. 2 The treat- ment is with the characteristic fairness and perspicuity of the author. After a lucid statement of the scheme he notes its very serious defects, but at the same time regards it as a well-wrought and beautiful structure. 8 1 Dr. John Taylor: " Scripture Doctrine of Atonement," No. 152. 8 "Lectures in Divinity," pp. 422-421. 8 Dr. Buchanan: "The Doctrine of Justification," pp. 165-168. 116 Theories of Atonement. 7. Conditional Penal Substitution. — We do not here appropriate any given formula of atonement, but use terms Avhich properly designate a theory held by not a few. The view is, that the redemptive sufferings of Christ were penally endured in behalf of sinners; that as such they constitute a proper ground of forgiveness; but that the forgiveness is really conditional, as contin- gent ipon the free action of the redeemed. There is present the idea of a necessary retribution of sin, or of a vicarious punishment in order to forgiveness. Or, if there be sin, there must also be punishment: this is the radical idea. Yet the reason of this necessity, and the relation of penal substitution to forgiveness, are not giv- en with any exactness, as in the scheme of Satisfaction. The penal substitution is conditional, in the sense that the forgiveness provided is contingent upon the free action of sinners respecting the required conditions. They are free to repent and believe, and equally free not to repent and believe. In the former case they are free through enabling grace; in the latter, as not sub- ject to an irresistible power of grace. On a proper re- pentance and faith they are forgiven on the ground of Christ's vicarious punishment; but on the refusal of such terms they are answerable in penalty for then- sins, and none the less on account of his penal substitution. The scheme is a construction apparently between the Satisfaction and Governmental theories. It rejects the absolute substitution of the former, and adds the penal element to the proper conditional substitution of the latter. Such, in substance, is the theory of all who hold both Summary Review. 117 the penal quality of the redemptive suff erings of Christ and a real conditionally of forgiveness. Hence, we were entirely correct in representing it as the theory of not a few. Many leading Arminians may be classed in such a scheme; though we think it for them an un- scientific position. Arminius himself maintained both penal substitution and a real conditionality of forgive- ness. 1 Grotius held both, though with far less explicit- ness respecting the former. Some of Richard Watson's statements would assign to him the same position. It is the theory maintained in the more recent and very able work of Marshall Randies. 2 Is there room for such a scheme ? There is a broad ground of distinction between the Satisfaction and Governmental theories. But such a difference is not always room for another. Two theories may so appro- priate all possible facts and principles of the question, that the truth in the case must be with one or the other. Such are the facts respecting these two theories of atonement. Nor can a penal substitution be con- ditional. Penalty, as an instrument of justice, has only two offices: one in the punishment of sin as such, the other, in the interest of the government. And though pun- ishment is only for the sake of its rectoral end, it is none the less strictly retributive, or inflicted only on the ground of demerit. There is no other just punishment. Nor could any other fulfill its rectoral office. Then if the punisnment be inflicted upon a substitute, the sub- 1 "Writings, (Nichols',) vols, i, pp. 28, 29 ; ii, pp. 496-499. ' " Substitution ; Atonement" 118 Theories of Atonement. stitution must, in the nature of the case, be real and ab- solute. Justice can have no further retributive claim against the sinners so substituted; not any more than if they had suffered in themselves the full punishment of their sins. Here the consistency of the case is with the doctrine of Satisfaction. All so replaced by a substitute in punishment must be discharged from personal ame- nability to penalty. Hence a real conditionality of for- giveness has no consistency with penal substitution. We are fully aware that rigid Satisfactionists assert the conditionality of forgiveness. This, however, does not void the intrinsic inconsistency in the case. Nor is what they assert a real conditionality; certainly not such as Arminianism ever maintains. For instance, faith is with them the condition of forgiveness; but they really deny the contingency of faith. In their scheme, it is conditional only as precedent to forgiveness in a necessary order of facts in the process of salvation. It takes its place as a purchased benefit of redemption in the process of salvation monergistically wrought. Irre- sistible grace is efficient cause to the faith, as to every fact in the actual salvation. Christ would be wronged of his purchase were it not so wrought in every re- deemed soul. Here, indeed, is the real consistency with Satisfactionists. But with all who hold a conditional penal substitution, especially with all Arminians, for- giveness has a real conditionality. Here, indeed, is a main issue between Calvinism and Arminianism in an unended polemics of centuries. It is the historic issue of monergism and synergism. The latter, with its full meaning of conditionality in forgiveness and salvation, Summary Review. 119 is ever the unyielding and unwavering position of Arminianism. The question recurs respecting the consistency of such a conditionality with penal substitution; or whether there can be a conditional penal substitution. Nothing is gained by asserting simply the penal character of Christ's redemptive sufferings, with the omission of their strictly substitutive office. In such a view it would be impossible to show any just ground or proper end of the punishment. Sin is the only ground of just and wise punishment. Penal substitution must never depart from this principle. If Christ suffered punish- ment, our sin must have been the ground of his punish- ment. And our sin must have suffered merited pun- ishment in him. This, and only this, would answer to the idea of a necessity for punishment in the case of sin — a necessity arising in the relation of sin to a pure- ly retributive justice. There could be no pretense, even, to such a punishment, except as our sins were im- puted to Christ, and so made punishable in him. But in such a case the penal substitution is real and absolute: sin suffers its merited punishment: absolute justice receives its full retributive claim. No further penalty can fall either upon Christ or upon the sinners replaced in his penal substitution; and no more upon them than upon him. Their discharge is a requirement of justice itself. Hence there cannot be a conditional penal substitution. 8. Three Leading Theories. — We here name together the Moral, Satisfaction, and Governmental theories as the three leading ones. But we name them simply 120 Theobies of Atonement. with a view to the indication of their general character as prefatory to their more formal discussion. It is important that formulas of doctrine should con- sist of thoroughly definitive terms. This is not always an easy attainment. There is no such attainment iE these formulas of atonement. Neither gives what is cardinal in the theory which it represents, nor clearly discriminates it from the others; and it is only in their discussion that we shall ascertain their respective prin- ciples and distinctive facts. Their general sense may be very briefly given. The Moral theory regards the redemptive work of Christ as accomplished through his example and les- sons of religious truth, operative as a practical influ- ence with men. It is the narrowest and most exclusive of the deeper truths of soteriology. The theory of Satisfaction makes fundamental the satisfaction of an absolute retributive justice by the punishment of sin in Christ as the substitute of sinners in penalty. It admits the offices of atonement repre- sented by the other two theories, but as incidental. The Governmental theory gives chief prominence to the office of justice in the interest of moral govern- ment, yet holds to a proper sense of satisfaction, and gives full place to the principle of moral influence, not, however, as a constituent fact of atonement, but as a practical result of the redemptive economy. 1 1 Rev. Daniel T. Fisk, D.D. : " The Necessity of the A tenement," "Bibliotheca Sacra," April, 1861. The article of Dr. Fisk presents these three theories in a very clear view. It maintains the Govern- mental theory. Facts of the Theory. 121 CHAPTER VI. THEORY OF MORAL INFLUENCE. rnillS theory has already come into view, and more than once. It is one of the three which we pro pose to treat more fully than those previously noticed We do not concede to it a scientific position. Strictly it is not a theory of atonement ; yet it is such in popu lar enumeration and usage, and one of no little promi nence. It will, however, require no great elaboration, as we already have its principles; and especially as the theory is one of great simplicity and clearness. With all its phases, its fundamental principle is ever one, and easily apprehended. I. Facts of the Theory. 1. The Redemptive Lav). — The mediation of Christ fulfills its redemptive office in the economy of human salvation through the influence of its own lessons and motives, as practically operative upon the soul and life of men. Such is the office of his incarnation, if admit- ted; of hie example, teachings, miracles, sufferings, death, resurrection, ascension. By the lessons of truth so given and enforced it is sought to enlighten men ; to address to them higher motives to a good life ; to awaken love in grateful response to the consecration of so worthy a life to their good ; to lead them to repent- 122 Theory of Moral Influence. ance and piety through the moral force of such a man- ifestation of the love of God; to furnish them a perfect example in the life of Christ, and through his personal influence to transform them into his likeness. 1 Advocates may vary the summary of facts, as they may differ respecting the Christ, but the result is sim- ply to lessen or increase the possible moral force without any change of principle. The law of redemptive help is ever one, whether Christ be essentially divine or only human. With his divinity and incarnation the synthe- sis of facts may embody the larger force of religious motive ; but this is all the advantage from the higher Christology. Such is the moral theory of redemption. Dr. Bushnell calls it "the moral power view;" but such a formula neither alters the redemptive law nor adds to its saving efficiency. The only advantage is in a little more force of expression. 2. Socinian. — Historically, the theory synchronizes with Socinus, deceased 1604, and, in the stricter sense, originated with him. Hence it may properly be called Socinian. Abelard, following soon after Anselm, pro- pounded similar views, which were favored somewhat by Peter Lombard and others, but gave no exact con- struction tc a new theory in opposition tc the more prevalent Church doctrine. He exerted but a transient disturbing influence upon this great question, and left the Anselmic doctrine in its chief position. 5 1 Prof. Bruce: " The Humiliation of Christ," pp. 326-328. Dr. Shedd: " History of Christian Doctrine," vol. h, pp. 286-288; Dr. Cunningham: "Historical Theology," vol. ii, pp. 294-301; Dr. Hill: " Lectures in Divinity," pp. 414-422. Facts of the Theory. 123 With Socinus the Moral theory sprang naturally from his system of theology, especially from his Ohristology. In the assertion of Christ's simple humanity, doctrinal consistency required him to reject all schemes of a real objective atonement, and to interpret the mediation of Christ in accord with his own Christology. The Moral theory is the proper result. It is the scheme which his system of theology required, and the only one which it will consistently admit. Affiliated forms of Christianity — such as Unitarianism and Universalism — naturally and consistently adopt the same theory. It has a natural affinity with all forms of Rationalistic Christianity. 3. Its Dialectics.— -The Moral scheme, arising in a sys- tem of theology so diverse from the Orthodox faith, and so antagonistic itself to the Orthodox atonement, was inevitably polemic, and both defensively and of- fensively, in its methods. This naturally arose, in the first part, from the fact that the Scriptures, in what seems their obvious sense, positively affirm an objective atonement in Christ; and in the second part, from the fact that the doctrine of atonement then most prevalent was open to serious valid objections, and especially to very plausible ones. But little attempt was made to build up the new doc- trine on direct Scripture proofs. The main attempt was to set aside the Scripture proofs alleged in support of the Church doctrine. In this endeavor the new exe- gesis had little regard for well-established laws of her- meneutics. It dealt freely in captious criticism, and in the most gratuitous and forced interpretation. The 124 Theory of Moral Influence. exigency of the case required such a method. Script- are facts and utterances are so clear and emphatic in the affirmation of an objective atonement in the media- tion of Christ as the only and necessary ground of for- giveness, that the new scheme found in such a method its only possible defense against their crushing force. We have no occasion to follow the scheme in all thia exegesis. The truth of an atonement has no such exi- gency ; and the round of following would be a long and weary one : for ihe whole issue concerns other great questions of doctrine, especially of anthropology and Christology, as well as the direct question of atone- ment. These great truths are vitally related to each other. Within the sphere of reason the new scheme was bold- ly offensive in its method. Here it had more apparent strength, and could be plausible even when not really potent. But any real strength bore rather against a particular form of redemptive doctrine than against the truth itself. The array of objections, wrought in all the vigor of rhetoric and passion, is nugatory against the true doctrine — as will appear in our treatment of objections. Nor are we answerable in the case of such as are valid against a doctrine which we do not accept, although brought from a theological stand-point which we utterly reject. The scheme of Satisfaction, as con str acted in the Reformed theology, and now held as the more common Calvinistic view, is open to such objec- tion. And an objection is none the less valid because made in the interest of a scheme much further from the truth than the one against which it is alleged. Facts of the Theoby. 125 Beyond the ground of valid objection to the doc- trine of Satisfaction, Socinianism finds a sphere of plausible objection to the atonement itself. A fluency of words, even with little wealth or potency of thought, will easily declaim against its unreason, its injustice, its aspersion of the divine goodness, its implication of vindictiveness in God, its subversion of moral dis- tinctions and obligations. Very gifted minds have given to such declamation all possible force. It has the force of plausibility on false assumptions and issues, but is impotent in the light of truth. This will ap- pear in our treatment of objections to the atonement. 4. Truth of Moral Influence. — The real issue with the Socinian scheme does not concern the truth of a helpful moral influence in the economy of redemption. This any true doctrine of atonement must fully hold. The issue is against making such influence the only form and the sum of redemptive help; indeed, against making it a constituent fact of the atonement as such. The moral influence of the mediation of Christ is from its own nature and facts, and not a part or fact of the atonement itself. If, in the case of a rebellion, a son of the sovereign should, at a great sacrifice, in- terpose in such provisional measures as would render forgiveness on proper submission consistent with the interest of the sovereignty; if the sovereign should be concurring with the son in such provision; and if such grace on the part of both the sovereign and the son should be successfully pleaded with those in rebellion as a reason for submission and loyalty, it would surely be unreason to maintain that such moral influence was 9 126 Theory of Moral Influence. the whole atonement in the case. It would be unrea- son to maintain that it was any part of it. It would be equally so with the submission so induced as a necessary condition of forgiveness. The moral influ- ence in the case presupposes the atonement, and arises out of the grace of its provisions. Without such grace there can be no appeals of moral potency. The very pleas which give persuasive force to the pleading are facts of grace in an atonement previously made. Hence the practical force or moral influence of a provision of forgiveness cannot be that provision itself nor any part of it. Such are the facts respecting the atonement in Christ. Its power of moral influence lies in the infi- nite truth and grace revealed in its provisions. The Son of God, as the gift of the Father, died in atone- ment for our sins, that we might be forgiven and saved. Here is the plea of moral potency. But there can be no such plea, and, therefore, no such moral influence, without the previous fact of such an atone- ment. Hence the unreason of accounting the practical lesson, or moral influence of an atonement, the atone- ment itself, or any constituent part of it. Thus the question of a helpful practical lesson in the economy of redemption is not one respecting its reality, but one respecting its place. The doctrine of a real atonement for sin gives the fullest recognition to such a moral influence, and represents its greatest possible force. Indeed, such an influence is the very life and power of all evangelistic work. And the real moral power of the cross is with the Churches to which it is a Facts of the Theory. 127 real atonement for sin. Through all the Christian cent- uries such an atonement has been the persuasive power of the Gospel. It is the living impulsion of all the great evangelistic enterprises of to-day. And, as the history of the past throws its light upon the future, the persuasive power of the Gospel in winning the coming generations to Christ must be in the moral pathos of a real atonement in his blood. Such a doctrine of atonement embodies a power of persuasion infinitely greater than is possible to any scheme of redemptive help grounded in a Socinian Christology. In the one case, we have a divine Media- tor; in the other, a human mediator: in the one, a real atonement for sin; in the other, no atonement for sin. In the former, the divinity of Christ, his divine Sonship, his incarnation, the profoundness of his humiliation, the depth of his suffering and shame of his cross — all go into the atonement, and combine in a revelation of the divine holiness and love which embodies the high- est potency of moral influence. And we are pleased to quote and adopt a very forceful expression of the mar- velous moral power of the cross from one who himself denied an objective atonement for sin in the death of Christ, but was able to give such expression, because he accepted all the divine verities respecting Christ upon which a true doctrine is constructed: — " This is the unscrutable mystery of incarnate love ! the hidden spring of that moral power over the human heart, which, in myriads of instances, has proved irre- sistible. On the one hand, God in Christ — in Christ in his life, in Christ on the cross — is reconciling men to 128 Theory of Moral Influence. himself, and employing his mightiest instrument for re- covering, gaining back, redeeming the world. On the other hand, Christ — Christ in his life, Christ on the cross — is God impersonated, so far as a human medium and method of impersonation could reach. Christ is the nature of God, brought near and unveiled to human eyes. Christ is the heart of God laid open, that men might almost hear the beat of its unutterable throb- bings, might almost feel the rush of its mighty pulsa- tions. The Incarnate in his life and in his death, in his words and in his deeds, in his whole character, and spir- it, and work on earth, was ever unveiling the Father, and making a path for the Father into the human soul. But on the cross Christ presses into the very center of the world's heart, takes possession of it, and there, in that center, preaches, as nowhere else was possible, the gospel of God's love ! " l II. Its Refutation. No elaborate polemics is required here. We already have the facts for the refutation of this theory. These facts are of two classes: one respecting the reality of an atonement in Christ, as the objective ground of for- giveness and salvation; the other, respecting the ne- cessity for such an atonement. The former we have verified by the Scriptures; the latter, by both the Scriptures and the reason of the case. The theory of Moral influence, denying, as it does, the divine relation and office of atonement as the ground of forgiveness, 1 Dr. Young: " The Life and Light of Men," pp. 40, 41. Its Refutation. 129 and limiting the saving work of Christ to the office of a practical lesson of piety, has a most thorough refutation in these facts. We refer to them as previously given. 1 This reference might here suffice; yet it is proper to bring this theory face to face with the facts and truths whereby it has its refutation. But we do not need a formal array of all as previously maintained. Nor need they be presented just in the order then observed. The theory is disproved — 1. By the Fact of an Atonement. — The fact of an objective atonement in Christ is dependent upon the Scriptures for its revelation and proof. Even the con- ception of a scheme so stupendous in its character never could originate in any finite mind. The idea includes not only the fact of a vicarious sacrifice of Christ in our redemption, but also the vitally related truths of his divinity and incarnation. It includes, also, by nec- essary implication, the very truth of the divine trinity, and of the unity of personality in Christ as the God- man. Such truths are from above, as the redeeming Lord is, and spoken only from heaven. And as the Redeemer himself can be known only by revelation, so the full purpose of his mission in the incarnation, and the nature of his redeeming work, can be known only by revelation. But the great truths so given, and tak ing their place in vital relation to the saving work of Christ — truths of his divinity, incarnation, personality, as the God-man — clearly reveal an infinitely prof ounder purpose in his suffering and death than is fulfilled in the office of a moral lesson. And Socinianism, in all ite 1 Chapters ii, iiL 130 Theory of Moral Influence. phases, consistently rejects these divine truths in a sy8« tern of theology which maintains the Moral theory of atonement. But their rejection is not their disproof. And their truth, as given in all the clearness and author- ity of revelation, is conclusive against this theory. Then we have the fact of an atonement, not only as the logical implication of great truths so vitally con- nected with it, but also in such facts and terms of Scripture as clearly contain and directly assert it. We have the Gospel as a message of forgiveness and salvation. Such blessings are proclaimed in Christ, and in him only. They are specially offered through his sufferings and death. Here is the fact of an atone- ment. In the more specific terms, Christ, in his sufferings and death, in his very blood, is our reconciliation, our propitiation, our redemption. He is such for us as sin- ners, and as the ground of our forgiveness. These are vital facts in the economy of redemption, and the very source of its practical lesson. And how one-sided ! — indeed, how no-sided! — the scheme which accounts the lesson all, and rejects the atonement out of which it arises ! The theory of Moral influence renders no sat- isfactory account of these terms. It is powerless for their consistent interpretation. It is, therefore, a false theory. No doctrine of atonement can be true which will not fairly interpret the terms of Scripture in which it is expressed. In other terms, Christ is set forth in his death as a sacrifice for sin, and one to be interpreted in the light of the typical sacrifices appertaining to earlier economies Its Refutation. 131 of religion; in his high-priestly office offering up himself as a sacrifice for sin; in his high-priestly office in heav- en, into which he enters with his own blood, making intercession for us. These are facts of a real atonement in Christ, and conclusive against the Moral theory. 2. By its Necessity. — The necessity of an atonement in the blood of Christ as the ground of forgiveness is a truth of the Scriptures. Thus it behooved Christ to suffer and die, that repentance and remission of sins might be preached in his name. 1 There is salvation in no other. 2 If righteousness, or forgiveness, were by the law, Christ is dead in vain. 8 If righteousness, or for- giveness, were possible by any law given, then life would be by the law. 4 The same necessity for an atonement in Christ is affirmed by the requirement and necessity of faith in him as the condition of salvation. What will the Moral scheme do with such facts ? How will it interpret such texts ? It has no power fairly to dispose of them, or to interpret them consistently with its own principles. It has, therefore, no claim to rec- ognition as a true theory of atonement. And how will the Moral scheme answer for the ne- cessity of an atonement as manifest in the very reason of the case ? This necessity concerns the prof oundest interests of moral government. They require the con- servation of law. Such law requires the enforcing sanction of penalty. Hence its remission imperatively requires some provisional substitute which shall fulfill its rectoral function. The Moral scheme offers no such substitute. It must ignore the most patent facts of the 1 Luke 24 : 46, 4*7. a Acts 4:12. » Gal. 2 : 21. * Gal. 3 : 21. 132 Theoby op Moral Influence. case. It must deny the leading truths of anthropology, as clearly given in both sacred and secular history. It must attribute to forgiveness a facility and indifference consistent, somewhat, with mere personal relations, but utterly inconsistent with the interests of government ; most of all, with the requirements of the divine moral government. The Moral scheme, therefore, gives no answer to the real necessity for an atonement. Yet 6uch an answer is an imperative requirement. The scheme must be rejected. The necessity for an atone- ment is its refutation. 3. By the Peculiar Saving Work of Christ. — The theory of Moral influence, by its deepest principles, and by its very content and limitation, implies and main- tains that Christ is a Saviour in no other mode than any good man is, or may be. The good man who, by his example, religious instruction, and personal influ- ence, leads a sinner to repentance and a good life, saves him as really and fully as Christ saves any sinner, and in the very same mode. The law of salvation is iden- tical in the two cases. The mode of redemptive help is one; the saving force one. And the sole difference between Christ and any good man in saving sinners is, in the measure of religious influence which they re- spectively exert. Many special facts respecting Christ may be freely admitted. To him may be conceded a special divine commission, a superior character, higher spiritual endowment, greater gifts of religious instruc- tion, a life of matchless graces, deeds, and sacrifices; and that all combine in a potency of un equaled practi- cal force. Still, he is a Saviour in no peculiar mode, Its Refutation. 133 but only through a higher moral influence. This is the sum of his distinction. All his saving work is through a helpful religious lesson. So any good man may save sinners. And so many a good man does save many sinners, But is this all ? Is there no other distinction in favor of Christ than that of a higher moral influence prac tically operative upon men ? Is this all that the typ- ical services mean ? all that the promises and prophe- cies of a coming Messiah signify? all the meaning of the angels in the joyful announcement of the blessed Advent? all that Christ meant in the deeper utter- ances of his saving work? all that the apostles have written in the gospels and epistles? all that they ac- cepted in faith and heralded in preaching? all that the faith of the living Church rightfully embraces ? all the hope of a consciously sinful and helpless humanity leaning upon Christ for help? all the meaning and joy of the saints in the presence of the Lamb slain, as there in grateful love and gladsome song they ascribe their salvation to his blood? No, no; this is not all. There is infinitely more in the saving work of Christ. He saves us in a unique mode — one in which no other does or can; saves us through an atonement in his blood. 1 By this fact is the Moral scheme refuted. 4. Not a Theory of Atonement. — There is here no issue. The facts which we have in the refutation of this theory deny to it all rightful position as a theory of atonement. It will neither interpret the Scriptures which reveal the atonement, nor answer to the real ne- 1 Chapter ii, I, 7. 134 Theory of Moeal Influence. cessity for one. It will not admit any proper defi nition of an atonement. It is in fact set forth and maintained in the denial of one. So, by the decisioD of all vitally related facts, and by the position of its advocates, the Moral scheme is not a theory of atonement. Prefatory Questions. 135 CHAPTER VII. THEOKY OF SATISFACTION. A CAREFUL discrimination of leading theories on any great question of theology is helpful to its clearer apprehension, and to more definite doctrinal Tiiews. But such discrimination requires a careful study of the theories severally. We propose, there- fore, to give special attention to the theory of Satis- faction; and the more, as the real issue respecting the nature of the atonement is between it and the Govern- mental theory, rightly constructed. I. Prefatory. 1. Position in Theology. — The theory of Satisfaction holds a prominent place in systematic theology. Its advocates freely call it the Catholic doctrine. The his- tory of doctrines certainly records a very large dissent. Yet as the doctrine of the Calvinistic system, its prom- inence must be conceded. But even here it is only the leading view. Many Calvinists dissent; and the num- ber is growing. It is difficult, in the face of Scripture and an infinite redeeming love, to maintain the po- sition of a limited atonement; with many, impossible. But this once surrendered and a general one maintained, consistency requires another doctrine of atonement. Here is one law of a large and growing dissent of Calvinists from the doctrine of Satisfaction. 136 Theory of Satisfaction. 2. Formation. — The doctrine is not from the be ginning. With others, it has its place in the history of doctrinal construction. Nor did it reach completeness at once. It went through a long discussion, and ap- peared in different phases. The princi i>le of penal sub- stitution was settled first, though the exact nature of it is scarcely settled yet. But this was found to be in sufficient for the Reformed system. An absolute per- sonal election to eternal life requires a "finished salva tion " in Christ. And the necessity for a substitute in penalty is easily interpreted to imply the necessity for a substitute in obedience. The law is no more absolute in the demand of punishment than in the requirement of obedience. Any principles which will admit sub- stitution in the former will equally admit it in the lat- ter. And in this system Christ must take the place of the elect under the law in both facts. He must an- swer for their sin in a vicarious punishment, and for their duty of personal righteousness in a vicarious obedience. Thus the doctrine of Satisfaction found its place and full expression in the " Federal Theology," the logical outcome of the Reformed system. "Christ's atone- ment was thus the fulfillment of the federal conditions. The Father, who in every part of this great transac- tion was at once the Lawgiver and the Fountain of the covenant, insisted on the full performance of the law, and yet provided the surety, who was made under the law in the proper sense of the term. It was a true command on God's side, and a true obedience on Christ's side. He stood in our covenant, which was the law Prefatory Questions. 137 of works; that is, the law in its precepts and in its curse." ! The atonement of Satisfaction is often called the Anselmic, and is traced to the scheme of Anselm as its original. We have previously noted the insufficiency of his scheme as a scientific basis for this doctrine; and we have a more rational account of its genesis and growth as the logical requirement and product of the Calvinistic system. 3. Two Vicarious Factors. — Thus in the completed doctrine there are two elements or factors — substituted punishment and substituted obedience. Nothing less, it is claimed, will satisfy the absolute requirement of justice and law. Sin must be punished; but its pun- ishment neither supersedes nor satisfies the require- ment of perfect obedience. The elect have failed in this obedience, and never can fulfill its obligation by their own personal conduct. Hence they need a sub- stitute in obedience as much as in penalty. Christ an- swers for them in both. Such is the atonement of Satisfaction. Christ takes the place of the elect in both penalty and precept, and, as their substitute, endures the punishment which, on account of sin, they deserve, and in his obedience ful- fills the righteousness required of them. Thus justice and law are satisfied. 9 The vicarious punishment dis charges the elect from amenability to penalty on ac- Prof. Smeaton: " The Apostles' Doctrine of Atonement," p. 540. 8 Dr. Buchanan : "The Doctrine of Justification," p. 308; Dr. A. A a Hodge: "The Atonement," chap, xviii ; Dr. Shedd: "The Historv of Christian Doctrine," vol. ii, p. 341. 138 Theory of Satisfaction. count of sin, and his vicarious obedience renders them deservedly rewardable with the eternal blessedness to which they are predestinated. " The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he, through the eternal Spirit, once offered unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father; and pur- chased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inher- itance in the kingdom of heaven for all those whom the Father had given unto him." 1 4. Concerned with Penal Substitution. — In the review of this theory we shall limit the treatment to the one element of satisfaction by penal substitution. The other element properly belongs to the question of jus- tification. It really belongs to this question in the Cal- vinistic scheme; only, here the vicarious obedience of Christ is a constituent fact of the atonement itself. It answers to an absolute requirement of the divine law as really as his substituted punishment, and, by impu- tation to the elect, constitutes in them the ground of a strictly forensic justification. This is a justification by works, not in forgiveness. " If Christ fulfilled the law for us, and presents his righteousness to its demands as the basis of our justification, then are we justified by the deeds of the law, no less than if it were our own personal obedience and righteousness by which we are justified." 2 But in any view of the question, satisfao tion by obedience respects a different claim and office of justice from satisfaction by punishment. And what- 1 Westminster Confession, chap, viii, v. 1 Dr. Curry: 'Justification by Faith;" Methodist Quarterly Re- new, January, 1845, p. 22. Elements of the Theory. 139 ever reason Satisfactionists may have, as arising from their own scheme of soteriology, for the inclusion of both elements in the treatment of atonement, we have no reason for the same method in our review. In this restricted treatment we have the precedence of a mas- ter in the soteriology of Satisfaction: "By the way, ob- serve I speak only of the penalty of the law, and the passive righteousness of Christ, strictly so called. . . . What place that active righteousness of Christ hath, or what is its use in our justification, I do not now inquire, being unwilling to inmix myself unnecessarily in any controversy." * Elements of the Theory. Most of the elements of this scheme have already appeared; yet it is proper that they here be stated dis- tinctly and in order. 1. Satisfaction in Punishment. — The satisfaction of justice in its punitive demand is a cardinal fact of the theory. Indeed, it is so essential, that such satisfaction must enter into the very nature of the atonement. Both a moral influence with men and an important rectoral office are admitted, but only as incidental. Not even the latter is essential; nor has it any place in the foun- dation of the scheme. But the satisfaction of divine justice in the definite sense of the doctrine — satisfac- tion in the punishment of sin according to its demerit, and solely for that reason, is essential. It is not omit- ted in the case of the redeemed and saved, nor can it be. The atonement is in a mode to render the satisfao- ^wen: "Works," (Goold's,) vol. x, p. 442. 140 Theory of Satisfaction. tion required. Indeed, such satisfaction is the atone- ment as it respects the claim of retributive justice against the demerit of sin. 2. By a Substitute in Penalty. — In this doctrine the satisfaction is by substitutional punishment. The ab- solute necessity for the satisfaction renders this the only possible mode of redemption. Hence, it is main- tained, Christ takes the law-place of elect sinners, and suffers in their stead the penalty due to their sins, 01 such a penalty as satisfies the punitive demand of jus- tice against them. 3. Three Senses of the Substitution. — On the nature of the penal substitution, or in what sense Christ suf- fered the penalty of sin, advocates of the doctrine have not been of one mind. Indeed, it has been with them a question of diverse views, and of no little controversy. The history of the question gives us three forms of opinion. i. In Identical Penalty. — This view has such palpa- ble difficulties, that of course the thinkers of a great Christian communion could not agree in it. Yet it has its place in the history of Calvinistic soteriology; and, though now generally discarded, it is still thought wor- thy of the attention and adverse criticism of the Cal- vinistic authors holding a different view. In the time of its currency great divines were among its represent- atives; for instance, John Owen. 1 And he had a fol- 1 " That which I maintain as to this point in difference I have also made apparent. It is wholly comprised uuder these two heads — first, Christ suffered the same penalty which was in the obligation ; sec- ondly, to do so is to make payment ejusdem, and not tantidem." — Works, (Goold's,) voL x, p. 448. Elements of the Theory. 141 lowing; and such, that it is common to speak of his school. It is needless to array the many difficulties of such a view. An identical punishment by substitution is in any case psychologically impossible. What, then, must be the fact with such a substitute as Christ? Punish- nient is suffered in the consciousness of the subject. Its nature, therefore, must be largely determined by his own personal character in relation to sin and pen- alty. It is hence impossible that Christ should suffer in substitution as the actual sinner deserves to suffer, and would suffer, in his own punishment. Nor can such a principle render any explanation of the difference be- tween the redemptive sufferings of Christ as only tem- porary, and the merited punishment of sinners, as eter- nal. Words are easily uttered. Therefore it is easy to attempt a solution of the difficulty by saying that the sufferings of Christ fulfilled the legal requirement of eternal punishment, because, while temporal in fact, they were potentially or intensively eternal. But such terms have no meaning in such a use. ii. In Equal Penalty. — Christ endured penal suffer- ings equal in amount to the merited penal sufferings of all the sinners redeemed. This view, also, has its place in historic Calvinism, and a broader one than that of identical penalty. It is now generally discarded. Yet its present disrepute is not properly from any funda- mental principle. If possible and necessary, it should be permissible, on the very principle of penal substi- tution. It is rejected as impossible, or certainly not aotual, because rendered unnecessary to a sufficient 10 142 Theory of Satisfaction. atonement by the superior rank of Christ as substitute in penalty. Strange that it ever should have found favor or friend. It needs no refutation. And all friends of great doctrinal truth should be glad that now it is generally discarded. Hi. In Equivalent Penalty. — The sense is, that the penal sufferings of Christ, while far less in quantity than the merited penal sufferings of the sinners re- deemed, were yet, in quantity and quality combined, of equal value for the satisfaction of justice, and, there- fore, an equivalent substitute in the case. The higher supplementary quality is derived from the superior rank of Christ as substitute in penalty. It is as the payment of gold in the place of silver. The claim is satisfied with a reduction of quantity in proportion to the higher quality of the substitute. 1 This is now the common form of penal substitution as held in the doc- trine of Satisfaction. But justice must have penal sat- isfaction, either in the full punishment of the actual of- fender or in an equivalent punishment of his substitute. 4. Absolute Substitution. — Atonement by substitution is not a distinctive fact of the theory of Satisfaction. The Rectoral theory holds the same fact fully and firmly. Nor is an atonement by penal substitution a distinctive fact of that doctrine. Many hold such a penal substitution as, in their view, constitutes a really conditional ground of forgiveness. 8 In this scheme the redemptive sufferings of Christ were, in some sense not exactly defined, the punishment of sin; but not such a • Dr. Shedd: " Theological Essays," pp. 300, 301. • Chap, v, II, 1. Elements of the Theoey. 143 punishment that the redeemed sinner must in very jus- tice be discharged. We have previously stated the in- consistency of the position. Penal substitution and a real conditionality of forgiveness must refuse scientific fellowship. We accept, therefore, the view of Dr. A. A. Hodge, that it is " by a happy sacrifice of logic " that Arminius himself, and some of his leading follow- ers, are with the Calvinists on penal substitution; 1 only, we reject the epithet qualifying the sacrifice. We do not think it a happy sacrifice of logic on the part of an Arminian, whereby he mistakes the true nature of the atonement, and at the same time admits a principle which requires him, in consistency, to accept along with it the purely distinctive doctrines of Calvinism. But whatever the sacrifice of logic in the case, the fact of such a theory remains the same. And this fact denies to the doctrine of Satisfaction the distinctive fact of penal substitution. It hence follows that the distinctive fact of the Satis- faction theory is an absolute penal substitution ; abso- lute in the sense of a real and sufficient punishment of sin in Christ as substitute in penalty; and also in the sense of an unconditional discharge of all for whom he is such a substitute. Such a discharge follows neces- sarily from the very nature of the substitution alleged, and in the averment of the very masters in the sote riology of Satisfaction. This will appear in its phice. 1 " The Atonement," p. 14 144 Theory of Satisfaction. III. Justice and Atonement. 1. Their Relation. — Were there no justice, there could be no sin in any strict forensic sense. There could be neither guilt nor punishment. The judicial treatment of sin is from its relation to justice and law. It can neither be judicially condemned nor forgiven, except in such relation. Hence, as the atonement is the ground of the divine forgiveness, there must be a most intimate relation between it and justice. And for a true doctrine of atonement, we require a true doctrine of justice. It follows, that in any scientific treatment, the theory of atonement must accord with the doctrine of justice upon which it is constructed. The atonement of Satis- faction is exceptionally rigid in its conformity to this law. The same law is observed in the Rectoral atone- ment; yet here its relation to justice has not been as fully and exactly treated as it should be, and as it must be in order to a right construction and exposition of the doctrine. These facts require some specific state- ments respecting justice which may be appropriate here, though the fuller treatment will be in connection with the principles specially concerned in the ques- tion, as we find them in the Satisfaction and Rectoral theories. 2. Distinctions of Justice. — Technically, justice is in several kinds; but, strictly, such distinctions are from its different relations and offices rather than intrinsic to itself. Justice and Atonement. 145 i. Commutative. — Justice, in this distinction, has a commercial sense, and is specially concerned with busi- ness transactions. The rendering or requiring an exact due or equivalent, and whether in money or other commodity, is commutative justice. It has no admitted place in the atonement, except in the now generally discarded sense of identical or equal penalty. Whether that of equivalent penalty is logically clear of the prin- ciple, we may yet inquire. ii. Distributive. — This is justice in a moral and fo- rensic sense. It regards men as under moral obligation and law; as obedient or disobedient; as morally good or evil in their personal character; and is the render- ing to them reward or punishment according to their personal conduct. Some divide it into premial and punitive; but the sense is not thereby changed. Hi. Public. — Public justice, in its relation to moral government, is not a distinct kind, but simply divine justice in moral administration. It is really one with distributive justice, properly interpreted. We do not accept the interpretation of Satisfactionists. On the other hand, advocates of the Rectoral atonement have unduly lowered the truth of public justice. On a right exposition of each, the two are one. But we shall find a more appropriate place for the treatment of public justice when discussing the Governmental atonement. 1 3. Punitive Justice and Satisfaction. — Punitive jus- tice is justice in the punishment of sin, or the office 1 Dr. Wardlaw : " Systematic Theology," vol. ii, pp. 368-372 ; Owen: "A Dissertation on Divine Justice," part i, "Works, (Goold's.) vol. X. 146 Theory of Satisfaction. of which is to punish it. And punitive, as a qualifying term, best expresses that principle of justice which the theory under review claims to have been satisfied by the penal substitution of Christ. Remunerative justice has respect to obedience and its reward. The law, as its expression, requires per- fect obedience as the ground of the reward. And, on the theory of Satisfaction, Christ by his persoual obe- dience meritoriously fulfilled the law in behalf of the elect. But his righteousness so represented as an ele- ment of atonement in the satisfaction of justice, re- spects an essentially different principle from that con- cerned in his penal substitution, and, as before noted, has no proper place in the present discussion. Then the essential fact of punitive justice is, that it punishes sin according to its demerit, and on that ground ; and must none the less so punish it in the total absence of every other reason or end. Such is the justice which the theory under review claims to have been satisfied by the penal substitution of Christ. IV. Principles of the Theory. The theory of Satisfaction necessarily posits certain principles as underlying the doctrine of atonement which it maintains. They must constitute the very basis of the doctrine. Yet they require but a brief statement here, as their fuller treatment will be in con- nection with a critical testing of the theory. 1. The Demerit of Sin. — Sin has intrinsic demerit. It deserves the retribution of divine justice on account Its Principles. 147 of its intrinsic evil, and entirely irrespective of all salutary results of its punishment. We accept this principle, and in the fullest persua- sion of its truth. Nor have we any theory to con- struct upon its denial. It is a truth in fullest accord with the Holy Scriptures. Their announced penalties represent this demerit. Such penalties have no other ground in justice. And our moral consciousness, es- pecially under divine enlightenment and quickening, responds to the voice of Scripture. But the punitive demerit of sin, so given and affirmed, is in no discord with our own doctrine of atonement. 2. A Divine Punitive Justice. — There is a punitive justice in God. And it is a fact of his very nature, as specific and real as any other fact. It is no mere phase of his benevolence, nor reaction of his pity, simply, for one wronged, against the author of his wrong. God, in his very justice, condemns sin as such. Nor is such condemnation a mere judgment of the discordance of sin with his own uttered precepts, or with some ideal or impersonal law, or with the welfare of others, but the profoundest emotional reprobation of it because of its inherent evil, So we maintain. Hence we reject the view of Leib- nitz, and of all agreeing with him, "that justice is a modification of benevolence ;" * a view that has re- ceived too much favor from advocates of the Rectoral atonement. Whether the love of God is his supreme law in moral administration is really another question, and one not negatived by the truth of his justice. But Gilbert: "The Christian Atonement," p. 185. 148 Theory of Satisfaction our own moral nature, as divinely constituted, joins with the Holy Scriptures in attesting the truth of such a divine justice. Our moral reason distinguishes be- tween the turpitude of a sinful deed and the injury which it may inflict. A like injury, innocently done, awakens no such reprobation. We reprobate the in- tention of injury where the doing is hindered. Thus our moral reason witnesses for a divine justice. Such justice, in its deepest, divinest sentiment, condemns sin as such, and is a disposition to punish it. We main- tain this view. 3. Sin Ought to be Punished. — This proposition is freely affirmed, but with little regard to its proper analysis, and, therefore, with little apprehension of its meaning. A sinner may say, and with all sincerity, that he ought to be punished ; but all he means is, that he deserves to be punished. He has in mind and con- science his own demerit, and not the obligation of an- other respecting him. Often the term is used respect- ing sin in the same sense— that it deserves to be pun- ished; but this adds nothing to what we already have. The proposition is identical in meaning with a former one, which affirms the punitive desert of sin. But the term ought, as used in the theory of Satisfac- tion, must have a ground in obligation, and that obli- gation must lie upon God as moral Ruler. Such is the requirement of the theory. If sin ought to be punished, God is under obligation to punish it. Such is the in- evitable logic of the proposition. This carries Satis- factionists into a very high position, and very difficult to hold, but which, they must hold or suffer a destructive Its Peinciples. 149 breach in their line of necessary principles. For such divine obligation, whether understood as included in the meaning of the proposition or not, is a logica* im- plication and necessity of the scheme. And this obli- gation must be maintained simply on the ground of demerit in sin, and apart from all the interests of moral government But for its proper discussion the question goes forward to a critical testing of the theory of Satis- faction. 4. Penal Satisfaction a Necessity of Justice. — Sin must be punished. It must be punished on its own account, and none the less in the total absence of all salutary influence of punishment, whether upon the sinner himself or upon the public virtue and welfare. It is a necessity of judicial rectitude in God. Divine justice must have penal satisfaction. This principle it, really one with that immediately preceding. It is the last that we need name. And here we part with the theory of Satisfaction. We do not admit this principle. We reject it, not only as without evidence of its truth, but also because of evidence to the contrary. 5. The Determining Principle. — The irremissibility of penalty is the determining principle of the theory of Satisfaction. Merited penalty is absolutely irremissible on any and all grounds whatsoever. The scheme allows a commutation of persons in punishment, or will admit a substitute in place of the offender ; but such an ex- change of subjects in punishment is no omission of penalty. The offender is discharged, but his substitute suffers the deserved penalty in his stead ; or suffers, at least, its penal equivalent with the divine law. This, 150 Theory op Satisfaction indeed, is the very averment of the doctrhe. Nor ia there any omission of punishment in an exchange of measure which justice permits in view of the higher rank of the substitute. In any and every way there is, and there must be, the infliction of deserved penalty. The sinner or his substitute must be punished according to the demerit of the sin. This is the necessity for an atonement in the scheme of Satisfaction. Hence the absolute irremissibility of penalty deter- mines the atonement to be by penal substitution. There is no other possible atonement. We know and welcome the account made of the rank and worth of Christ as penal substitute ; an account logically value- less and unnecessary with the forms of identical and equal penalty, but consistent with that of equivalent penalty. But even here they are of account only as they give punitive value to his atoning sufferings ; so that, as before noted, justice is satisfied with a less quantity in proportion to the higher quality. Still it is only penal suffering that counts in this element of atonement. And the very substance of such an atone- ment is substituted punishment in satisfaction of an absolute punitive justice. V. Analytic Testing of the Theory. 1. Justice as Satisfiable. — Since it is so positively asserted that justice must have satisfaction in the punishment of sin, and since the fact itself is so essen- tial to this theory, it is well to inquire wherein, or iu what form of justice, this satisfaction may be realized. Analytically Tested. 151 Propositions given assertatively merely, may gain such currency as long to continue even unchallenged. Such, in some measure, is the fact respecting this ground- principle of the theory of Satisfaction. It has right- fully no such franchise. We shall more than challenge it Hence we raise the question respecting the penal satisfia- bleness of justice. A true answer is important; but to be given only in a correct view of cardinal facts in the case. i. Mistake Easy. — One may easily affirm the nec- essary penal satisfaction of justice without any proper analysis of the proposition, and, therefore, without any proper apprehension of its meaning, and equally with- out any ground in truth. Hence it is easy to mistake the satisfiableness of justice. Much, however, depends upon the conception of justice. If it be the concep- tion of an ideal or impersonal justice, there is little oc- casion for mistake: for however exalted we may hold it to be — even if as eternal and immutable — as above God and the law of his own righteousness in moral administration — yet, as purely ideal or impersonal, we cannot reasonably regard it as satisfiable in any real or proper sense; certainly not in any sense answering to the requirement of the Satisfaction scheme. Mistake arises with the personification of an ideal justice. When we clothe it in personal attributes — intelligence, moral reason, resentment against sin, retributive wrath —then we may regard it as satisfiable, and as really satisfied with the punishment of sin. The idea simply completes the personification. But it is as far from the reality of truth as a mere personification is from a real personality. 152 Theory op Satisfaction Hence, if we would answer truly wherein, or in what form of it, justice may be satisfied with the punish- ment of sin, we must avoid all figurative modes of thought and expression, particularly of personification, and turn from an abstract to a concrete justice — to jus tice as a personal attribute. it. Satisfiable only in Personality. — Justice has no self -personality, and no separate self -existence. Nor is it satisfiable, except as a personal attribute or in per- sonality. In speaking, as we often do, of punishment as satis- fying justice, we may have primary reference in thought to some personal injury or wrong, or to the demerit of sin, or to the legal penalty, or to the prin- ciple of justice; but satisfaction is so referable only as such conceptions represent personal sentiments of moral justice. And, strictly, the sense of satisfaction has reference solely to such personal sentiments. Without them justice can have no satisfaction in the punishment of sin, and is in no proper sense satisfiable. Hence, if in any case we assert a necessary satisfaction of justice in the punishment of sin, we assume such a punitive disposition and sense of judicial obligation in some person or persons as will render the satisfaction possible, and as will inevitably execute the deserve J penalty. There is no other law which can necessitate the punitive satisfaction of justice. Hi. True of Divine Justice. — Such are the facts of divine justice. It is not something separate or sepa- rable from God, except in abstract thought. Apart from him, it is void of all capacity for satisfaction in Analytically Tested. 153 punishment, and of all power and disposition to exact it. But justice as an attribute of God is penally satis- fiable. As such, it is no imjDersonal or abstract prin- ciple. It is more than a mere cognitive judgment; it is a mora: judgment, a condemnatory sense of sin, a moral resentment against it, a disposition to punish it. Such resentment and disposition of justice are right, as true to the demerit of sin and the divine holi- ness. Their satisfaction in the punishment of sin is the satisfaction of divine justice. Sueh is the only satisfaction. When, therefore, Satisfactionists assert a necessity for the retributive satisfaction of divine justice in the definite sense of their own doctrine, they assume such a punitive disposition in God, or such a sense of obli- gation in the requirement of judicial rectitude, as must imperatively demand the satisfaction and neces- sitate the infliction of merited penalty in its realiza- tion. There can be in the justice of God no other ne- cessitating law of penal satisfaction. 2. Question of Necessity for Pencil Satisfaction. — Must God have the satisfaction of his justice in the punishment of sin? The question seems to reach to- ward unreachable heights. But those who allege the necessity lead the way ; and if they may lead, we may follow, The real point, however, must be held in clear view. In such a question all jumbling must be care- fully avoided. Nor must we lose sight of the facts which must condition and necessitate the satisfaction of justice. Such facts have, as we have seen, full ap- plication to the divine justice. Any necessity in God 154 Theory of Satisfaction for the punitive satisfaction of his justice must arise either from his own disposition as hostile to sin, or from his sense of judicial obligation as absolutely- requiring its merited punishment. On the ground of such facts, must divine justice have retributive satis- faction ? 3. No Necessity in Divine Disposition. — Wo admit and maintain a retributive justice in God. We also as- sert a punitive disposition as a fact of his justice. It hence follows, that, so far as this disposition is con- cerned, there is a divine impulse toward the punish- ment of sin, and a divine satisfaction therein. Is this disposition such as to necessitate the satisfaction ? It should be distinctly noted, that we are here con- cerned simply with this disposition. The rectoral office and obligation of justice, and the punishment of sin, simply on the ground of its demerit as a requirement of personal rectitude in God, are questions entirely apart from the one in hand, and to be treated separately. In reasoning from a divine disposition, we must not forget that it is such, nor allege any thing respecting it inconsistent with the divine character. We may sup- pose a punitive disposition of men so vindictive and revengeful that only an insuperable hinderance would prevent its satisfaction in punishment. In a mere ques- tion of power there can be no such hinderance to the divine justice. But who would ascribe to God such a disposition as this analogy would suggest ? Its admis- sion would involve a denial of the possibility of an atonement. For such a disposition in God would nec- essarily exact penal satisfaction, and also by an equal Analytically Tested. 155 necessity exact it of the actual offender. As a personal disposition exacting personal satisfaction, it could ad- mit no substitute in penalty. Besides, such a disposi- tion is so contrary to the character of God as given in the Scriptures, that no one attempting the construction of a doctrine of atonement in the light of their teach- ing could maintain such a necessity for the punishment of sin. Apart from this special aspect of the question, and treating it simply in view of a punitive disposition in God, there is no necessity for the punishment of sin from the fact of such a disposition. There is no neces- sity in the divine nature for the satisfaction of every divine impulse or feeling. Yet only such a necessity could conclude a necessity for the satisfaction of the punitive disposition. For if there be no such necessity respecting other divine dispositions, there may be none respecting this. Besides, to assume a necessity for the satisfaction of all divine dispositions is to assume what is impossible; for in every instance of punitive satisfaction there is a sacrifice of the feeling of compassion. "For at the very instant when the immaculate holiness of God is burning with intensity, and reacting by an organic re- coil against sin, the infinite pity of God is yearning with a fathomless desire to save the transgressor from the effects of this very displeasure." x Nor is this any mere speculation or inference. Explicit words of Script- ure give the fact of this divine sacrifice. " As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of *Dr. Shedd: "Theological Essays," p. 210. 156 Theory of Satisfaction the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live." ■ " How shall I give thee up ? mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together,'* are his words of compassion over the perishing. 2 And he is declared to be " long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." 3 The cross voices the truth and depth of this compassion. The precious blood thereon shed is the down-flowing of pitying love upon guilty souls. Now in the coincidence of divine feelings, so diverse in kind, complete satisfaction is impossible. Hence, the satisfaction of justice is no necessity of a punitive dis- position in God. 4. As Concerning tlie Divine Rectitude. — We come to the gist of the question in the scheme of Satisfaction. On the punishment of sin as a requirement of the di- vine rectitude, very much is said assertatively. So far, a mere denial is all that a fair polemics requires. Yet we may further consider the main position of the doc- trine under review. It is, that in the very rectitude of the divine justice sin must be punished, and, therefore, that substitutional punishment is the only possible atonement for sin. But we want the exact position as concerning the divine rectitude. It must be separated from all eke, and held in clear distinction. A retributive sentiment in God, as disposing him to the punishment of sin, has no place here. Nor has the rectoral office of justice any place in the present issue. All interests of moral government, as ends of justice in moral administration, J Ezek. 33: 11. 3 Hoseall: 8. ^Pet.S: 9. Analytically Tested. 157 are outside of the question. The position is, that in the maintenance of personal and judicial rectitude God must punish sin in the measure of its demerit, and solely on this ground. The requirement would be none the less imperative in the absence of all salutary influ- ence of punishment upon the interest of moral govern- ment; indeed, none the less imperative, as the position is taken, were the result a detriment to such interest. It will readily be asserted that even the supposition of such a detriment is not permissible. But the asser- tion is far from apodictic. Divine rewards, both pre- mial and punitive, have an office in the interest of moral government — necessarily an influence upon such inter- est. The tendency of the influence much depends upon the temper or disposition of the subjects of gov- ernment: and the result, whether beneficial or detri- mental, is determined by the view taken of such re- wards; and not necessarily right views, or such as should be taken, but such as may be or actually are taken. Now it is certain that in secular government, of whatever form, punishment may be too severe, as well as too lenient, for the public good. The very se- verity has a hardening influence, engenders hatred, and the very spirit of rebellion. And subjects are the same in susceptibility to the rectoral influence of penalty under the divine as under human government. It is, therefore, a permissible supposition that even within tho limit of demerit there is a possible severity of pen- alty which would be a detriment to the highest good of moral government. But even in such a case, the doc- trine of Satisfaction asserts, and must assert, the pun- 11 158 Theory of Satisfaction ishrnent of sin in the full measure of its demerit as a necessity of the divine righteousness. And such a fact is sufficient for the disproof of a doctrine to which it is a logical consequent. Is God under an absolute obligation to punish sin in the measure of its demerit, and solely on that ground? Is he under such an obligation that any omission of punishment, even in part, would be an injustice and a sacrifice of personal rectitude ? The doctrine of Satis- faction answers affirmatively. This is its ground-prin- ciple for the necessity of an atonement, and determina- tive of its nature. The requirements of the divine rectitude in the case specially concern the two ques- tions of veracity and justice. 5. No Necessity of Divine Veracity. — Some main- tain the asserted necessity for punishment on the ground that the divine veracity is involved therein. God has proclaimed his own law, with its clearly ex- pressed penalties, as due to sin. It is hence claimed that his word is really given for the execution of these penalties, and, therefore, that his truthfulness or fidelity to his own word requires the execution. Any omission would be a sacrifice of his personal rectitude. This really gives another ground for the alleged necessity of punishment as concerning the divine rec- titude. So far as the present position reaches, we might infer that if God had not given his word for the punishment of sin, he would be under no such obliga- tion : but now, having so given his word, the obliga- tion of veracity requires the execution of uttered penalty. Analytically Tested. 159 Such position is logically valid only on the ground that the divine utterances of penalty are absolute. A1J condition, even implied condition, must be excluded. How far i3 this the fact ? We admit that many divine utterances of penalty are absolute in form: we equally deny that all are so in fact. The Scriptures give us instances of implied conditionality with absolute form. The threatened doom of Nineveh was most absolute in form but not so in fact, as the result proved. 1 There are many like instances. No words could be more absolute in form than those which gave expression to the punishment of disobedience under the primitive probation: "For in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." a It was not absolute in fact, else it must have been exe- cuted in exact accordance with its terms, as certainly it was not. Now such utterance of penalty, absolute in form but not so in fact, does not absolutely bind the divine veracity to its execution. And until the doc- trine of Satisfaction can make good the position of ab- soluteness in the divine utterance of penalty, and in the fact as well as in the form, it has no sufficient premise for the consequence, that any remission of penalty, except through an equivalent substitutional punishment of sin, is a surrender of the divine recti- tude in the matter of veracity. "We see clearly the seeming delicacy of the position here taken. Yet the facts are as we have given them. And we have only stated them, not made them. But it may be inferred that the position which we ground 1 Jonah 3 : \-±, 10. * Gen. 2 : 17. 160 Theory of Satisfaction in such facts puts all penalty in uncertainty. It has no such consequence. There is never any remission, ex- cept on such ground and conditions as fully justify it. The ground is such, that except thereon there is abso- lutely no forgiveness. And the conditions are such, that except upon their observance there is absolutely no forgiveness. In the case of the first sin the divine administration was modified, and the sin rendered for- givable only through the incoming of a redemptive economy in Christ. Our sin is forgivable only on the ground of atonement. Except on such ground, there is absolutely no forgiveness. Salvation in Christ is freely offered on the condition of faith, but with the announced penalty of damnation to him who believes not. Thus, apart from Christ, and without faith in him, penalty is absolute, and in no uncertainty of execution. But, further, the doctrine of Satisfaction cannot, ex- cept in self-destruction, base the necessity for penal substitution on the ground that the divine veracity re- quires the actual infliction of uttered penalty. Any such requirement must include the execution of penalty according to the very terms and import of its utter- ance. The divine penal utterances against sin are no more exact and positive in the designation of penalty than in the designation of its subject. It is no more absolutely affirmed that sin shall be punished with death than that "the soul that sinneth, it shall die " l And if the divine veracity requires the execution of penalty according to the terms of its utterance, clearly the case will admit no substitute in punishment. The ^zek. 18: 4, 20. Analytically Tested. 161 actual sinner must himself die Only this will fulfill the terms of the law. For illustration, take again the law of the primitive probation. " Death " is no more absolute as the penalty of disobedience, than " thou " as the subject of its infliction. And Satisfactionists them- selves interpret this penalty of disobedience in Adam as death physical, spiritual, eternal, to him and also to all his posterity as in him, or represented by him, and, therefore, justly answerable in penalty for his sin. Hence, in the case of any other destiny for any one, the penalty is not executed according to the terms of its divine utterance. The assumption of a necessity for substitutional pun- ishment as the only atonement, because God has de- clared the punishment of sin, is such an assumption as must preclude vicarious atonement. No penal substitu- tion can so answer to the terms of divinely-uttered pen- alty as to fulfill the alleged requirement in the divine veracity. No ingenuity in Scripture exegesis, nor any dialectic acumen, can make the punishment of a substi- tute the same, either in fact, justice, or law, as the pun- ishment of the sinner himself. We have an alternative conclusion, and in either way, against the scheme under review. The doctrine of Satisfaction either makes good its position for the necessity of punishing sin as a re- quirement of the divine veracity, or it does not. In the former case, penal substitution is excluded, as being no clearance of the divine veracity; in the latter, no proof is brought from the alleged requirement of the divine veracity for penal substitution as the only pos- sible atonement. 162 Theory of Satisfaction 6. No Necessity of Judicial Rectitude. — It is propel here again sharply to discriminate the position in issue. Its advocates too often run into illegitimate argumen- tation. It is easy to assert, as so commonly done, that sin has intrinsic demerit; that God is holy and abhor* it; that he must manifest his displeasure against it; that he must vindicate his justice and law before the moral universe. But such facts belong equally to another doctrine of atonement; some of them exclusively so. Why must God reveal his holiness? Why must he manifest his displeasure against sin ? Why must he vindicate his justice and law before men and angels? The proper answer to such questions turns away from the atonement of Satisfaction and gives support to the Rectoral scheme. The position in issue is, that God must, in judicial rectitude, punish sin because of its de- merit, and solely for this reason. No other reason must be here alleged. To allege any other, is to depart from all that is peculiar and essential to the scheme of Satisfaction. God would be unjust or remiss in the duty of justice in any omission of punishment, simply because of the intrinsic demerit of sin. By such omis sion, whatever other reason be present or absent, he would sacrifice his judicial rectitude. His administra tion would not be just. He would not fulfill the obli gat ion of his justice. This is the position. It is essen- tial to the doctrine of Satisfaction, and must be main- tained, or the scheme fails. How do we know of any such necessity in the judi- cial rectitude of God ? How do we know that back of all the interests of moral government, and all require- Analytically Tested. 163 meiits of the divine administration in their service, there is upon him an obligation to punish sin in the full measure of its desert ? Such a principle is not given in the Scriptures. Nor is it inductively verifiable. It is no apodictive truth; and its a priori assertion is far above the power of our highest reason. Within the sphere of actual moral government we know something of God and his laws, as he has been pleased therein to reveal himself and them. Beyond this we know but little ; certainly not enough for the assertion of a neces- sity in the divine rectitude to punish sin solely on the ground of its demerit. But if there be such a necessity, it must bar an economy of substitutional punishment, unless sin itself can be put upon the substitute in pen- alty. This, however, is impossible, even with God. But without penal substitution, or the punishment of sin in a substitute, the doctrine of Satisfaction is utterly groundless. There is neither injustice nor omission of justice, ex- cept in some wrong or omission of duty. And there can be neither, except in respect of some right or in- terest. A father omits the deserved punishment of his son. This is no wrong to the son simply in the matter of his demerit, because demerit is not in the nature of \ personal right. But the impunity supposed might be to the detriment of the son, or of the family govern- ment. Here is a reason for punishment, and such as would render its omission a wrong; but a reason outside of the demerit in the case, and arising in the sphere of rights and interests concerned. A crime is committed, and the criminal is suffered to go unpunished. This, 164 Thboet of Satisfaction bo far as his desert is concerned, is no injustice to him; for, again, punitive demerit is not in the nature of a personal right. So far as punishment might have a restraining or reformatory influence upon the criminal, any obligation is with the administration, but with re- spect to the criminal's interest, not his demerit. Or, his impunity might encourage crime, to the serious det- riment of the community. In such a case omission of punishment would be an injustice or wrong, not, how- ever, because of demerit in the criminal, but because of a neglect of the rights and interests of others which justice should protect. Such principles equally apply to divine justice. One sins against God. His sin has intrinsic demerit, and, apart from every thing else, deserves the penalty of justice. But demerit in itself simply, neither constitutes any punitive right in the sinner nor imposes any puni- tive obligation upon God. All that it does or can do is to render punishment just; while any punitive obli- gation of justice must arise in respect of rights or in- terests either personal to the sinner or appertaining to others which justice should protect. On the ground of demerit, punishment for such ends is just, which it would not be without the demerit. And surely an in- finitely just, wise, and good Sovereign may take account of such great ends, and determine his punitive minis- tries simply in view of them. Nor can any omission of punishment by the divine Ruler be a violation of judi- cial rectitude, except such omission be an avoidable detriment to some right or interest. But when we go beyond the demerit of sin as the only ground of just Analytically Tested. 165 punishment, and find the reason for its infliction in rights, whether of the divine Ruler or his subjects, we find such reason, not in the most essential principle of the Satisfaction scheme, but in facts which go into the Rectoral theory, and give their support to it. We are all under the obligations of a divine law, with its precepts, promises, penalties. One obeys, and rightfully claims the promised reward. He is wronged if it be withheld, because an acquired right is denied him. Such is the fact irrespective of all questions of rectoral influence from the character of the adminis- tration. But there is with justice a double reason for giving the promised reward: an acquired right, and the interest of a salutary rectoral influence. Another dis- obeys, and thereby acquires a desert of punishment, but no right to it. Either himself or others might suffer wrong on account of his impunity; but, as we have be- fore seen, the consequent obligation to punish him arises entirely apart from his demerit. And it is still true that the consequence of his demerit is simply to render his punishment just. He may, therefore, be justly punished, either for his own good or for the good of others. Nor do such views cast any doubt upon justice as an essential attribute of God. It is such an attribute. So is love. And neither excludes the other, though love is supreme. And God rules, not simply as just, but also as eternally wise and good. Penalty has a special function in his government. It is a rightful means for the vindication of his own honor and authority, and for the conservation of the rights and interest of his sub- 166 Theory of Satisfaction jects. And justice does not cease to be such, nor be- come injustice, by any omission of penalty which does not contravene such ends of its infliction. Its punitive obligation is fulfilled when penalty is so wisely and benevolently, as well as justly, executed, as to achieve in the highest degree attainable the great ends of moral government. 1 The doctrine of punishment maintained is without logical conse- quence respecting its duration. It would follow, that should punish- ment ever cease to be a rectoral necessity it might then terminate. But this fact is without logical consequence in the case, because the duration of punishment is a question of revelation, not of reason. Were the duration of punishment treated as a question of reason, it would be necessary to prove two things by rational evidence in order to conclude its eternity : one, that sin deserves eternal punish- ment ; the other, that it must be punished in the measure of its desert. Reason can prove neither. But, while we write this, we further write that reason is equally powerless to disprove the eter- uity of punishment. The question of its necessary duration is above the sphere of her powers. On the ground of such facts, our doc- trine is without logical consequence respecting the duration of pun- ishment. This is a question of revelation, and as purely so as the question of the divine Trinity, the incarnation of the Son, or the resurrection of the dead. On the ground of revelation the eternity of punish- ment is fearfully certain. It is, therefore, both just and necessary, because it is the ministry of a just God, and infinitely wise and good as well as just. Such is the order of these facts. The Scriptures do not first posit an infinite demerit of sin as the ground and neces- sity of endless penalty ; but, conversely, they give the fact of end- less penalty, and with this, as an inevitable implication id view oi the character of the divine Ruler, its justice and necessity. And we add nothing to the certainty or proof of endless penalty by assum- ing that it is a necessity simply from the demerit of sin. Nor do we in the least abate the force of its Scripture proof as a fact — the only real proof in the case — by a denial of its absolute necessity simply to that demerit. ANALYTICALLY TESTED. 167 7. Elements of Punitive Satisfaction. — Divine justice, traced to its only satisfiable form as a punitive disposi- tion or obligation in God, has, apart from a salutary rectoral influence, only two supposable elements of sat- isfaction in the execution of penalty: one, in the mere suffering inflicted; the other, in the punishment of sin. The two are clearly separable, at least in thought, and together cover the whole case. There is no other ele- ment of such satisfaction. 8. No Satisfaction in Mere Suffering. — The first is, of course, excluded. We could not say that it never had any place in religious sentiment or opinion. It would be none the less reprobate on that account. And only a fanatical dogmatist, with the temper of an in- quisitor and a morbidity of the moral nature, could understanding^ give it a place either in his conscience or creed. Any pleasure of any community or officer of the law simply in the sufferings of a criminal is a cruel- ty and a sin. And no place should be given to the no- tion of such a fact in God. As a God of love, without pleasure in the death of the wicked, he punishes no sin- ner without pity for his sufferings. It is impossible, therefore, that he should find satisfaction in his suffer- ings simply. 9. Only Satisfaction in Punishing Sin. — Is there a satisfaction of divine justice in the punishment of sin? Yes; and we so answer without any hesitation. It is realized in a punitive disposition of justice. But this is far short of the doctrine of Satisfaction in the asser- tion that such satisfaction must be had. On this posi- tion it fails, as we have previously shown. But, further, 168 Theory of Satisfaction while there is a satisfaction of divine justice in the punishment of sin — sin with its turpitude and demerit — the satisfaction is realized only therein. It is not, else, possible. Take away the conditioning facts of sin, and only the suffering remains with justice. But in this it can find no pleasure. 10. Satisfaction by Substitution Impossible. — The atonement is in the satisfaction of justice by penal substitution. This is a vital principle in the theory. There is no atonement without this satisfaction; nor can there be any. So the deepest principles of the theory determine. It is entirely truthful, and not uncharitable, to say that here Satisfactionists themselves find no little per- plexity. Indeed, it would be a marvelous fact if they did not. And the vacillations of opinion and diversi- ties of view which the history of the doctrine records, bear ample testimony to this perplexity. 1 The effect of the imputation of sin to Christ, and the nature and degree of his penal sufferings, are questions entering deeply into the difficulties of the subject. Did imputation carry over sin, with its turpitude and de- merit, or only its guilt to him? Did he suffer, instead of the elect, the same punishment which, otherwise, they must have suffered? Did he endure peoal suffer ing equal in amount, though differing in kind, to the merited punishment of the redeemed? Did ne suffer an equivalent punishment, less in amount but of high- er value, and thus a penal equivalent with justice? Did 1 Prof. Bruce: "The Humiliation of Christ," pp. 378-384, 488-492; 'Methodist Quarterly Review," July, 1846, pp. 403-410. Analytically Tested. 169 he suffer the torment of the finally lost? Was his punishment potentially or intensively eternal? Such questions have been asked and answered affirmatively; though a negative is now mostly given to those of more extreme import. The boldness of earlier expositors is mainly avoided in the caution of the later. The former are more extravagant; the latter, less consistent. But the theory, in every phase of it, asserts the just punish- ment of sin in Christ; and, therefore, asserts or implies all that is requisite to such punishment. A denial of any such requisite is suicidal. In denying the possible satisfaction of a purely retrib- utive justice by a substitute in penalty, we are content to make the issue with the more moderate and carefully guarded position of Satisfactionists. This is but polem- ical fairness, as such is now the more common position. i. The Satisfaction Necetsary. — The necessary satis- faction of justice, as maintained in this theory, respects not merely a punitive disposition in God, but specially and chiefly an obligation of his justice to punish sin according to its demerit, and on that ground. And it is because the punishment of sin is a necessity in the rectitude of divine justice, that the only possible atone- ment is by penal substitution. This position is so important in the present question, that we should have the views of leading Satisfactionists respecting it. " The law of God, which includes a pen- alty as well as precepts, is in both a revelation of the nature of God. If the precepts manifest his holiness, the penalty as clearly manifests his justice. If the one is immutable, so also is the other. The wages of sin is i70 Theory of Satisfaction death. Death is what is due to it in justice, and what, without injustice, cannot he withheld from it."' "Jus- tice is a form of moral excellence. It belongs to the nature of God. It demands the punishment of sin. If sin he pardoned, it can he pardoned in consistency with the divine justice only on the ground of a forensie penal satisfaction." 2 "The Scriptures, however, as- sume that if a man sins he must die. On this assump- tion all their representations and arguments are founded. Hence the plan of salvation which the Bible reveals supposes that the justice of God, which renders the punishment of sin necessary, has been satisfied." 3 The position maintained in these citations is clearly given, and fully agrees with our statement. From the nature of justice the punishment of sin is necessary. The obligation of justice is such that any omission of punishment would be an act of injustice. Thus, from the very nature of divine justice, the necessary punish- ment of sin is deduced as a consequence. Justice is as essential and immutable in God as any other attribute; therefore he must punish sin according to its desert, and on that ground. Thus his justice binds him to the infliction of merited punishment upon sin, just as other moral perfections bind him to holiness, goodness, truth. We may give additional authorities. "But again, concerning this justice, another question arises, Whether it be natural to God, or an essential attribute of the divine nature — that is to say, such that the existence of sin being admitted, God must necessarily exercise it, be- 1 Dr. Hodge: "Systematic Theology," vol. i, p. 423. 1 Ibid., vol. ii, p. 488. " Ibid., vol. ii, p. 492. Analytically Tested. 171 cause it supposes in him a constant immutable will to punish sin, so that while he acts consistently with his nature he cannot do otherwise than punish and avenge it — or whether it be a free act of the divine will, which he may exercise at pleasure ? " ' This is submitted as a question, There are really two questions ; but we are concerned simply with the fact that Owen main tains the position of the former : and we are now con- cerned with this only, in its relation to penal substitu- tion. It asserts a necessity in the very nature of God for the punishment of sin simply as such ; a necessity, not from the domination of a punitive disposition, but from the requirement of judicial rectitude. "God is determined, by the immutable holiness of his nature, to punish all sin because of its intrinsic guilt or demerit; the effect produced on the moral universe being incidental as an end." 2 " Law has no option. Justice has but one function. The law itself is under law; that is, it is under the necessity of its own nature; and, therefore, the only possible way whereby a trans- gressor can escape the penalty of law, is for a substi- tute to endure it for him." 3 Here, again, we have tho same doctrine of an immutable obligation of divine jus- tice to punish sin, and none the less in the absence of every other reason than its own demerit. We here make no issue with the doctrine, but, as before noted, give it prominence on account of its vital logical con- nection with the doctrine of penal substitution. 1 Owen: "Works," (Goold's,) vol. x, p. 505. 9 Dr A A Hodge : " The Atonement," p. 53. 8 Dr. Shedd: "Theological Essays," p. 28*7- 172 Theory of Satisfaction ii. The Substitution Maintained. — There is also a vital logical connection between the imputation of sin to Christ and his penal substitution in atonement. In any proper treatment of the question the two facts must be in scientific accordance. And we have, with the carefully guarded doctrine of substitution, an equally cautious exposition of the imputation of sip to Christ. In such exposition, sin is treated analytically, not as a concrete whole. This is necessary to the mod- eration of the theory maintained. For to treat sin as a whole, and to allege its imputation to Christ and just punishment in him, is to involve the facts of the more extravagant theory. Guilt is distinguished from the at- tributes of turpitude, criminality, demerit, and claimed to be separable from sin in the deeper sense, both in thought and fact. It is freely admitted that the trans- ference and substitutional punishment of sin in the former sense is an impossibility; but it is fully claimed that guilt — the amenability of sin to the penalty of justice — could be transferred to Christ and justly pun- ished in him. We shall give this view from Dr. Charles Hodge. It has no better authority. " By guilt, many insist on meaning personal criminality and ill desert; and by punishment, evil inflicted on the ground of such per- sonal demerit. In these senses of the words the doo- trine of satisfaction and vicarious punishment would, indeed, involve an impossibility. . . . And if punishment means evil inflicted on the ground of personal demerit, then it is a contradiction to say that the innocent can be punished. But if guilt expresses only the relation Analytically Tested. 173 of sin to justice, and is the obligation under t\ nich the sinner is placed to satisfy its demands, then there is nothing . . . which forbids the idea that this obligation may, on adequate grounds, be transferred from one to another, or assumed by one in the place of others." 1 The omission cannot, in the least, affect the sense of the author. Leading facts are clearly given in the passage cited. One is, that moral character is absolutely untransfera- ble; another, that if punishment is a judiciil infliction upon the ground of personal demerit, the satisfaction of justice by penal substitution is impossible. Hence the distinction of sin into personal demerit and guilt, and the assumption that the latter, as the legal amena- bility of sin, could be transferred to Christ, and pun- ished in him in fulfillment of the punitive obligation of justice. Hi, No Answer to the Necessity. — We now have the facts respecting the alleged necessity for the punish- ment of sin, and also the facts of penal substitution as meeting that necessity. Do the latter answer to the requirements of the former ? Does the penal substitu- tion, maintained, fulfill the alleged absolute obligation of justice to punish sin according to its demerit? There is no such answer or fulfillment. So we affirm, and proceed to the proof. ITie analytic treatment of sin is entirely proper if it be remembered that such treatment is in thought only. And we may distinguish between the demerit and the guilt of sin, using the former term in the sense of its 1 " Systematic Theology," vol ii, p. 632. 12 174 Theory of Satisfaction intrinsic evil, and the latter in the sense of its amena- bility to retributive justice. In the former sense, we have sin in the violation of obligation; in the latter, under judicial treatment. Is such distinction a sufli cient ground for the more moderate theory of substitu- tional punishment constructed upon it ? If so sufficient, will such substitution answer to the absolute necessity for the punishment of sin which the theory asserts ? It should here be specially noted that the principles of the theory are not even modified, much less surren- dered. They are still asserted and held in all their integrity and strength as the very necessity for an atonement, and as determinative of its nature in the substitutional punishment of sin. We have previously seen what these principles are. 1 And they are insep- arable from the doctrine of Satisfaction. We have also given citations from leading authors in the un- qualified assertion of an absolute necessity for the pun- ishment of sin. 2 Advocates of the more moderate theory of imputation and penal substitution are no exception. All agree in the obligation of divine jus- tice to punish sin according to its demerit, and on that ground. But it is denied that the turpitude and de- merit of sin can be transferred to Christ. All that is claimed, or even admitted to be so transferred, is the guilt of sin ; guilt as an amenability to the retribution of justice. Is such a substitution the merited punish- ment of sin ? Nothing could be punished in Christ which was not transferred to him, and in some proper sense made his. 1 In IV of this chapter. * In 10, t, of this section. Analytically Tested. 175 This we regard as apodictic. Hence if sin, with its demerit, could not, as now admitted, be put upon Christ by imputation, no punishment which he suffered fell upon such demerit, or intrinsic evil of sin. And we think it impossible to show how sin is punished accord- ing to its demerit, and on that ground, in the totai absence of such demerit from the substitute in punish- ment. With the admissions of the theory, its only resource is with guilt as a distinct fact of sin. If guilt, as the amenability of sin to the penalty of justice, is separable from sin, and as a distinct fact transferable to Christ — and if his punishment, as so constituted guilty, is the punishment of sin according to its de- merit and on that ground — then the penal substitution maintained answers to the asserted absolute necessity for the punishment of sin. If any one of these suppos- itive facts fail the theory, then the theory itself inev* itably fails. Guilt, as distinctively treated in this theory, arises in the relation of sin to divine justice, and as an obliga- tion of sin to suffer the merited penalty of justice. It is so defined and discriminated from the turpitude of sin in the carefully exact statement recently cited from Dr. Charles Hodge. He makes the same distinction elsewhere. 1 But guilt, considered as apart from sin, exists only in conception, not in objective reality. It may be said that it becomes a concrete fact in Christ by imputation to him. Then the result is a guilty Christ. But guilty of what ? Not of sin, for that is not transferred to him, nor in any proper sense made 1 u Systematic Theology," vol. ii, p. 189. 176 Theory of Satisfaction his. Guilty of guilt, we may suppose. For as guilt is the only thing imputed, and the imputation makes him guilty, we find not any better expression of the fact in the case. There seems a harshness even in such an expression; yet it is mollified by the fact, that at most Christ is guilty of only a conceptual guilt. But the original difficulty remains. Guilt, apart from sin, is still guilt in the abstract, and exists only in conception, as much so as roundness, concavity, red- ness. And how could such a conceptual guilt render Christ guilty, or constitute in him a just ground of punishment ? It were as easy to transform a cube into a globe by imputing sphericity to it. But is not guilt a reality? Certainly, and a terrible one; but only as a concrete fact of sin. And with the imputation of such an abstract guilt to Christ, while sin, with its turpitude and demerit, with all that is punishable and all that deserves to be punished left behind, how can the re- demptive suffering which he endured be the merited punishment of sin ? iv. No such Answer Possible. — Guilt cannot exist apart from sin. It is impossible by the very definition of it as the obligation of sin to the retribution of jus- tice. The necessary conjunction of facts is obvious On the one side is justice, with its precept and penalty , on the other, sin; hence, guilt. There is guilt, because justice asserts a penal claim upon sin. The demerit of sin, the intrinsic evil of sin, is the only ground of such a claim. Nothing but sin can be guilty, or render any one guilty. And there can no more be guilt apart from sin, than there can be extension without either substance Analytically Tested. 177 or space. It is not in itself punishable, but simply the punitive amenability of sin to justice. It cannot, there- fore, be so put upon Christ as to render him punishable, unless the very sin is put upon him. But this is con- ceded to be impossible. Indeed, sin itself is a punishable reality only as a per sonal fact. In the last analysis only a person, only a sinful person, is punishable. We may here apply such a principle as we applied to justice as punitively satis- fiable. Such is no impersonal justice, or justice in gener- alized conception, but justice as a personal attribute. So, not any impersonal sin, or sin in generalized conception, but only a sinful person, is answerable to justice in pen- alty. Sin has no real existence apart from the agent in the sinning. The guilt of sin lies upon him, and can no more be put upon a substitute as a punitive desert than his sinful act can cease to be his and be made the sinful act of such substitute. But the principles of the Satisfaction scheme still remain, with the necessity for the punishment of sin ac- cording to its demerit, and on that ground. So imper- ative is this obligation, that any omission of such pun- ishment would be an injustice in God. With this the very masters in the theory fully agree. Indeed, there is no dissent. Is sin so punished in Christ ? It is not, even if we admit the separability of guilt and its trans- ference to Christ. Guilt is not sin. The scheme itself carefully discriminates the two. Such is its necessity, as it denies the transferableness of sin. For, other- wise, it has nothing which it may even claim to be transferred as the ground of merited punishment. By 178 Theoet of Satisfaction. the alleged facts of the scheme, no penalty is inflicted upon sin. Yet its punishment is the asserted absolute requirement of moral rectitude in divine justice. And the conclusion is most certain, that the penal substitu- tion which the theory of Satisfaction holds can give no answer to the necessity for the punishment of sin which it asserts. 11. The Theoi'y Self-destructive. — The necessary pun- ishment of sin and the nature of penal substitution, which the theory maintains and seeks to combine in the doctrine of Satisfaction, absolutely refuse all scien- tific fellowship. Yet the theory can neither dispense with the one nor so modify the other as to agree with it. The former is its very ground-principle, and there fore cannot be dispensed with. The necessary modifi- cation of the latter, in order to a scientific agreement with the former, would require a transference of the turpitude and demerit of sin to Christ; therefore such modification must be rejected. Consequently, whether there be or be not an absolute necessity for the punish ment of sin, the theory of Satisfaction is self-destrue tive. For with such a necessity, not only does the penaJ substitution maintained utterly fail to answer to its im perative requirement, but no possible substitution cac so answer. But without such a necessity for the pun ishment of sin, the theory is utterly groundless. There- fore, whether there be or be not the asserted necessity for the punishment of sin, the theory is self-destroyed Facts in Objection. 179 VI. Facts op the Theory in Objection. Much has been anticipated which might have been arranged under objections. Yet much remains, but requiring only a brief treatment in view of previous discussions. 1. The Punishment of Christ. — It is a weighty objec- tion to the theory under review that it makes the pun- ishment of Christ necessary to atonement. The pun- ishment is in satisfaction of justice. Its desert in him is imputed sin. Justice must punish sin: therefore it must punish sin in Christ as a substitute in atonement. There is no other possible atonement. But the imputation of sin has insuperable difficulties. This is especially true of its imputation to Christ. Such is the confession in the caution which discriminates be- tween sin and guilt, and admits only the latter in impu- tation. It shocks our moral reason to think of Christ as a sinner even by imputation. Yet such imputation is a nullity for all purposes of this theory, unless it makes our sins in some real sense his. For other- wise there can be no pretense even of their merited punishment in him. If the imputation of sin is in order to its just punishment, and sufficient for that end, really the view of Luther is none too strong: " For Christ is innocent as concerning his own person, and therefore he ought not to have been hanged upon a tree; but because, according to the law of Moses, every thief and malefactor ought to be hanged, therefore Christ also, according to the law, ought to be hanged; 180 Theoet of Satisfaction. for he sustained the parson of a sinner and of a thief— not of one, but of all sinners and thieves." ' There is much more such, and some even worse. Others main- tain a like position, if not with the same boldness of utterance. It is only through such an imputation that justice could fulfill, by substitution, its asserted abso- lute obligation to punish sin according to its demerit. Such fatal implication is not avoided by the assump- tion of an imputation merely of guilt. It is still the guilt of sin, and renders Christ guilty in a sense that he may be justly punished. Nor are we confounding the discriminated reatus culpce and reatus poence of theologians; though the distinction is useless for the purpose of finding a guilt that may exist and be pun- ished apart from sin, and especially with the notion that sin is thereby punished. The guilt which answers to justice in penalty is the guilt of sin. If Christ so answered as a substitute for the elect, he must have been guilty of all their sins. Hence the theory under review should neither discard the bold utterances of Luther nor seek shelter under an utterly futile dis- tinction between sin and guilt. On any consistent sup- position it must hold Christ as guilty of all the sins which suffered their merited punishment in him. But he never could be so guilty: hence the doctrine of atonement which implies and requires such a fact can- not be the true doctrine. 2. Redeemed Sinners Without Guilt. — The atone- ment of Satisfaction has this logical implication, that all for whom it is made are without guilt. Such 1 Commentary on Galatians, chap. 3 : 13. Facts m Objection. 181 an atonement is, by its very nature, a discharge from all amenability to the penalty of justice. Explicit statements of its leading advocates are in full accord with this position. Nor has such a consequence any avoidance by any real distinction between meritum culpa} and meritum poence. In any reality of such dis- tinction there may be personal demerit without legal guilt ; though we have denied, and do deny, to the theory under review the truth of the converse, that there may be such guilt without such demerit. But here we raise no question whether sinners, simply as redeemed, are still in the personal demerit of sin. Our position respects guilt as the amenability of sin to the penalties of justice, and asserts that, according to the atonement of Satisfaction, the elect for whom it is made are, in their whole life, and however wicked, entirely free from such guilt. There is for them neither ju- dicial condemnation nor liability to punishment. The penalties of justice, pending in the divine threatenings, have no imminence for them. The scheme ever asserts an absolute necessity for the punishment of sin. It equally asserts such a penal substitution of Christ in the place of the elect as fully satisfies the penal claim of justice against them. Thus justice fulfilled its own retributive obligation in the punishment of sin, just as though it had inflicted the merited penalty upon them. God has accepted the penal substitution for their own punishment. All is in strict accord with a covenant agreement between the Father and the Son, as the theory asserts. Now such an atonement, by its very nature, cancels all punitive 182 Theory of Satisfaction. claim against the elect, and by immediate result for- ever frees them from all guilt as a liability to the pen- alty of sin. We know that such a consequence is de- nied, though we shall show that it is also fully asserted. It is attempted to obviate this consequence by a distinction between a pecuniary and a penal obligation : il Another important difference between pecuniary and penal satisfaction is, that the one ipso facto liberates. The moment the debt is paid the debtor is free, and that completely. No delay can be admitted, and no conditions can be attached to his deliverance. But in the case of a criminal, as he has no claim to have a substitute take his place, if one be provided, the terms on which the benefits of his substitution shall accrue to the principal are matters of agreement between the substitute and the magistrate who represents justice." ' Such a distinction will not accord with the penal sub- stitution of Christ. The ground-principle of the doc- trine is, that sin must be punished according to its de- merit, and on that ground ; must be, because of an im- mutable obligation of justice so f o punish it. Then by the penal substitution of Christ sin is so punished in him, and the obligation of justice fulfilled. Such are the facts of the doctrine. On the ground of such facts, a discharge must immediately follow upon such penal substitution, just as on the payment of a debt. So Dr. Hodge gives the facts in less than two pages in advance of the previous citation. " If the claims of justice are satisfied they cannot be again enforced. This is the analogy between the work of Christ and 1 Dr. Hodge: "Systematic Theology," voL ii, pp. 410, 41L Facts in Objection. 183 the payment of a debt. The point of agreement be- tween the two cases is not the nature of the satisfac- tion rendered, but one aspect of the effect produced. In both cases the persons for whom the satisfaction is made are certainly freed. Their exemption or deliver- ance is in both cases, and equally in both, a matter of justice." 1 We shall attempt no improvement here; for we can give neither a better statement of the facts in the case nor a better reply to the citation just before given from the same author. We may add a few authorities. " Will God punish sin twice, first in the person of the Surety, and then in the persons themselves, in whose place he stood? It would be acknowledged, without a dissenting voice, that in any other case this would be a manifest injus- tice. But * is there unrighteousness with God ? God forbid: the Judge of all the earth will do right.'" 2 " The death of Christ being a legal satisfaction for sin, all for whom he died must enjoy the remission of their offenses. It is as much at variance with strict justice or equity that any for whom Christ has given satisfac- t ion should continue under condemnation, as that they should have been delivered from guilt without any satisfaction being given for them at all." s A Satis factionist could hardly put the case more strongly. " For if, in consequence of his suretyship, the debt has been transferred to Christ and by him discharged, every one must see that it has been taken away from the 1 " Systematic Theology," vol. ii, p. 412. See also pp. 482, 487, 494 • Dr. John Dick: "Theology," vol. ii, p. 556. • Dr. Symington • " Atonement and Intercession," p. 190. 184 Theory op Satisfaction. primary debtors, so that payment cannot be demanded of them. They must forever afterward remain free, absolved from all obligation to punishment." 1 Such authorities may suffice for our position In- deed, we did not really need any, as such freedom from guilt is in the inevitable logic of an atonement by penal substitution. But such moral support should silence all cavil. The position is sometimes taken, that, in a penal sat- isfaction, the actual forgiveness is subject to such time and conditions as the sovereign authority may deter- mine. It cannot be maintained. Otherwise, all the reasonings in the above citations, and given from the very masters in this doctrine, are fallacious. It is over- thrown by the analogy of result between a pecuniary and a penal satisfaction. In the latter case, as in the former, the claim of the obligee is fully satisfied, and the discharge of the party in obligation must immedi- ately issue. The case can admit no delay and no con- ditions for the discharge. And no sin of the redeemed, once justly punished in Christ as an accepted substi- tute, can for an instant be answerable to justice in penalty, or in any sense be liable to punishment. The redeemed are without guilt. Is such a position in accord with the real fact in the case? Sin is sin, whenever and by whomsoever com- mitted. As such it has legal guilt as well as personal demerit. It is under judicial condemnation, and m peril of retribution. Such facts are in full accord with a common experi- 1 Turrettin: " The Atonement of Christ," p. 146. Facts in Objection. 185 ence of souls in coming into the spiritual life. In such an experience there is more than a deep sense of per- sonal demerit; there is also a deep sense of peril in the apprehension of divine penalty. Many a soul just on the verge of the new life is full of trembling in this ap- prehension. Really, there is no cause, if the true doc- trine of atonement is in the just punishment of sin by substitution. But there is cause in every such case, and for the reason of guilt and judicial condemnation. The trembling apprehension is in the recognition of a terrible reality. Among the eminent for piety, and, therefore, certainly of the elect and redeemed, are some once very wicked. Were they then without guilt or judicial condemnation? Was there for them no immi- nence of penal retribution? Was it so with Paul, and Augustine, and John Newton, and many others such? If so, there was a deep deception in their profoundest religious consciousness. And it is a mistake ever aris- ing under the immediate work of the Holy Spirit in conviction for sin. As under his revealing light and convincing power the soul awakes, it not only feels within the deep evil of sin, but even sees without the threatening penalty of divine justice. And there is no self-deception in such cases. And what of the divine threatenings against all sin and all sinners? Have they no meaning for the re- deemed? Or are they like the overtures of grace which a limited atonement freely makes to all, but with real meaning for only the elect and redeemed part? On the doctrine of Satisfaction, such divine threatenings signal no imminence of divine wrath for the redeemed- 186 Theory of Satisfaction. And what of all the Scripture terms of forgiveness and remission of sins? Have they no meaning of an actual discharge from guilt and penalty in the hour of an actual salvation? Or is their full meaning in a declaration simply of a discharge long before actually achieved through penal substitution? When Jesus said, as often to one or another, "Thy sins are forgiven thee," was it no actual forgiveness then granted? Without such a forgiveness, there is no pertinence in the proof which he gave of a "power on earth to for- give sins." 1 A doctrine of atonement encountering such facts as we have given, and facts so decisive against it, cannot be the true doctrine. 3. A Limited Atonement. — The theory has this con- sequence, and avows it. Such an atonement is in its own nature saving. The salvation of all whom Christ represents in his mediatorial work must issue. "The advocates of a limited atonement reason from the effect to the cause." 9 Dr. Schaff is entirely correct in this, as might be shown by many examples. Nor is there a contrary instance. But the reasoning is logically valid for a limited atonement only on the ground that such an atonement is necessarily saving. For thus only is the fact of a limited actual salvation conclusive of a limited atonement. Hence Calvinistic divines who hold a general atonement, consistently reject the doctrine of Satisfaction. Lutheranism, in holding both, is utterly unscientific. 1 Matt. 9 : 6. * Dr. Schaff: "Creeds of Christendom," vol. i, p. 621. Facts m Objection. 187 But the full force of the objection to the Satisfaction scheme, from the fact that it involves the consequence of a limited atonement, cannot be given here. It lies in the Scripture fact of universality in the atonement, which will be treated in its place. 1 For the present we name it as fatal to the theory of Satisfaction. If, in the divine destination, the atonement is really for all, as we shall prove it to be, then this theory cannot be the true one. 4. Element of ■ Commutative Justice. — The scheme is complicated with commutative justice. We know well the vigorous denial. But denial does not void a log- ical implication. Commutative justice has its principle as well as its usual commodities. In any obligation the principle claims the sum due, either in the identical thing or in its equivalent in value. One or the other it must have. It freely admits substitution. A surety or proxy may satisfy the claim as well as the debtor himself. One thing may be accepted in the stead of another, if its equivalent in value. Such is the principle, and such are the characteristic facts, in the doctrine of Satisfaction. Justice requires the punishment of sin as a rightful claim. It will ac- cept a substitute in penalty, and also a less punishment. if of such higher quality as to be of equal value. Thus in principle and characteristic facts it is at one with commutative justice. The actual and necessary dis- charge of the redeemed from all amenability to the penalty of justice, on account of the satisfaction of its claim by penal substitute, is a legitimate sequence of 1 Chapter xii. 188 Theory of Satisfaction. the same principle. So is a limited atonemeDt in view of a limited actual salvation. Nor is there any avoidance of such complication by an alleged difference between a pecuniary and a penal claim — one on the property of the debtor, and the other on his person. Both are personal to the debtor — one for satisfaction in his property, and the other for satisfaction in his punishment. The likeness still re- mains. There is a oneness of the two. The theory is seriously complicated with commutative justice. We do not wonder at the vigorous resistance to such an implication, though not a few avow all that really be- longs to it. A measure of virtual commercial barter in the atonement degrades it. Preliminary Facts. 189 CHAPTER VIII. GOVERNMENTAL THEORY. rpHIS theory also has already come into view more than once. But it is proper to treat it more directly and fully, as we have the other two leading theories. Yet the discussion will require the less elaboration, as many of the principles and facts appertaining to the theory have previously been given, and more or less con- sid er ed. It mainly concerns us now to bring them togeth- er, and to set them in the order of a proper method, and in the light of a more exact and definitive statement. We have indicated our acceptance of this theory as the true theory of atonement. But we so accept it in what really constitutes it a theory, and not in any par- ticular exposition as hitherto given: much less in its diversities as it stands in the history of doctrinal the- ology. It has not always been fortunate in its exposi- tion. It was not entirely so in the beginning. Its car- dinal principles have been clearly enough given. With these given, a true construction of the doctrine should follow. Such, however, has not always been the case. The treatment has often been deficient in analysis or scientific method. Alien elements have been retained ; vital facts omitted or wrongly placed. We hold the doctrine as we shall construct and maintain it. As such, it is the doctrine of a real and necessary atone- ment in Christ. It denies to the Moral theory a right- 13 190 Governmental Theory. f ul position as such. And as the true doctrine is really with the theory of Satisfaction or the Governmental, the error of the former concludes the truth of the lat- ter. Tt will answer to all the requirements of Scripture interpretation, and to the profoundest necessity for an atonement. I. Preliminary Facts. The discussion of the nature of the atonement as represented in the Governmental theory will run through this chapter and the next succeeding one. It will also be involved in the last one — universality of the atone- ment. The question of extent is more than a question of fact; it concerns the doctrine also. With this Sat- isfactionists fully agree. And the next chapter, while given to the elements of sufficiency in the redemptive mediation of Christ, treats them in view of the princi- ples of atonement, and thus involves its nature. 1. Substitutional Atwiement. — The sufferings of Christ are an atonement for sin by substitution, in the sense that they were intentionally endured for sinners under judicial condemnation, and for the sake of their forgiveness. They are an atonement for sin in the sense that they render its forgiveness consistent with the divine justice. They provide for such consistency, in the sense that justice none the less fulfills its rectoral office in the interest of moral government. Such office of justice is so fulfilled in the sense that, in granting forgiveness only on the ground of such a substitution in atonement, the honor and authority of the divine Ruler, together with the rights and interests of his Preliminary Facts. 191 subjects, are equally maintained as by the infliction of merited penalty upon sin. Such facts, here merely stated, will have their unfolding in the progress of discussion. 2. Conditional /Substitution. — The forgiveness of sin has a real conditionality. The fact is given in the clearest utterances of Scripture. It is given in the fact of demerit for refusing the overtures of redemptive grace. It is also given as the only explanation of the fact that, with a real atonement for all, some perish. An atonement for all by absolute substitution would inevitably achieve the salvation of all. The logic of the case gives us this consequence. Satisfactionists freely give it. Their soteriology requires it. It must be so. Therefore a universal atonement, with the fact of a limited actual salvation, is conclusive of a real conditionality in its saving grace. It follows, inevi- tably, that such an atonement is conditional or pro- visory, not immediately and necessarily, saving. The substitution of Christ in atonement for sin must be of a nature consistent with these facts. In such a substitution as would make his vicarious suffering the merited punishment of sin, all for whom he so suffers must be discharged from guilt ; must be, even on the ground of justice. This we have shown before. We should thus have an absolute substitution in penalty, together with a provisory atonement and a conditional forgiveness. But such facts have no scientific accord- ance, and it is impossible to combine them in a doctrine of atonement. 3. Substitution in Suffering. — The substitution of Christ must be of a nature agreeing with the provisory 192 Governmental Theort. character of the atonement. It could not, therefore, be a substitution in penalty as the merited punishment of sin, for such an atonement is absolute. The substi- tution, therefore, is in suffering, without the penal ele- ment. This agrees with the nature of the atonement as a moral support of justice in its rectoral office, ren- dering forgiveness consistent with the interest of moral government. Nor could the sufferings of Christ have been, in an} strict or proper sense, a punishment. Demerit, the only ground of punishment, is personal to the actual sinner, and without possible transference. 1 We have seen the futility of attempting the transference of guilt without sin. The result of such a fact would leave the sinful guiltless and make the sinless guilty. On such a possibility guilt has no necessary connec- tion with sin : there is no such possibility. And the substitution of Christ in suffering will satisfy all the requirements of the redemptive economy. Nor have the vicarious sufferings of Christ, without the penal element, less value for any legitimate pur- pose or attainable end of substitutional atonement. Such an atonement has great ends in the manifestation of the divine holiness, justice, and love; of the evil of sin , and the certainty of penalty, except as forgive- ness may be obtained in the grace of redemption. But for all such ends the theory of vicarious punishment has no advantage above that of vicarious suffering. If the high assertion be true, that God is under obli- 1 Dr. Whedon: "Bibliotheca Sacra," vol. xix, p. 252; also, "Com- mentary," 2 Cor. 5: 21. Preliminary Facts. 198 gation to punish sin as it deserves, and solely on the ground of its demerit, then there is a requirement of justice not fulfilled by vicarious suffering in atonement. But no more is it in the alleged mode of substitutional punishment; and for reasons previously given. 1 Impu tation carried over no sin to Christ. Hence no sin was punished when he suffered. The punishment of sin does manifest the divine holi- ness and justice. But this fact gives no advantage to the scheme of substitutional punishment ; and for the reason that sin is not punished in Christ. If he is pun- ished, it is in absolute freedom from all demerit of sin, And the recoil of so many minds from such a fact, as one of injustice, is not without reason. Punishment does declare the evil of sin and the cer- tainty of penalty; but only on the condition that the penal infliction fall upon the demerit of sin. But here, again, the scheme of Satisfaction is denied all advan- tage, because, according to its own admissions, such is not the fact. And the substitution of Christ in suffer- ing, as the only and necessary ground of forgiveness, will answer for these great ends as fully as such alleged substitution in punishment. A ground of forgiveness provided in a divine sacri- fice infinitely great is a marvelous manifestation of the divine love; but that sacrifice, in every admissible or possible element, is as great in the mode of vicarious suffering as in that of vicarious punishment. The gift of the Father is the same. Nor are the sufferings of the Son less, or other, in any possible element. In 1 Chap, vii, V, 10 194 Governmental Theoby. neither case could there be any remorse or sense of personal demerit. He could have no sense of the di- vine wrath against himself. Nor could there be such a divine wrath. The scheme of Satisfaction will so deny. It would repel any accusation that even by implication it attributes to the Father any wratlifnl bearing toward the Son. " Christ was at no time the object of his Father's personal displeasure, but suffered only the signs — the effect, not the affection — of divine anger." > The incarnation, the self -divestment of a rightful glory in equality with the Father, the assump- tion, instead, of the form of a servant in the likeness of men, are all the same on the one theory as on the other. There is the same infinite depth of condescen- sion. Equal sorrow and agony force the earnest prayer and bloody sweat in Gethsemane, and the bitter outcry on Calvary. Any question, therefore, between these two theo- ries respecting the sufferings of Christ, concerns their nature, and not either their measure or redemptive office. And in these facts — in the divine compassion which embraced a perishing world, in the infinite sac- rifice of that compassion, in the gracious purpose and provision of that sacrifice — is the manifestation of the divine love. "Herein is love." "God so loved the world." And to call his sufferings penal — or had they been so in fact— would add nothing either to the measure or manifestation of the divine love in human redemption. Yet, without the penal element in the sufferings of 1 Prol Bruce: "The Humiliation of Christ," p. 381. Preliminaey Facts. 195 Christ, we may attribute to them a peculiar depth and tone arising out of their relation to sin in their redemp- tive office, and find the explanation in the facts of psy- chology. It is no presumption so to apply such facts. The human nature was present as a constituent element in the person of Christ. And there is no more reason to deny its influence upon his consciousness than to deny such influence to his divine nature. So far, there- fore, as his consciousness shared in experiences through the human nature, they would be kindred to our own. We have our own experiences in the clear appre- hension of justice, and sin, and penalty. The feelings hence arising would be far deeper on hearing a verdict of guilt and judgment pronounced upon the criminal. The higher and purer our spiritual nature, still the deeper would these feelings be. And could one with the highest attainable moral perfection redeem a crim- inal simply by vicarious suffering, his inevitable con- tact with sin, in the realizations of a most vivid appre- hension of its demerit and punishment, would give a peculiar cast and depth to his sufferings. So was it in the redemptive sufferings of Christ, but in an infinitely deeper sense. In such redemption he must have had in clearest view the divine holiness, and justice, and wrath; the turpitude and demerit of sin; j jid the terribleness of its merited penalty. Only in such a view could he comprehend his own work or sac- rifice in atonement for sin. And, remembering the moral perfection of his nature, and that his contact was with the sins of all men in the full apprehension of their demerit, of the divine wrath against them, of the terri 196 GOVEKNMENTAL THEORY. bleness of their just doom, and that his own blood and life, in the conscious purpose of their offering, were a sacrifice in atonement for all, we have reason enough for their peculiar tone and awful depth. It is urged that penal substitution is necessary, not only for the satisfaction of justice, but also " for satis- fying the demands of a guilty conscience, which mere pardon never can appease." ! The connection holds the Rectoral atonement to be as powerless as the Moral scheme for the contentment of conscience. It cannot have rest, except with the merited punishment of sin. Therefore, in the case of forgiveness, such punishment must be endured by a substitute. We fully accept the fact of a deep sense of punitive demerit on account of sin in a truly awakened con- science. This feeling may be so strong as to result in a desire for punishment. There may even be some re- lief of conscience from the penal endurance. But such a feeling has respect simply to personal demerit, and can be appeased only through personal punishment — il punishment be really necessary to the appeasement. What is the law of pacification in substitutional pun- ishment ? We know not any. Nor can there be any, except such punishment be in relief of personal charac- ter. But this will not be claimed as possible. Further, it is claimed in behalf of atonement by penal substitu- tion, that, more than any thing else, it deepens th( sense of sin and personal demerit. But if its tendency is to the very state of mind involving the deepest ud- 1 Dt. Hodge: "Systematic Theology," vol. ii, p. 626. See also Dr. Shedd: "Theological Essays," pp. 298, 299. Preliminary Facts. 197 rest, it is impossible to see how it can be necessary to the pacification of the conscience. And if we can find rest only through merited punishment, personal or vi- carious, we shall never find it either in this world or in the next. All relief from the trouble and disquietude arising in tne sense of sin and guilt, must come in the forgiveness of sin. And to be complete, the forgiveness must be so full and gracious as to draw the soul into a restful assurance of the loving favor of the forgiving Father. It is no discredit to infinite grace to say, that the sense of demerit for sins committed can never be eradicated, not even in heaven; though the remorse of sin may be taken away here and now. But even such a sense of demerit tends to a measure of unrest forever, and, apart from every other law, would so result. There is still a law of complete rest — such as we have just given. The true rest will come in a full forgiveness, in the assurances of the divine friendship and love, and in a grateful, joyous love answering to the infinite grace of salvation. And the atonement in vicarious suffering an- swers for such facts as fully as that in penal substitution Nor has the atonement in vicarious suffering any tendency or liability to Antinomianism. From its own nature it is a provisory or conditional ground, not a causal ground of forgiveness and salvation. From such an atonement no license to sin can be le- gitimately taken. Antinomianism is utterly outlawed. We know very well that Satisfactionists very generally discard this heresy. They will deny that it has any logical connection with their theory. Yet in the his- 198 Governmental Theory. tory of doctrines Antinomianism stands with the sote« riology of Satisfaction. Nor does it seem remote from a logical sequence to such an atonement. There is substituted punishment, and also substituted righteous- ness. Whatever penalty we deserve Christ bears: whatever obedience we lack he fulfills. He takes our place under both penalty and precept. What he does and suffers in our stead answer for us in the require- ments of justice and law as though personally our own. In view of such facts, Antinomianism is far worse in its doctrine than in its logic. But the atonement in Christ does not make void the law. Nor has the true doctrine any liability to such a perversion. The atonement in vicarious suffering has this advantage, and is thereby commended as the true one. 4. The Grotian Theory. — The theory of atonement now under discussion is often called the Edwardean, and also the New England, theory. It has the former title from the younger Edwards, who contributed much, and among the first, to its American formation. Some find, or think they find, its seed-thoughts in the writings of the elder Edwards, and hence so style it. But Satisfactionists deny this source, and earnestly disclaim for him all responsibility for the doctrine.' It is called the New England theory because spe- cially elaborated by leading New England divines 1 Prof. Smeaton: " The Apostles' Doctrine of Atonement," p. 536. 8 " The Atonement. Discourses and Treatises by Edwards, Smal ley, Maxcy, Emmons, Griffin, Burge, and Weeks." With an Intro- ductory Essay by Edwards A. Park. In this large volume Prof. Park has collected the best New England literature on this subject D7is own Introductory Essay adds much to the value of the book. Preliminary Facts. 199 But priority and the true originality are with Q-rotius. Nor can we accord to these very learned and able di- vines an independent origination of the doctrine. They could not have been ignorant of the work of Grotius, nor that in the deeper principles they were at one with him. With differences respecting many points, there is yet such an agreement. 1 By common consent, and quite irrespective of all dissent from him in doctrine, Grotius was a man of very extraordinary ability and learned attainment. The literary achievements of his youth are a wonder.* Nor did his mature life falsify the promise of such marvelous precocity. His great abilities and vast learning gave him eminence in science, in philosophy, in statesmanship, in law, in theology. He wrote many books, but to only one of which have we any occasion for reference. In theology he was an Arminian, and at a time when he, with many others, suffered no little persecution. But all the tendencies of his mind, as well as the logic of his reason, gave him preference for this system as in comparison with the Calvinism of Gomarus or the Synod of Dort. There was no narrowness in the cast of his soul. On all great questions his views were at once broad and profound. On the rights of conscience, and }f religious and political freedom, he was very far in advance of his time. "And, indeed, the Arminian doc- trine, which, discarding the Calvinistic dogma of abso- 1 W. F. Warren, D.D. : " The Edwardean Theory of Atonement," Methodist Quarterly Bevieiv, July, 1860. a "New American Cyclopaedia," 1859, Art. Grotius. 200 Governmental Theoby. lute predestination, teaches that man is free to accept or to refuse grace, could not fail to suit a mind such as that of Grotius." ' Yet he was no latitudinarian; nor was his theology a matter of mere sentiment. It was the fruit of profound study. And the more protracted and the profounder his study the more thorough was his Arminianism. Grotius held firmly the fact of an atonement in Christ. In this faith he undertook its discussion, having in special view its defense against the assumptions and objections of the Socinian scheme. Such is the import of the title which he gave to his work. 8 It is not clear that he began the discussion with full forecast of the outcome. He probably had no new theory previously constructed or even outlined in thought. On the au- thority of Scripture he was sure of an atonement in the blood of Christ. He was sure, therefore, of the error of the Socinian scheme, and of the fallacy of its objec- tions against this fact. But in its defense he opened his own way to the new theory ever since rightfully connected with his name. It is rarely the case that the originator of a new theory, especially in a sphere of profound and broadly related doctrinal truth, clears it of all alien elements, or achieves completeness in scientific construction. Such, on this subject, is the fact with Anselm. It it also true of Grotius. We do not, therefore, accept all 1 M'Clintock & Strong: " Cyclopaedia," vol. iii, p. 1017. '"Defensio Fidei Catholic* de Satisfactione Christi Adversus F. Socinum." Translated by the Rev. Frank A. Foster, in " Bibliotheca Sacra," January and April, 1879. PRELIMmAKY FACTS. 201 his positions. Some are not essential to his doctrine. In others he is not entirely self-consistent. We ac- cept what really constitutes his theory, and have little concern for any thing else. He had an equal right with Anselm to construct a doctrine of atonement, and achieved a higher scientific result. Hence the history of doctrines records less modification in his theory than in the Anselmic. We have no occasion either closely to review or to defend him. This would only anticipate much of the discussion assigned to the pres- ent chapter. It would be easy to recite reviews from various authors, and to give references to many others. But their very commonness to discussions of the atone- ment renders this unnecessary. Yet a few references will follow ; and we here give a summary statement of his doctrinal position. "The fundamental error of the Socinian view was found by Grotius to be this: that Socinus regarded God, in the work of redemption, as holding the place merely of a creditor, or master, whose simple will was a sufficient discharge from the existing obligation. But, as we have in the subject before us to deal with punish- ment and the remission of punishment, God cannot be looked upon as a creditor, or an injured party, since the act of inflicting punishment does not belong to an in- jured party as such. The right to punish is not one of the rights of an absolute master or of a creditor, these being merely personal in their character; it is the right of a ruler only. Hence God must be considered as a ruler, and the right to punish belongs to the ruler as such, since it exists, not for the punisher's sake, but for 202 Governmental Theory. the sake of the commonwealth, to maintain its order and to promote the public good." ! The passage just cited is a very free rendering of the original of Grotins, yet sufficing for the leading ideas. It is given as opening up, especially by the logic of its principles, his theory of atonement. It has not entire acceptability. Respecting the right to punish sin as purely a rectoral one, the principle may apply to man, but not to God. He has such a personal right. If Grotius allows an inference to the contrary, so far we think him in error. The case of forgiveness is different; and it is correct to say that God may not forgive sin irrespective of the interests of his moral government. This is a vital principle in the Governmental theory. It is the ground on which Grotius maintains the neces- sity for an atonement, and defends it against the objec- tions of Socinianism. Nor did he hold any doubtful view respecting either the intrinsic evil of sin or the imperative office of pen- alty. Sin deserves eternal penalty, and the penalty may not be remitted, except on rectorally sufficient ground. Thus, after setting forth the reasons for pun- ishment, he says: "God has, therefore, most weighty reasons for punishing, especially if we are permitted to estimate the magnitude and multitude of sins. But because, among all his attributes, love of the human race is pre-eminent, God was willing, though he could have justly punished all men with deserved and legiti- 1 " Bibliotheca Sacra," vol. ix, p. 259. The citation is from a main- ly satisfactory roview of the Grotian theory by Baur, in a translation by Rev. Leonard Swain. Preliminary Facts. 203 mate punishment, that is, with eternal death — and had reasons for so doing — to spare those who believe in Christ. But, since we must be spared either by setting forth, or not setting forth, some example against so many great sins, in his most perfect wisdom he chose that way by which he could manifest more of his attri- butes at once, viz., both clemency and severity, or his hate of sin and care for the preservation of his law." 1 In these views, while essentially divergent from the theory of Satisfaction, he is thoroughly valid and con- clusive against Socinianism. While thus asserting the intrinsic evil of sin, Grotius denies an absolute necessity arising therefrom for its punishment. The punishment of sin is just, but not in itself an obligation. The intrinsic evil of sin renders its penal retribution just, but not a requirement of judicial rectitude. Threatened penalty, unless marked by irrevocability, is not absolute. A threat differs from a promise. The latter conveys a right and takes on obligation; the former does not. 2 In this sense he regarded the divine law as positive, and its penalty as remissible. The law, in precept and penalty, is a divine enactment; in execution, a divine act. The execution is not a judicial obligation, except f ar rectoral ends. And this is the permissible relaxation of law which Grotius maintains. There is such a relaxation, as there is reality in the divine forgiveness of sin. Nor have Translation in " Bibliotheca Sacra," vol. xxxvi, p. 287. * " Bibliotheca Sacra," vol. xxxvi, pp. 153-155; Dr. Dale: "The Atonement," p. 296. 204 Governmental Theory. Satisfactionists any consistent ground for its denial, nor any sufficient reason for their adverse criticism of Grotius on this account. By their own concession that sin, with its demerit, is not and cannot be transferred to Christ, they admit by inevitable logical sequence that it is not punished in him, and hence, that the law in its penalty is relaxed in every instance of non-execu- tion upon the actual sinner. Holding thus the remissibility of penalty so far as the demerit of sin is concerned, Grotius, as previously noted, maintains, with its justice, its profound impor- tance in the interest of moral government. Forgiveness too freely granted, or too often repeated, and especially on slight grounds, would annul the authority of the law, or render it powerless for its great and imperative rec- toral ends. Thus he finds the necessity for an atone- ment — for some vicarious provision — which, on the re- mission of penalty, may conserve these ends. Such a provision he finds in the death of Christ, set forth as a penal example. So he styles it. And he makes a very free use of the terms of penal substitution. Yet he does not seem to regard the sufferings of Christ as penal in any very strict sense — certainly not as a sub- stitutional punishment of sin in the satisfaction of a purely retributive justice. Such an example he regard"? as at once a manifestation of the goodness and severity of God, of the odiousness of sin, and a deterrent from its commission. Thus his theory of atonement accords with his view of punishment and its remission. These are rectoral rather than personal acts. So the atonement, taking Preliminary Facts. 205 the place of penalty in its rectoral ends, regards God in his administration rather than in his personal character or absolute retributive justice. And thus he grounds the atonement in the principles which properly consti- tute the Governmental theory. The Acceptilatio of Duns Scotus is very freely charged upon Grotius, especially by Satisfactionists. Even Dr. Pope, though an Arminian, is consenting thereto in his late work on theology. 1 Bauer joins in the accusation in the article previously given by refer- ence; though he does not withhold the fact that Gro- tius himself formally rejected the principle. This he certainly did, and denied that acceptilation could have any place with the punishment of sin. Repelling this accusation as brought by Socinus against the atone- ment, he says: "For, in the first place, this word may be applied, even when no payment precedes, to the right over a thing loaned, but is not, and cannot be, applied to punishment. We nowhere read that indul- gence of crimes was called by the ancients acceptila- tion. For that is said to be accepted which can be accepted. The ruler properly exacts corporal punish- ment, but does not accept it; because from punish- ment nothing properly comes to him." 2 It is as a logical implication that Bauer makes the charge. But Grotius certainly understood the question, and the logic of its facts and principles, as thoroughly as his reviewer. We join issue, and deny that Accep- tilation is in any logical sense consequent to the theory 1 " Christian Theology," p. 412. * Translation in "Bibliotheca Sacra," vol. xxxvi, p. 298. 14 206 Governmental Theory. of Grotius; while we affirm its close affinity with that of Anselm. Leading divines of the Church — Abelard, Bernard, Peter Lombard, Duns Scotus, and others — contempora- ries of Anselm, or his close followers in time, were not all close followers of his " Cur Deus Homo." Some diverged so widely as to propound really new theories. But Duns Scotus, the heretical Acceptilationist, really propounded no new theory in kind. He dissented from Anselm, not respecting the nature of an atonement in the meritorious obedience and suffering of Christ, and in satisfaction or payment of a divine claim — a claim arising out of the wrong which God had suffered on account of sin, — not on these determining facts, but re- specting the amount of the debt and the relative value of the payment. With Anselm, the debt was infinite; with Duns, not strictly infinite. With the former, the payment was in full; with the latter, only in part; which, however, God graciously accepted in lieu of the whole, his acceptance also giving value to the sum paid. This is the Acceptilatio of Duns Scotus, as known in historical theology. 1 His divergence was specially from a difference in Christology, or respect- ing the redemptive sufferings of Christ. With Anselm, his sufferings as the God-Man were of infinite value and therefore a payment in full; while with Duns they were strictly limited to his human nature, and, there- fore, of finite value, and a payment only in part. But he all the while adheres to the same atonement in kind — atonement by payment toward the satisfaction of a 1 Hagenbach : "History of Doctrines," vol. ii, pp. 39, 44. Preliminary Facts. 207 divine claim. This is proof that his Acceptilatio has a close affinity for the theory of Anselm. It is only with such a theory that it can have any affinity. It is grounded in the ideas of debt and pay- ment. There must be a divine claim payable in mer- itorious obedience and suffering. Whatever is paid must go to the account in claim. This is Acceptilation, These ideas of debt and payment have the utmost cur- rency in the Anselmic theory — in the Satisfaction theory. But Grotius held no theory of sin and penalty, and no theory of atonement, which admits any such sense of debt and payment. His adverse critics clearly prove that he did not. And as he formally denied Accepti- lation, and the very possibility of it in the case of pen- alty for sin, so the principles of his doctrine of atone- ment deny for him all the ideas of debt and payment — and in part as in whole — without which it has no place. Mr. Watson, while freely citing Grotius as an au- thority, accuses him of unduly leaning to that view of the atonement which regards it " as a merely wise and fit expedient of government." ' He probably had spe- cially in view this passage in Grotius : " It becomes us only to make this preliminary remark — that Socinus is not right in postulating that we must assign a cause which shall prove that God could not have acted other unse. For such a cause is not required in those things which God does freely. But he who will maintain that this was a free action may refer to Augustine, who 1 " Theological Institutes," vol. ii, p. 139. 208 Governments Theory. declares, not that God had no other possible way of liberating us, but that there was no other more appro- priate way for healing our misery, neither could be. But also, before Augustine, Athanasius had said : ' God was able by a mere utterance to annul the curse with- out coming himself at all. But it is necessary to con- sider what is useful to men, and not always what is possible to God.' Nazarius says : 'It was possible for God even without the incarnation (of Christ) to save us by his mere volition.' Bernard : ' Who does not know that the Almighty had at hand various methods for our redemption, justification, liberation ? But this does not detract from the efficacy of that method which he has selected out of many.'" 1 We do not understand Grotius to indorse all these citations, though from authors so eminent. If he did, we certainly could not follow him. And his doctrine of atonement has a far deeper sense than that of a dis- pensable expedient of government. His position here is, that of the divine freedom in the particular manner of human redemption, within the limit of a sufficient redemption. A distinction may properly be here made. Only a divine person could redeem the world; and the redemption could be effected only by a great personal sacrifice. The necessity is from the office which the atonement must fulfill. But, with the profoundest con- /iction of truth in these facts, we should greatly hesi- tate to say — indeed, we do not believe — that in the resources of infinite wisdom the precise manner of the mediation of Christ was the only possible manner of 1 Translation in " Bibliotheca Sacra," voL xxxvi, p. 286. Preliminary Facts. 209 human redemption. We are not sure that Grotius means any thing more. 5. The Consistent Arminian Tfteory. — In the refer- ence to Arminianism we include the Wesleyan school, and take the position of consistency with special refer- ence to it. Wesleyan Arminianism has ever been true to the fact of an atonement in Christ. In her hymns and prayers, in her utterances of a living Christian experi- ence, in her sermons and exhortations, this great fact ever receives the fullest recognition. In her soteriology " Christ is all and in all." 1 In the fullness and con- stancy of her faith in the reality and necessity of an atonement in Christ, Wesleyan Methodism has no rea- son to shun any comparison with the most orthodox soteriology. What is our doctrine of atonement? The answer to this question is not so simple or unperplexed as many, at first thought, would suppose. The Scripture terms of atonement have, with all propriety, been in the freest use with us. Nor have we been careful to shun the terminology of tue strictest doctrine of Satisfaction. An inquiry for the ideas associated with these terms in the popular thought of Methodism respecting the na- ture oi the atonement, would probably bring no very definite answer. In view of all the facts, we are con- strained to think that the dominant idea has been, that of a real and necessary atonement in Christ, while the idea of its nature has been rather indefinite. We are very sure, that while the popular faith of Methodism 1 Col. 3 : 1L 210 Governmental Theory. has utterly excluded the Socinian scheme, it has not been at one with the theory of Satisfaction. Our earlier written soteriology has, at least in part, a like indefiuiteness. It is always clear and pronounced on the fact of an atonement, but not always exact or definite respecting its nature. This, however, should be noted, that our written soteriology contains comparative- ly but little directly on this question. Indeed, we have not contributed much to the literature of the atonement. And most of the little contributed has been given to the two questions of reality and extent, while only the smaller part has been given to the nature or doctrine of the atonement. Mr. Watson has written more fully and formally on the atonement than any other Methodist author. 1 We recognize his superior ability as a theologian. This ability is not wanting in his discussion of the atone- ment. But his strength is given to the questions of its reality and extent. His discussion is mainly a polemics with the Socinian scheme and with Calvinistic liniita- tionists. With rare ability he maintains the fact of an atonement against the one, and its universality against the others. But on the question of theories we cannot accord to him any very clear discrimination. Grotius, as it appears, was his chief authority; and next to him, Still ingfleet, who wrote mainly in defense of Grotius.'' But Grotius, while giving the principles of a new theory, did not, as previously noted, give to its con- struction scientific completeness. He wrote from the 1 " Theological Institutes," vol. ii, chapters xix-xxix, • " Works," vol. iii, p. 227. Preliminary Facts. 211 stand-point of the Reformed doctrine, but with sucb new principles as really constitute another doctrine. But clear and determining as his principles are, he failed to give either theory in scientific completeness. This is just what Mr. Watson has failed to do. And he is less definite than Grotius himself. He rejects the doctrine of Satisfaction in its usual exposition, and requires for its acceptance such modi- fications as it cannot admit. He interprets Satisfaction much in the manner of Grotius, and hence in a sense which the Reformed doctrine must reject. And the doctrine which he arraigns and refutes as the Antino- mian atonement, is the historic and current Calvinian doctrine of Satisfaction, with the formal rejection of its Antinomian sequences. He is, therefore, not a Satis- factionist. 1 The principles of moral government in which Mr. Watson grounds the necessity for an atonement mainly determine for him the Governmental theory. 2 The same is true of his discussion of the "vinculum" be- tween the sufferings of Christ and the forgiveness of sin ? 3 And when we add his broader views in soteri- ology as including the universality of the atonement, its strictly provisory character, and the real condition- ality of its saving grace — views necessarily belonging to all consistent Arminian theology, and which Mr. Watson so fully maintained — his principles require for him the Governmental theory of atonement. And the more certainly is this so, as it is impossible to construct 1 " Theological Institutes," vol. ii, pp. 138-143. * Ibid., pp. 81-102. » Ibid., pp. 143-146. 212 Governmental Theory. any new doctrine of a real atonement between this and the Satisfaction theory. So far as we know, Dr. Whedon has never given his theory of atonement in the style of the Governmental; yet it is in principle the same. In his statement of the doctrines of Methodism it is given thus: "Christ as truly died as a substitute for the sinner, as Damon could have died as a substitute for Pythias. Yet to make the parallel complete, Damon should so die for Pythias as that, unless Pythias should accept the substitution of Damon in all its conditions, he should not receive its benefits, and Damon's death should be for him in vain; Pythias may be as rightfully executed as if Damon had not died. If the sinner accept not the atonement, but deny the Lord that bought him, Christ has died for him in vain; he perishes for whom Christ died. If the whole human race were to reject the atonement, the atonement would be a demonstration of the righteous- ness and goodness of God, but would be productive of aggravation of human guilt rather than of salvation from it. The imputation of the sin of man, or his punishment, to Christ, is but a popular conception, justifiable, if understood as only conceptual; just as we might say that Damon was punished instead of Pythias. In strictness of language and thought, neither crime, guilt, nor punishment is personally transferable." ' Any one at all familiar with theories of atonement will see at a glance that the principles contained in this 1 " Bibliotheca Sacra," vol. xix, pp. 260, 261. Dr. Whedon gives the samo views in his very able sermon on " Substitutional Atone oaent." Preliminary Facts. 213 statement are thoroughly exclusive of the Satisfaction theory, and that they have a true scientific position only with the Rectoral theory. The same is true of the doc- trine, and with much fuller unfolding, in the sermon to which reference is given. On the theory of atonement we understand Dr. Ray inond to be with Dr. Whedon. He gives the atone- ment thus: "The death of Christ is not a substituted penalty, but a substitute for a penalty. The necessity of an atonement is not found in the fact that the jus- tice of God requires an invariable execution of deserved penalty, but in the fact that the honor and glory of God, and the welfare of his creatures, require that his essential and rectoral righteousness be adequately de- clared. The death of Christ is exponential of divine justice, and is a satisfaction in that sense, and not in the sense that it is, as of a debt, the full and complete payment of all its demands." 1 The principles given in this passage exclude the Satisfaction atonement, and require as their only scien- tific position the Rectoral theory. All this is even more apparent when the passage cited is interpreted in the light of the further references given. With this view Dr. Raymond's doctrine of justifica- tion, as that of every consistent Arminian, fully accords. It is not a discharge of the sinner through the merited punishment of his sin in his substitute, but an actual forgiveness, and such as can issue only in the non-exe- cution of penalty. 2 1 " Systematic Theology," voL ii, pp. 26?, 258. See also pp. 261, 264^268. ' Ibid., vol. ii, p. 258. 214 Governmental Theory. We would not place Dr. Raymond in any false light, nor identify him with any theory which he discards. He does discard the theory which represents the death of Christ simply as a governmental display, and espe- cially as implying that this is only one of several pos- sible expedients in atonement. While fully maintaining the rectoral office of the atonement, he regards the death of Christ as also a manifestation of the righteous- ness of God. 1 But these two facts we think very close- ly, indeed inseparably, united. Without the manifesta- tion of the divine righteousness, the atonement in the death of Christ could not fulfill its rectoral office. But it is not the Governmental theory, in any true statement of it, that is here criticised. And on its own principles the theory requires the redemptive mediation of Christ as the only adequate atonement. The principles and office of the atonement in Christ, as maintained by Dr. Bledsoe, agree with the Govern- mental theory. This will be clear to any one who will read with scientific discrimination his discussion of the question. 3 And with Arminians he is, rightfully, a rep- resentative author on questions of this kind. He had both the learning and the ability for the discussion of Methodist doctrines. He gave to them profound study, and had a deep insight into their philosophy. The same is true respecting the atonement. He studied it in the light of the Scriptures and in its scientific relations to other cardinal doctrines of Wesleyan Arminianism The outcome is a doctrine intrinsically the same as 1 " Systematic Theology," vol. ii, p. 253. * "Theodicy," pp. 276-293. Pkel.imi.naby Facts. 215 we propound, though not so styled. On the ground of such a doctrine it is easy to answer the Socinian ob- jections arrayed against the fact of an atonement in the death of Christ : objections which the theory of Satisfaction never has answered, and never can. The soteriology of Wesleyan Arminianism, taken a^ a whole, excludes the Satisfaction theory, and requires the Governmental as the only theory consistent with its doctrines. The doctrines of soteriology, with the atonement included, must admit of systemization, and be in scientific accord. If not, there is error at some point, as no truth can be in discord with any other truth. 1 Now certain cardinal doctrines of the Wes- leyan soteriology are very conspicuous and entirely settled. One is, that the atonement is only provisory in its character; that it renders men salvable, but does not necessarily save them. Another, and the conse- quence of the former, is the conditionality of salvation. Nor is this such as Calvinism often asserts, yet holds with the monergism of the system, but a real condi- tionality in accord with the synergism of the truest Arminianism. On these facts there is neither hesita- tion nor divergence in Methodism. With these facts, the atonement of Satisfaction must be excluded from her system of doctrines, and the Rectoral theory main- tained as the only doctrine of a real atonement agree ing with them. Such has really been the position of Arminianism from the beginning, though without exact or definitive statement. It never occupied the position of Luther 1 Chapter i, 10. 216 Governmental Theory. anisni in maintaining a doctrine of atonement which, with its universality, must save all men, and which is disproved by the fact that many are not saved. While the earlier Arminians never formally constructed a doc- trine of atonement in scientific accord with their sys- tem; yet from the beginning they denied the leading facts of the Reformed soteriology, so vitally connected with the atonement of Satisfaction. Thus they denied its limitation to an elect part; that it is necessarily sav- ing; that it includes its own application; that saving faith is a resistless product of its sovereign grace; that the application is in the full extent of the redemption. 1 Indeed, these questions were the chief issue in the great polemics between the Arminians and the Calvinists. Hence the former could not consistently hold the doc- trine maintained by the latter. On these same questions, so directly concerning the atonement and so decisive of its nature, Wesleyan Methodism has ever been most thoroughly Arminian. And there is thus determined for her the Rectoral the- ory as the only doctrine of a real atonement consistent with her soteriology. n. Public Justice. We have previously treated justice in its distinctions as commutative, distributive, punitive — the last being a special phase of the distributive. We also named public justice, but deferred it for discussion in connec- *Dr. Schaff: "Creeds of Christendom," vol. i, pp. 516-518; Fred- erick Calder: "Memoirs of Episcopius," p. 474; Professor Smeaton: "Apostles' Doctrine of Atonement," pp. 537, 538. Public Justice. 217 tion with the Rectoral theory of atonement. We have now reached the proper place for its treatment. 1. Relation to Atonement. — Any theory of atonement embodying enough truth to be really a theory must take special account of divine justice. The relation between the two is most intimate; so intimate, indeed, that the view taken of justice must be determinative of the theory of atonement. This we found to be true of the theory of Satisfaction. It is not only in accord with the principles of justice asserted in connection with it, but is imperatively required by them. They will admit no other doctrine. If justice must punish sin simply for the reason of its demerit, penal substitu- tion is the only possible atonement. So the Govern- mental theory must be consistent with the doctrine of justice maintained in connection with it; and, to be true, must accord with justice as a divine attribute, and in all its relations to sin and to the ends of moral government. As in the Satisfaction theory, so in the Rectoral, the sufferings of Christ are an atonement for sin only as in some sense they take the place of penalty. But they do not replace penalty in the same sense in the schemes. In the one they take its place as a pe- nal substitute, thus realizing the office of justice in the actual punishment of sin; in the other they take its place in the fulfillment of its office as con- cerned with the interests of moral government. It is the office of justice to maintain these interests through the means of penalty. Therefore, atonement in the mediation of Christ must so take the place of 218 Governmental Theory. penalty as to fulfill this same office, while the penalty is remitted. Such being the office of atonement in the Govern- mental theory, it is clear that for a proper exposition of the doctrine we require an exact and discriminating statement of public justice, or of penalty as the means of justice for the conservation of moral government. We shall thus secure a right construction of the doc- trine, and, also, obviate certain objections which have no validity against the doctrine itself, whatever force they may have against defective forms of it. No ground will remain for objecting either that the the- ory makes light of the demerit of sin, or that it trans- forms justice into mere benevolence, or that it regards the substitution of Christ in suffering as a mere expe- dient, in place of which some other provision would answer as well. 2. One with Divine Justice. — Public justice is not a distinct kind of justice; not other than divine justice. It is divine justice in moral administration. God is moral Ruler only as he has moral subjects. Therefore, in the eternity anteceding their creation he existed without any rectoral office of justice. Their creation gave him no new attribute, though it brought him into new relations. In these new relations to moral beings his justice, an essential and eternal attribute of his na- ture, found its proper office in moral government. In the fulfillment of this office it rules through the means of reward and penalty. So, in the moral system, public justice is the one divine justice in moral administration. 3. One with Distributive Justice. — In principle public Public Justice. 219 justice is one with distributive justice. Subjects differ in moral character. Some are obedient to the law of duty; others, disobedient. This makes a difference in character. The difference is real and intrinsic. So the law of God discriminates the two classes. And in this our moral reason is in full consent with the divine law. Jn the profoundest convictions of our moral conscious- ness we are assured of the reality of moral obligation, and of an essential ethical difference between obedience and disobedience; and equally, that the former has merit or rewardableness, and the latter, punitive desert. So in moral administration God deals with men accord- ing to their conduct, rewarding their obedience, and punishing their sin. The fact does not require exact or full justice in the present state of probation. It is the law of our responsible being. But this, in essential principle and in rectoral office, is simply public jus- tice, or justice in moral administration. All its use of reward and penalty, and for whatever reason or end, is in the view of moral character in the subjects of gov- ernment. Public justice is, therefore, no law of mere expediency, or of mere expedients; in essential princi- ple and in office it is one with divine justice, one with distributive justice. 4. Ground of its Penalties. — Within the realm of the divine government the sole ground of the penalties of administrative or public justice lies in the demerit of sin. The fact is not other, nor in any sense modified by any or all the ulterior ends or utilities of penalty in the interest of moral government. All penal inflict ion falls upon the demerit of sin as really and restricted ly 220 Governmental Tiieory. as though its punishment were the sole thing in the di- vine view. This is justice, and this only. Tnblic jus- tice has no other ground for its penalties. Nor may it, except on such ground, inflict any penalty for any ulte- rior end or interest, however great and urgent. This truth cannot be too deeply emphasized. We are speaking of divine justice in moral adminis- tration. Any thing qualifying the administration of justice in human government arises, in part, from a want of punitive prerogative over the intrinsic demerit of sin; in part, from an inability to know in any given case what the real demerit is. We may infer the guilt from the apparent motive. We cannot search the heart. Hence, in dealing with human conduct, our rightful use of penalty is not really to punish sin as having intrinsic demerit, but to protect society from its injury. The former is the divine prerogative. God searches the heart. He knows all the secret springs and motives of human action. He knows all the sinfulness of such ac- tion. It is his sole right to punish it, simply as such. In all the universe, and for any and all purposes, he has nothing but sin to punish. On this ground public justice is one with distributive justice, one with divine justice; and as wrought into a proper Rectoral atonement even more rigidly adheres to the principle than the purely retributive justice as wrought into the theory of Satisfaction. This theory equally asserts the same principle, but departs from it in the futile attempt to separate guilt from demerit, to carry it over by imputation to Christ, and so to have the merited penalty inflicted upon him, while the sin- Public Justice. 221 tier and the sin are left behind. This i-s a real depart- ure from the principle. We may technically distin- guish between sin and guilt, taking the former for personal demerit and the latter for answerableness in penalty. We go further, and say that on such distinc- tion there may be personal demerit without guilt — as a soul graciously forgiven still has such demerit but not such guilt. But the converse, that there may be guilt apart from demerit — guilt as an amenability to penalty — does not follow and is not true. Yet it is the very truth of this converse that the scheme of Satisfac- tion requires as vital to its doctrine of atonement by penal substitution. We emphasize the principle, that in moral govern- ment personal demerit is the only source of guilt, and the only ground of just punishment. If there be any thing valid in the imputation of another's sin, it must transfer the demerit before guilt can arise or the pun- ishment be just. And whatever in the providence of God, whether from the constitution of things or by immediate interposition, transcends the limit of de- merit, ceases to be punishment. Without such a prin- ciple punishment has no possible rationale. On this principle all divine penalties, whether exe- cuted or only uttered, and in the utterance as in the execution, at once express both the divine justice and the demerit of sin. Hence the execution is not really necessary to that expression. The use and value of the fact will come directly. And we shall find with it a sure basis for the Governmental theory. 5. End of its Penalties. — We have not a full exposi- 15 224 Governmental Theory. rary service might be rendered in the latter ease, in the divine government, the consequences would be fatal: for here only the loyalty of the heart will answer. This never could be secured by a measure of injustice from which it must revolt. And personal demerit, as the only ground of justice in punishment, is absolutely necessary to all the service of penalty in the interests of moral government. A true doctrine of public jus- tice never departs from this principle. We thus combine the two elements in the exposition of public justice. Only thus have we a public justice. Omitting the rectoral element, justice is purely retribu- tive, having regard to nothing except the punishment of sin. Omitting the retributive element, justice is in- justice. Holding the distinction of justice as retribu- tive and rectoral, and combining the two elements in the one doctrine, we free the question of punishment from the perplexity which its history records. 1 The distinction is valid. There are the two offices of jus- tice. But they must never be separated. Penalty, as a means in the use of justice, has an end beyond the retribution of sin. But, whatever its ulterior end, it is just only as it threatens, or falls upon, demerit. And only thus can it fulfill its high office in the interests of moral government. It is in the failure first properly to discriminate the two offices of justice in the punishment of sin and the protection of rights, and then to properly combine the two elements in the one doctrine of punishment, that the Rectoral atonement exposes itself to really serious 1 Cousin : " Psychology,' translated by C. S. Henry, pp. 317, 318. Public Justice. 225 objections, which yet have no validity against a true construction of the theory. And it is against such an erroneous construction that objections are chiefly urged. They are specially urged against it as embodying, or as assumed to embody, that view of justice which makes its strictly rectoral ends the sole account of penalty. * It is on this false principle that the whole govern- mental theory of atonement is founded. It admits no ground of punishment but the benefit of others." * We represent no such a theory. "We discard it as fully as Dr. Hodge, or any other advocate of the Satisfaction atonement. Our previous discussions so certify. Hence the objection which the quotation implies is utterly void against the doctrine of atonement, as we construct and maintain it. It is in the same line of objection that we have cited " a story of an English judge who once said to a crim- inal, ' You are transported, not because you have stolen those goods, but that goods may not be stolen.' " 2 We would not defend the propriety of such a delivery. Indeed, we think it very injudicious. A criminal should feel that he deserves the penalty inflicted upon him; otherwise, his punishment can have no tendency toward his amendment. An impression of such desert should also be made upon the public mind, as necessary to the public benefit. But in neither case can the necessary salutary impression be made where all mention of puni- tive desert is omitted, or where any reference to it is entirely to dismiss it from all connection with the punishment inflicted. Yet there is a deep sense in 1 Dr. Hodge : " Systematic Theology," vol. ii, p. 5T9. a Ibid. 228 GoVEENMENTAL ThEOEY. have against the doctrine of others, it has no validity against our own. 6. Remissibility of its Penalties.— There is no suffi- cient reason why sin must be punished solely on the ground of its demerit. The forgiveness of the actual sinner as a real remission of penalty, at the time of his justification and acceptance in the divine favor, is proof positive to the contrary. And, all other ends apart, retributive justice may remit its penalty. It may do this without an atonement. Indeed, it does not admit of an atonement in satisfaction of such remission. It is here, as noticed before, that we part by a fundamental principle with the theory of Satisfaction. It denies the remissibleness of penalty, as due solely to the demerit of sin, on any and all grounds. Hence, it requires for any discharge of the actual sinner a vicarious punish- ment in full satisfaction of a purely retributive justice. We maintain the proper retributive character of divine justice in all the use of penalty in moral administration; but this retributive element of justice does not bar the remissibility of its penalties. The law of expediency determines the measure of divine penalties within the demerit of sin. And from their ends in the interest of moral government, they are remissible on such ground, but only on such ground, as will equally secure these ends. This principle is fundamental with us, and de terminative of our theory of atonement. But our pre vious discussion of the question respecting the remissi- bility of divine penalty supersedes the requirement of further treatment here. 1 1 Note to chap, vii, V, 6. Public Justice. 229 1. Place for Atonement. — Thus the way is open for some substitutional provision which may replace the actual infliction of penalty upon sin. The theory of Satisfaction, as we have seen, really leaves no place for vicarious atonement. Its most fundamental and ever- asserted principle, that sin as such must be punished, makes the punishment of the actual sinner an absolute necessity. Its own admission, and maintenance even, that sin as a personal demerit is untransferable, has this inevitable logical sequence. Nor is there any es- cape through a technical distinction between demerit and guilt, and an alleged transference of the latter to Christ as a sufficient ground for the just punishment of sin in him. The sin, with all its demerit, and all, there- fore, that is punishable, is still left behind with the sinner himself. This fact thoroughly blanks all at- tempt so to escape. And the scheme of Satisfaction is inseparably bound with the logical consequence, that if sin, as such, must be punished, then it must be punished, and can only be punished, in the actual sinner. But as penalties are remissible so far as a purely retributive justice is concerned; so, having a special end in the in- terest of moral government, they may give place to any substitutional measure equally securing that end. Here is a place for vicarious atonement. 8. Nature of Atonement Determined. — The nature of the atonement in the sufferings of Christ follows neces- sarily from the above principles. It cannot be in the nature required by the principles of the Satisfaction scheme. In asserting the absoluteness of divine justice in its purely retributive element, the theory excludes 232 Governmental Theory nave previously shown that there is no such necessity. We have maintained a punitive disposition in God. but we also find in him a compassion for the very sin- ners whom his justice so condemns. And we may as reasonably conclude that his disposition of clemency will find its satisfaction in a gratuitous forgiveness of all as that he will not forgive any, except on the equiva- lent punishment of a substitute. Who can show that the punitive disposition is the stronger ? We challenge the presentation of a fact in its expression that shall parallel the cross in expression of the disposition of mercy. And, with no absolute necessity for the pun- ishment of sin, it seems clear that but for the require- ments of rectoral justice, compassion would triumph over the disposition of a purely retributive justice. Hence this alleged absolute necessity for an atonement is really no necessity at all. What is the necessity in the Governmental theory ? It is such as arises in the rightful honor and authority of the divine Ruler, and in the rights and interests of moral beings under him. The free remission of sins without an atonement would be their surrender. Hence divine justice itself, still having all its punitive dis- position, but infinitely more concerned for these rights and interests than in the mere retribution of sin, must interpose all its authority in bar of a mere administra- tive forgiveness. The divine holiness and goodness, infinitely concerned for these great ends, must equall) bar a forgiveness in their surrender. The divine jus- tice, holiness, and love must, therefore, combine in the 1 Chap, vii, Y, 3, 4, 5, 6. and Necessity for Atonement. 233 imperative requirement of an atonement in Christ as the necessary ground of forgiveness. These facts ground it in the deepest necessity. The rectoral ends of moral government are a pro founder imperative with justice itself than the retribu- tion of sin, simply as such. One stands before the law in the demerit of crime. His demerit renders his pun- ishment just, though not a necessity. But the protec- tion of others, who would suffer wrong through his im- punity, makes his punishment an obligation of judicial rectitude. The same principles are valid in the divine government. The demerit of sin imposes no obliga- tion of punishment upon the divine Ruler; but the protection of rights and interests, by means of merited penalty, is a necessity of his judicial rectitude, except as that protection can be secured through some other means. It is true, therefore, that the Rectoral atone- ment is grounded in the deepest necessity. 3. Hectored Value of Penalty. — We have sufficiently distinguished between the purely retributive and the rectoral offices of penalty. The former respects simply the demerit of sin; the latter, the great ends to be at- tained through the ministry of justice and law. As the demerit of sin is the only thing justly punishable, and as unjust penalty may not even be legislated, the retributive element always conditions the rectoral of- fice of justice; but the former does not necessarily in- clude the latter. The distinction of these facts is real. Penal retribution may, therefore, be viewed as a distinct fact, and entirely in itself. As such, it is simply 236 Governmental Theory such, and not from fear of the penal consequences of their violation or neglect. The same facts have the fullest application to penalty as an element of the divine law. Here its higher rec- toral value will be, and can only be, through the higher revelation of God in his moral attributes as ever active in all moral administration. In its simple retributive element, or as an expression merely of the divine wrath against sin, penalty makes its appeal only to an in- stinctive fear. Therefore, it can govern through noth- ing else. But this is its very lowest rectoral force. Oi course, we speak with respect to quality, not quantity. And however great the amount of such force, the quality is not in the least heightened. Though in such measure as by a moral certainty, or necessitation even, to sway all moral beings, it would still be the lowest governing force. It could still rule only through an instinctive fear or servile dread of punishment. A true moral obedience never could be so secured. There might be the eye-service of slaves, but never the heart- service of sons. Let the common moral consciousness clothe the divine Ruler in an absolute punitive justice, and that justice will hang as a pall of darkness and de- spair upon the vision of a trembling world. The pen- alty of such a justice, voiced in the thunders and flashed in the lightnings of Sinai, could have rectoral force only through a servile fear. But God is one. And there is no schism among his attributes, nor isolation of any one. The just One is also holy and good. And justice, as penally retributive, must not be doctrinally isolated, nor made in any case the sole law of divine administra- and Necessity for Atonement. 237 tion. In his punitive ministries God is still love; and now, under the Gospel, the thunders of Sinai may never silence the voices of Calvary. Thus as in both his legislative and administrative justice God reveals the fullness and harmony of his moral attributes, and him- self as looking out upon moral beings pre-eminently from the mount of love, and as ruling with a view to his own glory and the common good, so does he asso- ciate with penalty the highest moral ideas, which find a response in the profoundest facts of our moral nature, and give to penalty its truest, best rectoral force. Now it rules no longer through an instinctive fear, but through the profoundest ideas and motives of the moral reason. 4. Rectoral Value of Atonement.- — The sufferings of Christ, as a proper substitute for punishment, must ful- fill the office of penalty in the obligatory ends of moral government. The manner of fulfillment is determined by the nature of the service. As the salutary rectoral force of penalty, as an element of law, is specially through the moral ideas which it reveals, so the vicari- ous sufferings of Christ must reveal like moral ideas, and rule through them. Not else can they so take the place of penalty as, on its remission, to fulfill its high rectoral office. Hence the vicarious sufferings of Christ are an atonement for sin, as they reveal God in his jus- tice, holiness, and love; in his regard for his own honor and law; in his concern for the rights and interests of moral beings; in his reprobation of sin as intrinsically evil, and utterly hostile to his own rights and to the welfare of his subjects. 16 238 Governmental Theory Does the atonement in Christ reveal such truths? We answer, Yes. Nor do we need the impossible penal element of the scheme of Satisfaction for any part of this revelation. God reveals his profound regard for the sacredness of his law, and for the interests which it conserves, by what he does for their support and protection. In di- rect legislative and administrative forms he ordains his law, with declarations of its sacredness and author- ity; embodies in it the weightiest sanctions of reward and penalty; reprobates in severest terms all disregard of its requirements, and all violation of the rights and interests which it would protect; visits upon transgres- sion the fearful penalties of his retributive justice, though always at the sacrifice of his compassion. The absence of such facts would evince an indifference to the great interests concerned; while their presence evinces, in the strongest manner possible to such facts, the divine regard for these interests. These facts, with the moral ideas which they embody, give weight and salutary governing power to the divine law. The omis- sion of the penal element would, without a proper rec- toral substitution, leave the law in utter weakness. Now let the sacrifice of Christ be substituted for the primary necessity of punishment, and as the sole ground of forgiveness. But we should distinctly note what it replaces in the divine law, and wherein it may modify the divine administration. The law remains, with all its precepts and sanctions. Penalty is not annulled. There is no surrender of the divine honor and author- ity. Rights and interests are no less sacred, nor guarded and Necessity for Atonement. 239 in feebler terms. Sin has the same reprobation; pen- alty the same imminence and severity respecting all persistent impenitence and unbelief. The whole change in the divine economy is this — that on the sole ground of the vicarious sacrifice of Christ, all who repent and believe may be forgiven and saved. This is the divine substitution for the primary necessity of punishment. While, therefore, all the other facts in the divine legis- lation and administration remain the same, and in una- bated expression of truths of the highest rectoral force and value, this divine sacrifice in atonement for sin re- places the lesson of a primary necessity for punishment with its own higher revelation of the same salutary truths; rather, it adds its own higher lesson to that of penalty. As penalty remains in its place, remissible, indeed, on proper conditions, yet certain of execution in all cases of unrepented sin, and, therefore, often executed in fact, the penal sanction of law still pro- claims all the rectoral truth which it may utter. Hence the sacrifice of Christ in atonement for sin, and in the declaration of the divine righteousness in forgiveness, is an additional and infinitely higher utterance of the most salutary moral truths. 1 The cross is the highest revelation of all the truths which embody the best moral forces of the divine government. The atonement in Christ is so original and singular in many of its facts, that it is the more difficult to find in human facts the analogies for its proper illustration. Yet there are facts not without service here. An eminent lecturer, in a recent discussion of the 'Rom. 3: 25, 26. 240 Governmental Ttieory atonement, has given notoriety to a measure of Bronson Alcott in the government of his school. 1 He substi- tuted his own chastisement for the infliction of penalty upon his offending pupil, receiving the infliction at the hand of the offender. No one can rationally think such a substitution penal, or that the sin of the pupil was expiated by the stripes which the master suffered in- stead. The substitution answered simply for the dis- ciplinary ends of penalty. Without reference either to the theory of Bronson Alcott, or to the interpretation of Joseph Cook, we so state the case as most obvious in the philosophy of its own facts. Such office it might well fulfill. And we accept the report of the very salu- tary result, not only as certified by the most reliable authority, but also as intrinsically most credible. No one in the school, and to be ruled by its discipline, could henceforth think less gravely of any offense against its laws. No one could think, either, that the master regarded with lighter reprobation the evil of such offense, or that he was less resolved upon a rigid enforcement of obedience. All these ideas must have been intensified, and in a manner to give them the most healthful influence. The vicarious sacrifice ot the mas- ter became a potent and most salutary moral element in the government maintained. Even the actual punish- ment of the offender could not have so secured obe- dience for the sake of its own obligation and excel- lence. Instances have occurred in which an innocent pupil ' Joseph Cook : " Boston Monday Lectures : " subject, " Ortho- ioxy," pp. 156-162. and Necessity eor Atonement. 241 has given himself as a substitute for a guilty one, and received the stripes penally due the offender. We have here like facts to those in the preceding case, and the same philosophy of them. The disciplinary stripes are not penal to the substitute, as they would have been in their infliction upon the offender. There are wanting all the conditions of a veritable punishment. There is no demerit in the substitute. The law of the school has no penalty for him, and must turn aside from its retributive course to reach him. The master has for him no condemnation, and finds no retributive satisfac- tion in his vicarious suffering. The substitution, there- fore, is not for the punishment of sin, but for the sake of the rectoral ends of penalty. These ends are se- cured through the moral ideas which the substitution conveys. We may also instance the case of Zaleucus, very familiar in discussions of atonement, though usually accompanied with such denials of analogy as would render it useless for illustration. It is so useless on the theory of Satisfaction, but valuable on a true theory. Zaleucus was law-giver and ruler of the Locrians, a Grecian colony early founded in Southern Italy. His laws were severe, and his administration rigid ; yet both were well suited to the manners of the people. His own son was convicted for violating a law, the penalty of which was blindness. The case came to Zaleucus both as ruler and father. Hence there was a conflict in his soul. He would have been an unnatural father, and of such a character as to be unfit for a ruler, had he suffered no conflict of feeling. His people en 242 Governmental Theory treated his clemency for his son. But as a statesman, he knew that the sympathy which prompted such en- treaty could be but transient; that in the reaction ho would suffer their accusation of partiality and injustice; that his Jaws would be dishonored and his authority broken. Still there was the conflict of soul. Whal should he do for the reconciliation of the ruler and the father ? In this exigency he devised an atonement by the substitution of one of his own eyes for one of his son's. 1 This was a provision above law and retributive jus- tice. Neither had any penalty for the ruler and father on account of the sin of the son. The substitution, therefore, was not penal. The vicarious suffering was not in any sense retributive. It could not be so. All the conditions of penal retribution were wanting. No one can rationally think that the sin of the son, or any part of it, was expiated by the suffering of the father in his stead. The transference of sin as a whole is un- reasonable enough; but the idea of a division of it a part being left with the actual sinner and punished in him and the other part transferred to a substitute and punished in him, transcends all the capabilities of rational thought. The substitution, without being penal, did answer for the rectoral office of penalty. The ruler fully protected his own honor and authority. Law still voiced its be- hests and penalties with unabated force. And the vi- carious sacrifice of the ruler upon the altar of his pa- 1 Warburton : "Divine Legation," vol. i, pp. 180-184; Anthon : M Classical Dictionary," p. 1402. and Necessity foe Atonement. 243 rental compassion, and as well upon the altar of his administration, could but intensify all the ideas which might command for him honor and authority as a ruler, or give to his laws a salutary power over his people. This, therefore, is a true case of atonement through vicarious suffering, and in close analogy to the divine atonement. In neither case is the substitution for the retribution of sin, but in each for the sake of the rec- toral ends of penalty, and thus the objective ground of its remissibility. We have, therefore, in this instance a clear and forceful illustration of the rectoral value of the atonement. And such are the instances previously given. But so far we have presented this value in its nature rather than in its measure. This will find its proper place in treating the sufficiency of the atonement. 5. Only Sufficient Atonement. — Nothing could be more fallacious than the objection that the Govern- mental theory is in any sense acceptilational, or intrin- sically indifferent to the character of the substitute in atonement. In the inevitable logic of its deepest and most determining principles it excludes all inferior sub- stitution as insufficient, and requires a divine sacrifice as the only sufficient atonement. Only such a substitution can give adequate expression to the great truths which may fulfill the rectoral office of penalty. The case of Zaleucus may illustrate this. Many other devisements were at his command. He, no doubt, had money, and might have essayed the purchase of impunity for his son by the distribution of large sums. In his absolute power he might have substituted the blindness of some inferior person. But what would have been the signif 244 Governmental Theory ication or rectoral value of any such a measure ? It could give no answer to the real necessity in the case, and must have been utterly silent respecting the great truths imperatively requiring affirmation in any ade- quate substitution. The sacrifice of one of his own eyes for one of his son's did give the requisite affirma- tion, while nothing below it could. So, in the substitu tion of Christ for us. No inferior being and no inferior sacrifice could answer, through the expression and af- firmation of great rectoral truths, for the necessary ends of penalty. And, as we shall see in the proper place, no other theory can so fully interpret and appro- priate all the facts in the sacrifice of Christ. It has a place and a need for every element of atoning value in his substitution. G. True Sense of Satisfaction. — The satisfaction of justice in atonement for sin is not peculiar to the doc- trine of Satisfaction, technically so-called. It is the distinctive nature of the satisfaction that is so peculiar. The Rectoral atonement is also a doctrine of satisfac- tion to divine justice, and in a true sense. The narrow view which makes the retribution of sin, simply as such, an absolute obligation of justice, and then finds the fulfillment of its office in the punishment of Christ as a substitute in penalty, never can give a true sense of satisfaction. But with broader and truer views of jus- tice, with its ends in moral government as paramount, and ^ith penalties as the rightful means for their attain- ment; then the vicarious sufferings of Christ, as more effectually attaining the same ends, are the satisfaction of justice, while freely remitting its penalties. This is and Scripture Interpretation. 245 a true sense of satisfaction. Love also is satisfied. And a redemption of love must be in satisfaction of love as well as of justice. Consistently with these views we may appropriate the following definition, and none the less consistently or freely because of its appropriation by Dr. Symington, although a Satisfactionist in the thorough sense of the Reformed soteriology : " JSy Satisfaction, in a theolog- ical sense, we mean such act or acts as shall accomplish all the moral purposes which, to the infinite wisdom of God, appear fit and necessary under a system of rector al holiness, and which must otherwise have been accomplished hy the exercise of retributive justice upon transgressors in their own persons " 1 IV. Theory and Scripture Interpretation. We have previously stated that any theory of atone- ment, to be true, must be true to the Scriptures. It must also fairly interpret the more specific terms of atonement, and be consistent with all truths and facts having a determining relation to it. We freely submit the theory here maintained to this test. It will answer to all the requirements of the case. Nor will an elab- orate discussion be necessary to make the fact clear, 1. Terms of Divine Wrath. — The Scriptures abound in expressions of the divine wrath. 2 Our theory fully rec- 1 Dr. John Pye Smith: "On Sacrifice and Priesthood," p. 28?. Mr Watson gives a similar definition : " Theological Institutes," vol. ii, p. 139 ; also Dr. Raymond : " Systematic Theology," vol. ii. p. 259. 'Psa. 18: 31; Jer. 10: 10; Rom. 1: 18; Eph. 5: 6. 246 Governmental Theoey ognizes the fact. And these terms of expression have not their full sense simply as rectoral or judicial. Nor have we any need of such a restriction. There is ground for a distinction as we think of God personally and rectorally. There is the same distinc- tion respecting a human ruler. He has his personal character and also his rectoral sphere. Judicial obli- gation may constrain what the personal feeling not only fails to support, but strongly opposes. Yet a personal disposition in condemnation of crime is very proper in a minister of the law. It is necessary, and must ex- tend to the criminal, if law is to be properly main- tained. And the denial of all personal displeasure of God against sin and against sinners would be contrary to his essential personal righteousness. Even with men, the higher the moral tone the profounder is the repro- bation of sin. In the moral perfection of God it has its profoundest depth. Yet it is not vindictive or re- vengeful, and coexists with an infinite compassion. These dispositions, so diverse in tone and ministry, are harmonious in God. It is in no contrariety to this, that, while punishment is with God in sacrifice of his disposition of clemency, his punitive disposition is in moral support of the sacri- fice. Without a retributive disposition in man, law has no sufficient guarantee of enforcement. Mere benevo- lence toward the common welfare would not answer for the protection of society through the means of penalty. We will not allege such a disability in the divine be- nevolence: but it is clear that without a retributive disposition in God, the punishment of sin would impose AND SCRIPTURE INTERPRETATION. 247 a far greater sacrifice upon his compassion. And his punishment of sin is not simply from his benevolenee toward the common welfare, nor from the requirement of judicial rectitude, but also from the impulse of a personal punitive disposition. Hence the terms of the divine wrath have a personal as well as an official sense. The doctrine we maintain so interprets them, and thus shows their consistency with itself. But the divine wrath, so interpreted, asserts no dom- inance in the mind of God, and is in fullest harmony with his love. It has no necessity for penal satisfac- tion either in personal contentment or judicial recti- tude. As personal, it neither requires nor admits a substitute in penalty as the ground of its surrender. It is in the nature and necessity of such a disposition that any penal satisfaction be found in the retribution of the actual sinner. To exaggerate it into a necessity for satisfaction, and then to find the satisfaction in the retribution of Christ as substitute in penalty, is to per- vert Scripture exegesis, and equally to pervert all the- ology and all philosophy in the case. In entire consist- ency with his personal displeasure, God may and does wish the absence of its provocation and the repentance of the rebellious, that he may receive them in clemency, And real as the divine displeasure is against sin and against sinners, atonement is made, not in its personal satisfaction, but in fulfillment of the rectoral office of justice. Hence, on the truth in the case, our theory fully interprets the terms of divine wrath. 2. Terms of Divine Righteousness. — The Scripture texts which in different ways attribute righteousness 248 Governmental Theory to God, form a very numerous class. 1 He is righteous; righteousness belongeth unto him; and his doings are righteous. These terms, so applied, are often synon- ymous with holiness; often, with goodness; sometimes, with justice. And they give no place to the narrow view which mostly restricts the divine righteousness to the retribution of sin. If, as asserted, the punishment of sin according to its demerit is an absolute requirement of judicial rec- titude in God, so that he is righteous only as he so punishes, or unrighteous in any omission, it follows that our doctrine will not properly interpret these terms. But, as we have previously shown, the divine righteousness has no such necessity. In that God legislates, not arbitrarily or oppress* ively, but wisely and equitably, as with respect to his subjects — inflicts no unjust punishment, but by means of just penalty protects all rights and interests which might suffer wrong from the impunity of sin, except as forgiveness is granted only on such ground as may equally secure the same end — and rewards his children according to the provisions and promises appertaining to the economy of grace — he is righteous in the truest and highest sense of judicial righteousness which the Scriptures attribute to him. But these facts are in the fullest accord with our doctrine of atonement. It, therefore, fairly and fully interprets the Scripture terms of the divine righteousness. 3. Terms of Atonement. — The more special terms of atonement, as previously given, are, atonement itself, ^en. 18:25; Psa.48:10; Dan. 9:7; Rom. 1:17; Rev. 16: 5. and Scripture Interpretation. 249 reconciliation, propitiation, redemption, and the appro- priated term substitution. All these terms have a proper interpretation in the Governmental theory. As an ex- pression of the office and results of the redemptive mediation of Christ, they are properly rectoral terms. Yet in a deeper sense they imply the personal displeas- ure of God against sinners, and a change in his per- sonal regard in actual reconciliation. Now they are no longer held in reprobation, but accepted in a loving friendship. Yet the atoning sacrifice of Christ neither appeases the personal displeasure of God nor conciliates his personal friendship. These facts are required and verified by the further fact, that, although the subjects of reconciliation in the death of Christ, yet as sinners we are none the less under the personal displeasure of God, and so continue until, on our repentance and faith, there is an actual reconciliation. The atonement, therefore, is in itself provisory. It renders us salvable consistently with the rectoral office of justice. But these personal regards of God respect man simply in his personal character, condemning him in his sinning, and accepting him in friendship on his repentance and obedience. Such an exchange of personal regard is not only a consistency in God, but a necessity of his nature. Hence, the case is supposable, and with men some- times actual, where personal friendship and judicial condemnation are co-existent. And could a sinner, without the helpful grace of redemption, sincerely re- pent and render a true obedience, there would be a coincidence upon him of the divine regards of personal 250 Governmental Theory friendship and judicial condemnation. Hence, these terms of atonement, while deeply implying the personal displeasure of God against sinners as such, represent the sufferings of Christ, not as appeasing such dis- pleasure, nor as conciliating his personal favor, but as the ground of his judicial reconciliation ; yet always and only on such conditions of a new spiritual life as to carry with his judicial forgiveness his personal recon- ciliation and friendship. Such is their true sense; and such is their interpretation in the Governmental theory. 4. Terms of Atoning differing. — Any issue on these terms respects neither the intensity of the sufferings of Christ nor the fact of their atoning office, but the ques- tion whether they were in any proper sense penally retributive. This may be noted first, that there is neither term nor text of Scripture which explicitly asserts the penal substitution of Christ in atonement for sin. It is a noteworthy fact : and the assertion of it will stand good until the contrary be shown. As a fact, it is against the theory of atonement by penal substitution, and in favor of that of vicarious suffering. The punishment of Christ as substitute in atonement is rendered familiar by frequency of utterance in theo- logical discussion; but this is the utterance of theology, not the assertion of Scripture. Exegesis often asserts the same thing; but this is interpretation, not the texts themselves. They neither require nor warrant the in- terpretation. Redemption by vicarious suffering, with- out the penal element, will give their proper sense. and Scripture Interpretation. 251 Nor is there any term or text of Scripture expressive of the atoning suffering of Christ which this doctrine cannot freely appropriate in its deepest sense. Yet we do not think it necessary to review all the texts in question. It will suffice briefly to notice a few of the stronger. " For he hath made him to be sin (afiaprlav) for us." ' A common rendering of the original is sin-offering This has ample warrant, and avoids the insuperable difficulties attending any restriction to a primary or ethical sense of sin. That the Scriptures often use the original term in the sense of sin-offering there is no reason to question. 2 In the references given, after a description of the sin-offering, we have for it the simple phrase, " a\iaoria eoti" and so used several times; also, after the preceptive instruction respecting the daily sacrifice of atonement, we have the phrase, "rd fioaxd- piov rd rrjg afiagrlag Troirjaeig" the last two words being the very same used in the text under review. On dfjaQrla, as used in the references given in Leviticus, Sophocles says that "it is equivalent to dvala tteqi afiapriac;"* Thus we have in Scripture usage ample warrant for rendering the same term in the text under review as sin-offering. Nor do we thereby surrender any vital truth or fact of atonement. Christ is all the same a sacrifice for sin. 1 2 Cor. 5: 21. a Exod. 29: 14. 36; Lev. 4: 24; 5:9; Hos. 4: 8. 9 " Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods." And we think Macknight quite correct in giving this sense to the same term in Heb. 9: 26, 28: certainly so in the second place. — On flit Epistles. 252 Governmental Theory If this rendering be denied, what then ? Will sin be held in any strictly ethical sense., 01 under any legiti- mate definition of sin proper ? Certainly not. Christ could not so be made sin for us. No one who can ana- lyze the terms and take their import will so maintain. Sin must still be subject to interpretation. Shall the rendering be the turpitude or demerit of sin ? Even Satisfactionists must discard this, as they deny the pos- sibility of its tranference. Shall it be the guilt of sin? This some will allege. But guilt as a punishable real- ity cannot be separated from sin as a concrete fact in the person of a sinner. Only punishment remains as a possible rendering. But here is a like difficulty, that sin as punishable is untransferable. " Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse (KardQa) for us: for it is written, Cursed (EmKardparog) is every one that hangeth on a tree." ! The more literal sense is obvious, and is spe- cially emphasized by the citation in the text. Nor would we conceal or avoid any force of the terms used. The curse of the law on us, and from which Christ re- deems us, is the law's condemnation and the imminence of its penalty. And he redeems us by being made a curse for us in his crucifixion. But in what sense a curse ? In the literal sense of the terms, and as em- phasized by the quotation ? This in the Hebrew text is, " for he that is hanged is accursed of God." ' The doctrine of Satisfaction requires this full sense. If the curse is the divine punishment of sin, then who- ever is so punished is accursed of God. So, if our sins •Gal. 3: 13. a Dent. 21: 23. AJXIt Scripture Interpretation. 253 were thus punished in Christ, then was he accursed of God. Will the doctrine of Satisfaction hold the literal sense, with its inevitable implications ? Only in a sense consistent with the facts in the case is he that hangoth on a tree the subject of a divine curse. In many in- stances the most holy and beloved of the Father have been so executed. They were not accursed of God. And along with the fact of the divine malediction we must ever take the criminality of the subject. As such, and only as such, is any one accursed of God. Thus it is written of odious criminals, executed for their crimes and then exposed in suspension upon a tree, that they are accursed of God. Was Christ so ac- cursed ? Did the malediction of God fall upon him in his crucifixion as upon a criminal in the expiation of his sins under a judicial punishment ? We must depart from such a sense of this text. Its implications in the case of our Lord and Saviour would be violative of all truth and fact, and repugnant to all true Christian sentiment. We never again can go back to Luther's shocking exposition of the text; which, however, is in the order of its more literal sense, and within the limit of its inevitable implications. And that Christ in our redemption submitted to a manner of death which, as the punishment of heinous crime was in the deepest sense an accursed death, will, with- out the curse and wrath of God on him, or any penal clement in his suffering, answer for all the require- ments of a proper exegesis. 1 1 Dr. Leonard "Woods : "Works, vol. iv, p. f2 ; Albert Barnes: "The Atonement," pp. 294-296. 17 254 Governmental Theory " Who his own self bare our sins, rag dyxtgrla^ fjfj&Vt in his own body on the tree." 1 The apostle no doubt had in mind the words of the prophet uttered in his marvelous prevision of the redemptive work of Christ.' Hence the two passages here stand together. They are much in the style and sense of those pre- viously considered. That they fully mean the fact of an atonement for sin in the vicarious suffering of Christ there is no reason to question. And but for the insuper- able difficulties previously stated, we might admit an element of penal substitution. The texts neither as- sert nor require it. Nor will the doctrine of Satisfac- tion appropriate them literally. Let it put upon " our sins " any proper definition according to the literal sense, and then answer to the question, whether Christ really bore them in his own body on the tree ? It will not answer affirmatively. From such a sense the strongest doctrine of penal substitution will now turn aside, and proceed to an interpretation in accord with its more moderate views. As previously stated, we have in these texts the fact of an atonement for sin in vicarious suffering. This fact justifies the use of their strongest terms of substi- tution, and answers for their interpretation. With the sufferings and death of Christ as the only and neces- sary ground of forgiveness and salvation, we can most freely and fully appropriate them. Nor do we need the penal element for such appropriation. And on no other doctrine than on that which we maintain can it be said of Christ more truly, or with deeper emphasis, 1 1 Pet 2 : 24. ■ Isa. 63 : 4-12. and Scripture Facts. 255 that " he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him ; and with his stripes we are healed : " " who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree." V. Theory and Scripture Facts. There are a few special facts, clearly scriptural and with decisive bearing on the nature of the atonement, which may be noted here. They will be found wit- nessing for the theory which we maintain, and against that in special issue with it. 1. Guilt of Redeemed Sinners. — It is an obvious fact both of the Scriptures and of the reason of the case, that sinners as such are under divine condemnation and guilt. There is no exception in favor of elect sinners, whose sins are alleged to have suffered merited pun- ishment in Christ as substitute in penalty. Even ad- mitting the Calvinistic distinction between the elect and non-elect, redeemed and non-redeemed, there is no such exception so long as sin is their habit. The di- vine law condemns all alike. The penalty of justice threatens all alike. Why should this be true of any one whose sins have suffered merited punishment in Christ as his accepted substitute ? It cannot be true. 1 Whoever suffers the just punishment of his own sins is thereafter as free from guilt or answerableness in penalty as though he had not sinned. If such punishment be possible and actual by substitution, the same consequence must •Chap, vii, VI, 2. 256 Governmental Theory follow. And we have previously shown, by quotations from the highest authorities on the doctrine of Satis- faction, that justice itself imperatively requires the dis- charge of all sinners the just punishment of whose sins Christ has suffered in their behalf. 1 On such a scheme the discharge of redeemed sinners must take place at once. Indeed, guilt is never actual- ized in them. The punishment anticipates their sin. Then so must their justification or discharge. And all that is said to the contrary respecting the requirement of proper conditions or the divine determination when the discharge shall issue is either irrelevant or incon- sistent, aud therefore nugatory. Guilt and punishment are specific facts. The penalty of justice once inflicted, the subject is free. And on the scheme of Satisfaction redeemed sinners can no more be answerable in penalty for their sins at any time than Christ as their substitute can be answerable again for the same after he has once suffered their merited punishment. "So far as the guilt of an act — in other words, its obligation to pun- ishment — is concerned, if the transgressor, or his ac- cepted substitute, has endured the infliction that is set over against it, the law is satisfied, and the obligation to punishment is discharged." a This is consistent, and to the point. The illogical jumbling which asserts an atonement for sin by actual penal substitution, and then makes it over into a kind of deposit, to be drawn upon or dis- pensed at the option of the depositary, and that may 1 Chap, vii, VI, 2. * Dr. Shedd: " Theological Essays," pp. 300, 301. AJSTD SCEIPTUEE FACTS. 257 be utterly refused to any and all, should be done with. It is in utter contrariety to the Reformed soteriology, into which the doctrine of Satisfaction by penal substi- tution is so deeply wrought, as it is to that doctrine itself, Yet we are constantly meeting this very jum- bling. Here is a specimen : " God is under no obliga- tion to make an atonement for the sin of the world ; and, after lie has made one, he is at perfect liberty to apply it to whom he pleases, or not to apply it at aU. The atonement is his, and he may do what he will with his own." ' We have no adverse criticism, except upon what is so palpably inconsistent with the doctrine of Satisfaction, as it is with the citation just now given from the same author and taken from the same discus- sion. Whenever the payment of a debt is accepted, and from whomsoever, the debtor is free. Whenever a sin is justly punished, and in whomsoever, the sinner is free. Any detention, either in punishment or in lia- bility to it, is an injustice. And the atonement of Satisfaction is not a deposit which may go to the pay- ment of our debt of guilt, but the actual payment; not something that may be accounted to us for the punish- ment of our sins, but their actual punishment. The making of such an atonement is the application of it. And now to represent it as a deposit that may be drawn upon — to write of its optional ai)plication, and of its rightful refusal to any or to all — is to jumble egre- giously. It is still a fact of the Scriptures, as also of the rea- 1 Dr. Shedd: "Theological Essays," p. 314. The italicizing is his 268 Governmental Theoey sou of the case, tnat sinners as such, though the sub- jects of redemption, are in a state of guilt. It is a fact contrary to the theory of Satisfaction and in its dis- proof, as we have previously shown. But the atone- ment in substituted suffering, not in substituted pun- ishment, and a provisory ground of forgiveness, not only agrees with such a fact, but requires it. There fore, as the only alternative to the doctrine of Satisfac- tion for a real atonement in Christ, the fact of guilt in redeemed sinners witnesses with all the force of its logic to the truth of the Governmental theory. 2. Forgiveness in Justification. — As sin in the re- deemed has real guilt, and no less on account of the redemption, therefore justification, whatever else it may be, must include an actual forgiveness of sin. There must be a discharge from guilt as then real, a remission of penalty as then imminent. There is such a forgiveness. Nor is it really questioned, except for the exigency of a system, by truly evangelized minds. The Scriptures are full of it. It is in all the warnings against impending wrath; in all the urgent entreaties to repentance and salvation; in all the requirement and urgency of faith as the necessary condition of justifica- tion; in the deep sense of guilt and peril realized in a true conviction for sin; in the earnest prayer springing from such distress of conscience, and importuning the mercy of heaven; in the peace and joy of soul when the prayer is answered and the Spirit witnesses to a gracious adoption. Justification is not merely the information, given at the time of such experience, of a discharge from guilt and Scripture Facts. 259 long before achieved through the merited punishment of sin in a substitute. As up to this time the guilt is real, so the forgiveness is now real. And it is much against the theory of Satisfaction that it cannot give us a true doctrine of forgiveness in justification. But the doctrine which we maintain encounters no such objection. Such an atonement, while a sufficient ground of forgiveness, leaves all the guilt with the sinner until his justification by faith. Then his sins are really for- given. So witness the Scriptures; and so witnesses many a happy experience. 3. Grace in Forgiveness. — The Satisfactionist thinks his own doctrine pre-eminently one of grace. Is it such in the forgiveness of sin ? This is the special point we make here. Forgiveness is in the very nature of it an act of grace. That the divine forgiveness in our justi- fication is such an act the Scriptures fully testify. Still, it is true that a debt paid, and by whomsoever, is not forgiven; that a penalty inflicted, and upon whomso- ever, is not remitted. And let it be remembered that the absolute irremissibility of penalty is the ground- principle in the theory of Satisfaction. But since the economy of redemption is of God; since it originated in his infinite love; and since he pro- vided the sacrifice in atonement for sin, is not his grace in forgiveness free and full ? So the Satisfactionist reasons. Nor would we abate aught of the love of God in human redemption. There is infinite grace in his forgiveness of sin; but on the doctrine of atonement which we maintain, and not on that of Satisfaction. If a doctrine is constructed, as that of Satisfaction. 260 Governmental Theory in the fullest recognition of a distinction of persons in the divine Trinity, and also of the specific part of each in the economy of human salvation, then it must not, for any after-exigency, ignore or suppress such distinc- tion. If in the atonement, and as the only possible atonement, the Father inflicted the merited punishment of sin upon the Son, and the Son endured the punish- ment so inflicted, then they fulfill distinct offices in re- demption. Yet the fact is often ignored or suppressed, in order to defend the doctrine of Satisfaction against the objection that it denies to the Father a gracious forgiveness of sin. Even Marshall Randies finds it convenient to do this in the defense of his own doctrine of a conditional penal substitution against the same ob- jection. 1 If, in the obligation of an absolute retributive jus- tice the Father must inflict merited punishment upon sin — and if in the atonement he inflicted such punish- ment upon his Son as the substitute of sinners — then he does not remit the penalty. No dialectics can identify such infliction with remission. And where there is no remission of penalty there can be no grace of forgive- ness. Hence, the doctrine of Satisfaction does not ad- mit the grace of the Father in forgiveness; which fact of grace, however, is clearly given in the Scriptures. But this great fact of grace is in full accord with the Governmental theory. A provisory atonement in sub- stituted suffering, rendering forgiveness consistent with the rectoral office of justice, yet in itself abating noth- ing of the guilt of sin, as its punishment must, gives 1 "Substitution: Atonement," pp. 247, 248. and Scripture Facts. 261 place for a real and gracious forgiveness. There is a real forgiveness in our justification, and an infinite grace of the Father therein. And the Reetoral theory, agree- ing with these facts so decisive of the nature of re- demptive substitution, and the only theory of a real atonement so agreeing, gives us the true doctrine. 4. Universality of Atonement. — We have previously noted the fact that the doctrine of Satisfaction requires, on the ground of consistency, a limited atonement; and also that its universality, as given in the Scriptures, is fatal to the scheme. 1 But the Governmental theory is consistent with the universality of the atonement, with a real conditionality of its saving grace, and with the fact that the subjects of redemption may reject its overtures of mercy and perish. It is the only theory of a real atonement in accord with these facts, and, therefore, the true one. 5. Universal Overture of Grace. — Who will hesitate in such an overture ? Who will question its obligation ? But without a universal atonement the offer would be made to many for whom there is no grace of forgive- ness: hence there could be no such obligation. And if the atonement be for all, it must be of a nature to render its universality consistent with all the facts of soteriology. It is such only on the Rectoral theory. 6. Doctrinal Result. — The fact of a real atonement in Christ is with the Satisfaction and Governmental the- ories. Hence the question of its nature is between them. We appeal it to the decision of the facts given in this section. Here are five scriptural facts, all prom- 1 Chap, vii, VI, 3. 262 Governmental Theory inent in soteriology, and all vitally concerning the very nature of the atonement. They are inconsistent with the doctrine of Satisfaction, but in full accord with the Rectoral theory. They require such an atonement, and, therefore, certify its truth. 7. delation of Atonement to Childhood. — We may not entirely omit the question of this relation. Yet it is not directly in the line of our discussion, and is, there- fore, to be passed with little more than a reference. And the reference is properly to a particular phase of the question. There are questions of a common infant justification and regeneration, but these we entirely omit as irrelevant. The reference we make is to the atonement in its relation to the salvation of such as die in infancy. But even this aspect of the question is only incidental to our discussion. We treat the atonement in view of the fact of sin and the requirements of moral govern- ment. It is a provision for the salvation of sinners, and necessary for them as sinners. On the ground of such facts rests the validity of our argument for the necessity of an atonement, and the correctness of our theory of its nature. Hence the question of its relation to childhood is irrelevant to this discussion, or, if rele- vant, not peculiar, and, therefore, requiring no separate consideration. If there be a native guilt and damna bleness as well as a native depravity — ever two distinct questions, however jumbled in theological treatment- then the relation of the atonement to the salvation of dying infants is the same as to that of adult sinners. But if, with the reality of a native depravity, there be and Scripture Facts. 263 not a native demerit and damnableness, then this rela- tion is peculiar, and, therefore, not relevant to our dis- cussion of atonement. From the facts thus brought into view it is apparent that the question of this relation is, first of all and chiefly, a question of anthropology, particularly of orig- inal sin, and not in the sense of a native depravity, but in the far deeper sense of a native demerit and damnableness The view taken of this question must consistently determine the view respecting the relation of the atonement to the salvation of such as die in infancy. With a native guilt and damnableness, dying infants would, as just noted, require for their salvation the same atonement and forgiveness as adult sinners. This is really the Calvinistic position, and without difficulty at this point. There is no peculiar relation of the atonement to the salvation of infants, and hence no place for any perplexing question respecting it. There is still, however, a very great difficulty in this system, but lying back in the matter of a native demerit and damnableness. But if, with a doctrine of native depravity, that of a native demerit and damnableness is denied— the really consistent Arminian position — then the redemptive economy has some peculiarity of relation to the sal- vation of such as die in infancy. The question is not without its difficulty. But we are not disposed to re- place it with the far greater difficulty in the Calvinistic position. We must confess that the usual Arminian treatment of this question is not very satisfactory. It 264 Governmental Theory often hesitates, vacillates. There is a native guilt, but not guilt as of actual sin. There is a native demerit and damnableness, and there is not — especially not such as might, consistently with the divine justice, be visited with endless judicial wrath. The indecision is from an attempt to hold Calvinism and Arminianism together beyond the point of a real divergence, or from a fail- ure to give scientific completeness to the latter. But demerit and damnableness are such specific facts, and facts in such positive relation to justice and law, that they cannot be and not be at the same time. Hence the answer respecting them should be categorical — yea or nay, not yea and nay. It must be so before we can conclude the question whether the atonement has any peculiar relation to the salvation of such as die in infancy. We have previously noted the real distinction be- tween the two questions of a native depravity and a native demerit and damnableness. The former we hold fully and firmly; the latter we do not hold. It is not in our article " Of Original or Birth Sin." The fact has the deeper doctrinal significance because of the history of the article as adopted into our creed, The original article from which it is taken — ninth of the thirty-nine articles of the Church of England— is very strong in the assertion of a native demerit and damnableness; and the very significant fact is, that all this part was authoritatively omitted from the article on its adoption as our own symbol. 1 But our native 'See our article in the "Methodist Quarterly Review," p. 406. July, 18T7. and Scripture Facts, 265 depravity is in itself a moral ruin. Deliverance there- from is only through the economy of redemption. In- fants dying in infancy are saved in Christ. This we fully and gratefully believe. But the relation of his redemptive mediation to their salvation is peculiar. Their salvation has not the same sense in every fact as that of adult sinners. The question is a mystery as yet without solution. The Scriptures are quite silent respecting it. We have no clear light to give; as cer- tainly we have received none from others. For ourselves we make this concession of mystery in the question before us without the slightest hesitation. Every great doctrinal system encounters serious, even insoluble difficulty at some point. When the case arises let it be frankly confessed. In this our Calvinistic brethren are worthy of most honorable mention. Yet some Arminians, accustomed to think every thing very clear on this question, will regard our position with sur- prise and dissatisfaction. They are probably not such as have studied the question most deeply. A proper discussion of this question, as previously noted, would require a discussion of anthropology, es- pecially of original sin. It would also require a treat- ment of the application of redemptive grace in salva- tion. But these questions belong to other divisions of theology, and would lead us quite aside from the dis- cussion in hand. 266 Elements of Sufficiency. CHAPTER IX. SUFFICIENCY OF THE ATONEMENT. fTIHE substitution of Christ in suffering answers for an atonement through a revelation of such moral truths as may give the highest ruling power to the divine law. It must, therefore, embody such facts as will give the necessary revelation. Only thus can the atonement have sufficiency. It is proper, therefore, that we spe- cially note some of these facts of atoning value. Au- thors differ somewhat respecting them. 1 This may arise, at least in part, from a difference in the doctrine. The vital facts are clear in the light of Scripture. I. The Holiness of Christ. 1. A Necessary Element. — A criminal cannot be a proper mediator. Whoever dishonors himself and the law by his own transgression is thereby disqualified for the office of mediation in behalf of a criminal. If hu- man government does not require moral perfection for such office, still, the mediator must not be amenable to penalty on his own account. And the higher his per- sonal righteousness and moral worth, the more valu- able will be his mediation as the ground of forgiveness. *Dr. Jenkyn: "The Extent of the Atonement," chap, ii; Frofc Bruce : " The Humiliation of Christ," p. 385. The Holiness op Christ. 267 As a mediation, so accepted, must inculcate respect for law and enforce obedience to its requiremen ts, so, much depends upon the moral worth of the mediator. And Christ, in the atonement, must be without sin and clear of all its penal liabilities. He must be personally holy.' 2. Scripture View. — The Scriptures record, and with frequent repetition, the sinlessness of Christ, and ever hold the fact in vital connection with his redeeming work. It is emphasized as fitting and necessary in the atonement, and also as an element of special value. 2 In all the force of its own worth it is a revelation of the truths and motives which constitute the best efficien- cies of moral government. The vicarious sacrifice of the sinless Christ as the sole ground of forgiveness, scepters the divine law with a ruling efficiency, with a majesty of holiness, above all the power of punishment. Also, his holiness gives its grace to all other elements of value in the atonement. II. His Greatness. 1. An Element of Atoning Value. — Whoever needs the service of a mediator is concerned to find one of the highest character and rank attainable. The minis- ter of the law vested with the pardoning power is offi- cially concerned therein. For the value of the media- tion is not in its personal influence with him, but from its rector al relations. He may already be personally 'Ullman: " The Sinlessness of Jesus," pp. 259-261; Rev. Robert Hall . " On Substitution," Works, vol. i, p. 269. s 2 Cor. 5: 21; Heb. 7 : 26 ; 1 Pet. 3: 18; 1 John 3: 5. 268 Elements of Sufficiency. disposed to clemency, but needing a proper ground for its exercise, so that law shall not suffer in its honor and authority. Such ground is furnished in the greatness and rank of the mediator. And the higher these quali- ties the more complete is the ground of forgiveness, or the more effective the support of law in all its rectoral offices. There is a philosophy in these facts, as mani- fest in our previous discussions. 1 Beyond this the case may be appealed to the common judgment. There is the same principle in the redemptive medi- ation of Christ. His greatness and rank go into his atonement as an element of the highest value. The Scriptures fully recognize and reveal the fact. It is with accordant reason and design that they so fre- quently and explicitly connect his greatness and rank with his redeeming work. 2. An Infinite Value in Christ. — In the Scriptures, to which reference was just now made as connecting the greatness of Christ with his redemptive mediation, he is revealed as the Son of God and essentially divine; as in the form of God and equal with him in glory; as the Creator and Ruler of all things ; as Lord of the angels. 5 In him, therefore, divinity itself mediates in the redemption of man. Thus an infinite greatness and rank give rectoral support to the law of God in the ministry of forgiveness to repenting sinners. This is a fact of infinite sufficiency in the atonement of Christ. J Ch. viii, HI, 3, 4. •John I: 1-3, 14; Phil. 2: 6-8; CoL 1: 14-17; Heb. 1: 2, 3- The Voluntariness op Christ. 269 III. His Voluntariness. 1. A Necessary Fact. — The injustice of a coerced substitution of one in place of another would deprive it of all benefit in atonement for sin. But when the sacrifice is in the free choice of the substitute, its vol- untariness not only gives full place to every other ele- ment of atoning value, but is itself such an element. 2. Christ a Voluntary Substitute. — On this fact the Scriptures leave us no reason for any question. And the frequency and fullness of their utterances respect- ing the freedom of Christ in the work of redemption give to that freedom all the certainty and significance which its truth requires. It is true that the Father gave the Son; that he sent him to be the Saviour of the world; that he spared him not, but delivered him up for us all; that he prepared for him a body for his priestly sacrifice in atonement for sin; but it is none the less true, that in all this the mind of the Son was at one with the mind of the Father; that he freely and gladly chose the incarnation in order to our redemp- tion; that he loved us and gave himself for us, an offer- ing and a sacrifice to God; that, with full power over his own life, he freely surrendered it in our redemp- tion. And the fact of this freedom is carried back of his incarnation and atoning suffering to the Son in his essential divinity and in his glory with the Father. 1 3. Atoning Value. — The voluntariness of Christ crowns with its grace all the marvelous facts of his re- 1 Psa. 40: 6-8; John 10: 11, 18; Phil. 2 : 6-8; Heb. 10: 5-9. 18 270 Elements of Sufficiency. deeming work. His atoning sacrifice, while in the pur- est free-willing, was at once in an infinite beneficence toward us, and in an infinite filial love and obedience toward his Father. And the will of the Father, in obe- dience to which the sacrifice is made, so far from limit- ing its atoning worth, provides for its highest sufficiency by opening such a sphere for the beneficence and filial obedience of the Son. Both have infinite moral worth with the Father. So he regards them, not in any com- mercial valuation, but as intrinsically good. Now for- giveness on such a ground is granted only on account of what is most precious with God, and therefore a vindication of his justice and holiness, of his rectoral honor and authority, in the salvation of repenting souls. 1 IV. His Divine Sonship. 1. Sense of Atoning Value. — The nearer a mediator stands in the relations of friendship with an offended party, the more persuasive will his intercession be. But this is a matter of mere personal influence, not of rectoral service. The party offended is regarded simply in his personal disposition, not as a minister of the law, with the obligations of his office; and, so far, the case has more affinity with the Satisfaction theory than with the Governmental. According to this theory, God needs no vicarious sacrifice for his personal propitiation. His need is for some provision which will render the forgiveness of sin consistent with his own honoj and authority as moral Ruler, and with the good of his * Rev. Robert Hall : " On Substitution." Works, vol. i, p. 269 The Dittke Sonshep of Cheist. 271 subjects. Hence, while we find an element of atoning value in the divine Sonship of Christ, we find it not in a matter of personal influence with the Father, but on a principle of rectoral service. This value lies in the moral worth which the Sonship of Christ gives to his redeeming work in the appreciation of the Father. The nature of it will further appear in the treatment of its measure in the next paragraph. 2. Measure of Value. — The divine filiation of the Redeemer furnishes an element of great value in the atonement. This may be illustrated in connection with two facts of his Sonship. A Ground of the Father's Love. — The divine filia- tion of the Redeemer is original and singular. It is such as to be the ground of the Father's infinite love to his Son. On nothing are the Scriptures more explicit than on the fact of this love. Therein we have the ground of the Father's infinite appreciation of the re- deeming work of the Son. And the truth returns, that forgiveness is granted only on the ground of what is most precious with the Father. By all this precious- ness, as revealed in the light of the Father's love to the Son, his redemptive mediation, as the only and neces- sary ground of forgiveness, gives utterance to the authority of the divine law, and the obligation of its maintenance ; to the sacredness of moral rights and interests, and the imperative requirement of their protection ; to the evil of sin, and the urgency of its restriction. These are the very facts which give the highest, best ruling power to the divine law. And thus we have an element of sufficiency in the atonement. 272 Elements op Sufficiency. A Revelation of his Love to Us. — The redeeming love of God toward us is most clearly seen in the light of his love for his own Son. Only in this view do we read the meaning of its divine utterances. 1 Why did the Father sacrifice the Son of his love in our redemp- tion? It could not have been from any need of per- sonal propitiation toward us. The redeeming sacrifice, itself the fruit of his love to us, is proof to the con- trary. He gave his Son to die for us that he might reach us in the grace of forgiveness and salvation. Why then did he so sacrifice the Son of his love? The only reason lies in the moral interests concerned, and which, in the case of forgiveness, required an atone- ment in their protection. But for his regard for these rights and interests, and, therefore, for the sacredness and authority of his law as the necessary means of theii protection, he might have satisfied the yearnings of his compassion toward us in a mere administrative forgive- ness. This he could not do consistently with either his goodness or his rectoral obligation. And rather than surrender the interests which his law must protect, he delivers up his own Son to suffering and death. There- fore, in this great sacrifice — infinitely great because of his love for his Son, and therein so revealed — in this great sacrifice, and with all the emphasis of its great- ness, God makes declaration of an infinite regard for the interests and ends of his moral government, and of an immutable purpose to maintain them. This declara- tion, in all the force of its divine verities, goes to the support of his government, and gives the highest honor 1 John 3: 16; Rom. 8: 32; 1 John 4: 10. The Human Brotherhood of Christ. 273 and ruling power to his law, while forgiveness is grant- ed to repenting sinners. V. His Human Brotherhood. 1. Mediation must Express an Interest. — A strangei to a condemned party, and without reason for any special interest in his case, could not be accepted as a mediator in his behalf. A pardon granted on such ground would, in respect of all ends of government, be the same as one granted on mere sovereignty. The case is clearly different when, on account of intimate relations of friendship, or other special reasons of in- terest, the mediation is an expression of profound sym- pathy. Forgiveness on such an intercession is granted, not for any thing trivial or indifferent, and so evincing an indifference to the law, but only for what is re- garded as real, and a sufficient justification of the for- giveness. This gives support to law. It loses nothing of respect in the common judgment, nothing of its ruling force. And the profounder the sympathy of the mediator, the greater is the rectoral service of his mediation as the ground of forgiveness. 2. The Principle in Atonement. — Christ appropriates the principle by putting himself into the most intimate relation with us. In the incarnation he clothes himself in our nature, partakes of our flesh and blood, and enters into brotherhood with us. 1 Herein is the reality and the revelation of a profound interest in his media- tion. The love and sympathy of this brotherhood he « John 1: 14; GaL 4: 4, 5; Heb. 2: 11, 14-16. 274 Elements of Sufficiency. carries into the work of atonement. They are voiced in his tears and sorrows, in the soul agonies of Geth- semane, in the bitter outcryings of Calvary, and are still voiced in his intercessory prayers in heaven. Men and angels, in a spontaneous moral judgment, pronounce such a mediation a sufficient ground of forgiveness, and vindicate the divine administration therein. No shadow falls upon the divine rectitude. The divine law suffers no dishonor nor loss of ruling power. Thus the human brotherhood of Christ gives sufficiency to his atonement. 1 VL His Suffering. 1. Extreme Views. — In one view the suffering of Christ contains, in respect of our guilt or forgiveness, the whole atoning value. Only substitutional punish- ment so atones; and this just in the measure of the penal suffering endured. " This hypothesis measures the atonement not only by the number of the elect, but by the intensity and degree of the suffering to be en- dured for their sin. It adjusts the dimensions of the atonement to a nice mathematical point, and poises its infinite weight of glory even to the small dust of a balance. I need not say that the hand which stretches such lines, and holds such scales, is a bold one. Such a calculation represents the Son of God as giving so much suffering for so much value received in the souls given to him; and represents the Father as dispensing so many favors and blessings for so much value re- ceived in obedience and sufferings. This is the com- 1 Rev. Robert Hall : " On Substitution ; " Works, voL i, p. 270. The Suffering of Christ. 275 mercial atonement — the commercial redemption, with which Supralapsarian theology degrades the Gospel, and fetters its ministers; which sums up the worth of a stupendous moral transaction with arithmetic, and with its little span limits what is infinite." 1 This is the atonement by equal, as well as by identical penal- ty. It is really the atonement by equivalent penalty, which varies the case by the admission of a less degree of penal suffering, but only on account of its higher value arising from the rank of the substitute, while an abso- lute justice receives full satisfaction in behalf of the elect. 2 Such a doctrine has no lofty grandeur, nor profound philosophy. It blanks the grace of God in forgiveness. This is one extreme. In another view, it is denied that the suffering of Christ, especially in the facts subsequent to the incar nation, is essential to the atonement. The author just cited purposely omits "intensity of suffering" as a necessary element of atonement, and does not hesitate to assert that the incarnation of the Son of God is in itself such an act of condescension in behalf of sinners, that, as the only ground of forgiveness, it is a higher revelation of the divine justice than could be given by their eternal subjection to the merited punishment of sin. Such is the other extreme. 2. A Necessary Element. — We are not honoring the divine love by an affected exaltation of one fact, how* ever stupendous, in the work of human redemption. Nor should we omit, as a necessary element, what the 1 Dr. Jenkyn: "The Extent of the Atonement," pp. 21, 28. 1 Chap, vii, II, 3. 276 Elements of Sufficiency. Scriptures account to the atonement as the vital fact of its sufficiency. That the sufferings of Christ are so vital is clear from many texts previously cited or given by reference. They are even essential to the atoning service of other elements of sufficiency. The holiness, greatness, voluntariness, divine Sonship, and human brotherhood of Christ are, in themselves, but qualities of fitness for his redemptive mediation, and enter as elements of sufficiency into the atonement only as he enters into his sufferings. Without his sufferings and death there is really no atonement. This is the truth of Scripture. 3. An Infinite Sufficiency. — The sufferings of Christ, which go into the atonement as a revelation of God in his regard for the principles and ends of his moral gov- ernment, and in his immutable purpose to maintain them, give to it an infinite sufficiency. We cannot fath- om these sufferings. We get the deeper sounding only as we hold them in association with the greatness and rank of Christ himself. The incarnation itself is a great fact of atoning value in the redemptive mediation of Christ. This is clear in our doctrine, however difficult it may be for that of Satisfaction so to appropriate it. It must go into such an atonement, if at all, either as a vicarious punish- ment or as a fact of vicarious righteousness. The Bchenie finds atonement in nothing else. Now the in- carnation itself could not be a fact of penal substitu- tion, because it could not be a punishment. Could it be a fact of sdcarious obedience, and imputable to the elect? We know not the Scripture exegesis nor the The Suffering of Christ. 277 philosophy of the fact which can so interpret it. It is not such because a fact of obedience. The subordina- tion of the Son puts all his acts, even those of creation and providence, into the sphere of filial obedience. And we might as well account these acts an imputable personal righteousness in atonement for the elect as so to account his obedience in the free choice of the incar- nation. So difficult, if not absolutely impossible, is it for the doctrine of Satisfaction to appropriate the great fact of the incarnation as an element of atonement. Our doctrine has no difficulty in the appropriation. We require it to be neither a fact of penal substitution nor one of imputable personal righteousness. It goes into the atonement as one of the great facts of conde- scension and sacrifice in the work of redemption. The humiliation of Christ in the incarnation thus becomes a great fact of sufficiency in the atonement. His condescension to the form of an angel would have been much. How infinitely more the actual conde- scension! There are two marvelous facts: the self- emptying — eavrov kfcevooe — or self -divestment of a rightful glory in equality with God; and an assumption, instead, of the form of a servant in the likeness of men.' The Son of God, the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, 2 and dwelling in the glory of the Father, 8 condescends to the plane of humanity, and dwells here in the likeness of sinful flesh. 4 The incarnation is not the limit of the humiliation and sacrifice of Christ: "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient 'PM, 2:6, 1. a Heb, 1:3, 'John It: 5. 4 Rom. 8:3. 278 Elements of Sufficiency. unto death, even the death of the cross." ' What scenes are disclosed in Gethsemane and on Calvary! Burdens of sorrow, depths of woe, intensities of agony ! An awful mystery of suffering! At such a cost the Saviour redeems the world. Nor have we the truest, deepest sense of the suffer- ings of Christ, except in the fact that he endured them as the Theanthropos. With the doctrine of a union of the divine and human natures in a unity of personality in Christ, and that in the incarnation he was truly the God-man, we know not either the theology or philoso- phy which may limit his sufferings to a mere human consciousness. And with the impassivity of his divine nature in the incarnation and atonement, many texts of Scripture, fraught with infinite treasures of grace and love, would be little more than meaningless words. 2 On such a principle their exegesis would be superficial and false to their infinitely deeper meaning. The di- vine Son incarnate, and so incarnate in human nature as to unite it with himself in personal unity, could suffer, and did suffer in the redemption of the world. 3 Such are the facts which combine in the atonement, and, on the principles previously explained, give to it an infinite sufficiency. They are God's revelation of himself in his moral government, for the vindication of his justice and law in the ministry of forgiveness, 'Phil. 2: 8. •Acts 20: 28; Rom. 8: 32; Phil. 2: 6-11; Col. 1: 13-lf; Heb. 1:3; 2: 9, 14-18; Rev. 1: 5, 6; 5: 6-13. »Dr. Shedd: "Theological Essays," p. 2*72; Dr. Raymond: " Sys tematic Theology," vol. ii, pp. 2*75-282. The Suffering of Chbist. 279 for the restraint of sin, and for the protection of the rights and interests of his subjects. So much has he done, and so much required, that forgiveness might be consistent with these great ends. And now while on «such ground, but only on such, repenting souls are for- given and saved, he omits no judicial requirement, and surrenders no right nor interest either of himself or his subjects. 280 The Atonement CHAPTER X. A LESSON FOR ALL INTELLIGENCES. 1. Atonement for Man Only. — Speculative and fan- ciful minds, forgetting the verities of Scripture, may reach the thought not only of the sufficiency, but also of the actuality, of an atonement for moral beings other than men. 1 The Scriptures, however, limit it to the human race. Nor would any superabundance of its grace, nor any further prevalence of sin, warrant the inference of a wider extension. There are other orders under the power and curse of sin. a Here is the pros- tration of lofty powers, the corruption of once holy natures, and an awful lapse of moral beings from the highest happiness into the prof oundest woe. Nor have they any power of self-recovery. There is, therefore, in their case all the need of redemption arising out of an utter moral ruin. Nor will the divine love allow the supposition that, however just their doom, they have fallen below the reach of its pity. Yet the Script- ures give no intimation of an atonement for them, but a contrary one. Christ becomes our brother by an in- carnation in our nature, that through death he might ledeem us. 3 And we have this significant utterance of limitation : " For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." * 1 As Origen did. a 2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6. 8 Heb. 2:14, 16. * Heb. 2: 16. a Lesson for All Intelligences. 281 The passage, viewed contextually and in its own terms, clearly limits redemption in its directness and actuality to the human race. 2. Broader Relation to Moral Beings. — An atonement in the sacrifice of Christ, while for man only, may yet have a lesson of profound moral truth for other and for &1] intelligences. 1 It is such a truth, and of such moral significance, that it must deeply interest all moral be- ings to whom a knowledge of it may come. And the notion of a wide extension of such informa- tion is no conjecture, nor even a mere rational idea. Rational it is; for the atonement is too great a truth, and too broad and intimate in its relations, for any narrow limitation. The long preparation for the re- deeming Advent was known in heaven as on earth. Angels often appear amid the scenes of that prepara- tion. The redeeming Lord comes forth from the midst of their adoring myriads. Many are with him in the lowly scenes of his humiliation, deeply interested in him and in his great work. They form his triumphal escort in the ascension, and all their hosts, in glad acclaim, welcome his return. Here are means and evi- dences of a widely extended knowledge of our redemp- tion. And the fact of such a knowledge has a sure ground in the Scriptures. 3 The references given are sufficient for the point made, though there are many other texts and facts of like import. 3 Nor need we have any perplexity respecting either 1 Gilbert: "The Christian Atonement," pp. 218-220, 352, 353. 1 Bph. 3 : 10 ; 1 Pet. 1:12; Rev. 5 : 11-13. ' Dr. Chalmers : " Astronomical Discourses," Discourse iv. 282 The Atonement the possibility or the means of such universal informa- tion. Moral beings, ever steadfast in holiness and obe- dience, cannot be in entire isolation, however remote their dwelling-places. They have a common center of anion and intercourse in God, as the one Creator and Father of all. " What, then, can He who made them he at any loss how to instruct them? Does one sun dart his beams above, below, around, as well as upon a single spot of earth; and cannot the central light of God convey revelation to others as well as to us ? Is there no angel to bear the news ? no prophet among them to receive the inspiration ? To them, then, as to principalities and powers in heavenly places, may be made known the manifold wisdom of God in the Church." ' While, therefore, the lesson of the atonement surely opens its pages to the reading of all intelligences, the fact itself, and the great truths which it reveals, cannot fail profoundly to interest and impress all minds. A little attention will give us the facts for the full veri- fication of this position. 3. One Moral Constitution of ATI. — Divine revela- tion makes known to us the existence of other orders of moral beings. With this knowledge even reason hears, respecting each order, the one creative fiat of Godhead . "In our image, after our likeness." 3 And, formed in the one image of God, they have a oneness of moral constitution. As made known in the Scriptures, they clearly have a moral nature like our own, and, there- fore, in the likeness of each other. 1 Richard Watson : " Sermons," vol. i, p. 187. "Gen. 1 : 26. a Lesson for All Intelligences. 283 4. The same Moral Motivity in All. — However nu- merous their orders or vast the scale of their grada- tions, yet, with a oneness of moral nature, they are one in moral motivity. The same divine truths which im- press one may impress another, or that interest and sway us may interest and sway all. The soul of each is open to the practical revelation of God in his justice, holiness, and love; in his marvelous works of creation and providence; in his universal Fatherhood; in all the behests of his will. 5. The Cross a Power with All. — The revelation of God and truth in the atonement may give to all their profoundest religious conceptions, and move them with a pathos of love and a power of moral influence above every other. In the marvelous adjustments of the in- finite wisdom there is not wanting a masterly correla- tion of all moral natures to the grandest truth in the universe. All holy intelligences are open to the moral power of the cross. 6. Higher Orders Interested in Redemption. — The facts of this interest might be appropriated to a further illustration of truths previously given. The nature of the interest as made known, the facts which it regards, and the measure of it, all signify a likeness of moral cognition and motivity to our own, and, therefore, a capacity for the apprehension and practical realization of the great truths revealed in the atonement. The sympathy of higher orders with us is made known by the Redeemer himself : " I say unto you, that like- wise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repent- eth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which 284 The Atonement need no repentance." " Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth." ' These words are very direct and explicit, and entirely sufficient. Yet there are many other words and facts which convey a like sense. Angels often press into the scenes of human history, and not as curious spectators, but as deeply interested in human welfare. And their profounder sympathy, as evinced in their exceeding joy over our repentance, is given in an association with illustrative facts of human experience — as in the parables of the lost piece of sil- ver, the lost sheep, and the prodigal son — which clothe it in the likeness of our own sympathies. 2 Only, the sympathies of these higher orders are broader and deeper. Ours largely conform to the laws of our more special relationships, and are much subject to what is merely conventional, while theirs are free from such limitations. With them all intelligences are a common brotherhood. Hence their sympathies go out alike to all. So they come down to us. And, with the fullness of their love and profound apprehension of our miseries in sin, they have the deepest compassion for us. Hence their exceeding joy over our repentance. They view it as our escape from the misery and death of sin, and our entrance upon the highway of life, with its termi- nus amid their own thrones and glories. This is their exceeding joy. But their joy has other impulses than such sympathy with us. It specially has an impulse in a profound love 'Luke 15:7, 10. * Dr. Chalmers: " Astronomical Discourses," Discourse v a Lesson for All Intelligences. 285 and loyalty to Christ. They know that our salvation is dear to him. Their whole nature is profoundly en- listed with him in the work of saving us. And when they witness his success and his own satisfaction in our salvation, they have exceeding joy — their joy welling up from the profoundest love and loyalty to him. In such facts respecting the sympathy of higher orders with us, especially in its relation to our salva- tion and to Christ as the Saviour, we are assured of their knowledge of the great redemption in his blood, and of their profound interest therein. Chosen mes- sengers from their own mighty hosts welcomed his re- deeming advent, and in gladdest strains proclaimed him a Saviour. 1 In the holy of holies skillfully wrought cherubim with intent gaze hovered over the mercy-seat, the place of atonement and symbol of the atonement in the blood of Christ; and thus they symbolized the profound interest of the angels in the study of the mysteries of redemption. 2 Nor could they fail of such a knowledge of the atonement as would give them the practical force of its great truths. 7. Universal Lordship of Christ. — The exaltation of Christ in supreme Headship over the Church, and in universal Lordship over the angels, is a truth clearly given in the Scriptures. 8 The passages noted in the reference are most explicit, and full of the loftiest ut- terances. Christ is Head of the Church universal, whether on earth or in heaven, and supreme Lord over all intelligences. »Luke 2: 9-14. a Exod. 25 : 18, 22; Heb. 9:5; 1 Pet. 1 : 12. •Eph. 1: 20-23; 3: 10; Phil. 2: 9-11; 1 Pet. 3: 22. 19 286 The Atonement Such royal investiture of the exalted Christ is in reward of his humiliation and redeeming death. A recurrence to the texts given by reference in this con- nection will make this clear to any mind. We may cite one in illustration. With its connection its words are these : " Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a serv- ant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and be- came obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Such exaltation has not respect to Christ simply in his divinity. The texts which reveal it give a con- trary sense. Nor is the idea of such an exaltation of divinity in itself simply at all admissible. Much less may we hold this royal investiture simply in respect of the human nature of Christ. This is for- bidden by the nature of the powers and prerogatives with which he is clothed. Saints and angels, principal- ities and powers, all holy intelligences, are made sub- ject to him. They must render him the fullest obedi- ence and the profoundest worship. His divine nature, therefore, must not be considered as separate from him in this marvelous exaltation, else Christianity be justly accounted the vastest system of idolatry ever estab- a Lesson for All Intelligences. 287 Hshed. It would be such a system, and not only on earth, but also in heaven, and throughout the universe. It is the incarnate Son, the Christ in two natures, and yet in unity of personality, that is so exalted. It is the redeeming God-man, the veritable Thecmthropos who receives such royal investiture. As such he is worthy of it all; worthy in his divinity, and worthy because of his redeeming work. It is fitting that he who stooped so low should be exalted so high. Such enthronement as the Saviour is the peculiar glory of the Son. There is thus claimed for him the obedience and worshipful homage of all intelligences. It is the peculiar glory of the Father that he is the Creator and Ruler of all things. When creation and providence are ascribed to the Son it is in the deepest truth and reality of both, but never excluding the idea of his subordination therein to the Father. And such facts are set forth in the Gospel, not as his peculiar glory, but specially in connection with his redeeming work, that we might be assured of its sufficiency. 1 This distinction of the peculiar glory of each is clearly given in the Scriptures. 2 In the first passage noted in the reference, the words of the holy worship- ers are: "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory, and honor, and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created ;" and in the second: "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing." ^ohn 1: 1-4, 14; CoL 1: 14-18- Heb. 1: 3. •Rev. 4: 10, 11; 5: 11, 12. 288 The Atoto:ment It may seem strange that Christ, as the Saviour of man and exalted in our nature, should be enthroned in sovereignty over angels as over saints. It is a note- worthy fact. Nor is it without its reasons. In his divinity he is worthy of such honor and glory. And it Ls fitting that in his exaltation he should receive a do- minion reaching far beyond the immediate subjects cf his redemption. Then his red coming work touches the heart of angels, and of all holy intelligences, as nothing else can. They will ever find their highest reason for a worshipful loyalty to his throne in that he ransomed us from the power of sin by the sacrifice of himself. In the profoundest sympathy with us in the miseries of sin and death, they have the profoundest love and loy- alty to him for our salvation. Yet this is no monopolized glory on the part of the redeeming Lord. His royal investiture, the bowing of every knoe to him, the confession of every tongue that he is Lord — all is " to the glory of God the Father." "We have given two celestial scenes as opened in the Revelation: one, in which the Father receives univers- al homage as the Creator and Ruler of all things; the other, in which the Son receives universal homage as ihe Lamb slain. There is no dissonance here. Then in a third scene, as we behold the worshipers and listen to their devout strains, we catch the fullness of the di- vine harmony : "Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, be unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever." ' Now, grouping the several facts under the universal 1 Rev. 5 : 13. A Lesson fob All Intelligences. 289 Lordship of Christ, we are again assured that the knowledge of his atonement comes to all intelligences, and in a manner profoundly to interest them. Its mar- velous truth and grace, its revelation of God in his jus- tice, and holiness, and love, must occupy their minds and take profoundest hold upon all the practical forces of their moral being. And we thus find that great ends are answered by the universal Lordship of the exalted Christ. As he is enthroned over all, so is he set before all. This gives to all a knowledge of his redeeming work. And the two facts of his humiliation and exaltation combine in a universal lesson of the highest moral and religious truth. There is such a lesson in the atonement. It is fraught with a manifold divine wisdom. We may here recall in mind the words of St. Paul, previously given by reference, " wherein he speaks of the work of redemption through Christ as containing a revelation, or exhibition, of the manifold — many-sided, or many- colored — wisdom of God — t\ noXvnoi/ctXog oo(f)ia rov Qeov. 1 The precise connection of thought in which the expres- sion occurs it is not necessary to point out: it bears the stamp of a phrase coined by the apostle to embody the feeling produced in his mind by deep and protracted reflection on the gracious purpose of God in Jesus Christ. After long, rapt meditation on the sublime theme, Paul feels that the divine idea of redemption has many aspects. The pure light of divine wisdom revealed in the Gospel is resolvable into many colored rays, which together constitute a glorious spectrum 'Eph. 3: 10. 290 The Atonement presented to the admiring view of principalities and powers in heavenly places, and of all men on earth whose eyes are open to see it." ' But it is not simply for their admiration. The atonement has infinite treas- ures of most salutary truth. Such truth reaches all intelligences, specially through the universal Lordship of Christ, and rules them through the practical force of the ideas and motives which it embodies. This is the divinest moral government. 8. Grandeur of the Atonement. — We depart not from the position that the atonement is directly and actually for man only, but none the less hold that of an infinitely broader practical relation to intelligent be- ings. Divine moral government is one and universal, as the law of gravitation is one and universal. This one law holds sway over the earth, and the planets, and all the stellar worlds. So moral law, in its deeper princi- ples, is one over man, and angels, and all intelligences. The material and moral systems are widely different: in the one, a law of necessitating force; in the other, a law of obligation, with freedom of the subjects. Here the highest ruling forces are in the moral ideas asso- ciated with the law, and in the sanctions which enforce its duties. As previously stated, their governing power is conditioned on certain moral motivities in the sub- jects. As the moral constitution of subjects is so cor- related to the moral law that there may be a profound realization of its obligation together with all the higher motives of duty, so, and only thus, has the moral law a 1 Dr. Bruce: " The Humiliation of Christ," p. 363 a Lesson foe All Intelligences. 291 higL ruling power. Even penalty, as a salutary force of law, must take its place on such principles and in association with such facts. The atonement in Christ takes its place in such a universal moral government. As an atonement for sin it has its application to the smallest segment of the moral system; but in its significance and ruling forces it has a universal application. And in the marvelous economies of his wisdom and love, God has provided for its highest benedictions in all such breadth of re- lation. Illustrations we already have in the universal information of the atonement; in its ruling force, by virtue of its own facts and the adjustment of all moral natures to its influence; in the universal Lordship of Christ as the special means of such information and influence. Thus as the highest revelation of God in his holiness, and justice, and love; in his invincible hostility to sin; in his immutable purpose to maintain his own honor and authority, and sacredly to guard the rights and interests of his subjects, the atonement takes its place in the universal moral system. With all the potencies of practical truth it addresses itself to all minds. As the highest revelation of infinite love, the atone- ment will bind all holy intelligences in the deeper love to the one enthroned Lord of all, and so, with all their distinctions of order and grade, bind them in love to one another. "And the principle which shall harmonize this system is at once seen, if it be assumed that when the Eternal Word was made flesh — when He who was 'before all things and in whom all things consist' hum- 292 The. Atonement bled himself to the level of mortality, and, ' passing by the nature of angels,' took upon him a nature 'some- what lower ' — there was a purpose involved which goes beyond the immediate results of the propitiatory work of the Redeemer. So that when his vicarious functions shall have leached their completion, the union of the divine and human natures shall continue to bear a rela- tion to the social economy of the great immortal family in the heavens, and shall forever subsist as the prin- ciple or the reason of communication and harmony among all ranks." 1 This view, so rational in thought and forceful in expression, is far clearer and more forceful when read in the light of such facts and prin- ciples as we have given in this chapter. When, therefore, we assert a necessity for the atone- ment and set forth its benefits, we must, for any ade- quate conception, take an infinitely broader view than the present sphere of humanity, or even the eternal destiny of the race. Because the one law of gravita- tion is universal, the disorder of one world might, if uncorrected, become a far extended evil; while its cor- rection might be a good extending far "beyond itself, and reaching even to all worlds — except to any wan- dering star lost in the blackness of darkness forever. So the evil of sin in this world might, with the license of impunity, become a far extended evil ; while its treatment under the atonement may become a far ex- tended good, reaching even to all intelligences — except the incorrigible or finally lost, fitly compared to a wan- dering and forever lost star. 3 And such treatment of 1 Isaac Taylor: "Saturday Evening," p. 370. * Jude 13. a Lesson for All Intelligences. 298 gin, with forgiveness on a true faith in Christ, may be, and no doubt is, an infinitely higher moral good to other intelligences than its unconditional doom under the penalty of justice. 1 Thus all minds receive the great lesson of the atone- ment, with its potency of moral truth and pathos of love. And all intelligences, faithful or fallen, must bow the knee at the name of Christ. In the lesson of his cross all will learn the profoundest truth of the divine holiness and love; of the evil and hopeless doom of unatoned or unrepented sin; of the obligation and blessedness of obedience and love. All holy intelli- gences, bound in deeper love and loyalty to the divine throne by the moral power of the atonement, will for- ever stand the firmer in their obedience and bliss. And the cross, once the stigma of most heinous crime and the sign of the deepest abasement of Christ, shall henceforth symbolize to all intelligences the sublimest moral truth in the universe. 1 Richard Watson : " Sermons," vol, i, pp. 18t-189. 294 The Atonement. CHAPTER XI. OBJECTIONS TO THE ATONEMENT. IX7E must not omit all notice of the stock objections to the atonement. Yet they have little relevancy as against the doctrine which we maintain, and, there- fore, require no elaborate refutation. I. An Iiirationai, Scheme. Opponents of fundamental Christian truth are great on the rational, and especially on the irrational. A glance of their marvelous philosophic acumen detects the disconformity of a doctrine to reason. This is con- clusive against it. Thus the atonement is summarily dismissed as an irrational scheme. 1. A Pretentious Assumption. — Such an objection little becomes the limitations of human reason. In our own resources we but feebly grasp the principles and requirements of divine moral government, and, there- fore, cannot pronounce against either a necessity for the atonement, or the wisdom of its measures, or the beneficence of its results. Human reason, all-unequal to its devisement, is all-incompetent to a conclusive judgment against it. And while with us the govern- ment of a provincial municipality is still a perplexing problem, we do but arrogantly pronounce against the wisdom of the atonement in the infinitely broader Objections. 295 sphere of divine moral government. The more cer- tainly is this true since the deliverances of the highest reason accord to the economy of redemption in Christ an infinite excellence and wisdom. 2. Analogies of Providence. — If the scheme of atone ment is in analogy to the general course of providence,, the fact wholly voids this objection, except on the broad ground that the general course of providence is irrational. But such an assumption would bar all title to a respectful hearing on the part of any one profess- ing faith in Christianity, or even in God. The vicarious principle is the most common law of human society in every form of its constitution. 1 And it is no arbitrary appointment, but springs inevitably from the providential relations of human life. In the family, in society, in the commonwealth, one serves an- other, suffers for another. One takes upon himself labor and suffering on account of the sin of another, averts evil from him, and brings him good. Here is the vicarious principle. Human life is full of it. Such is the mediation of Christ in vicarious suffering. Nor is the principle really changed in the fact that his sufferings meet a special exigency of moral government in order to the forgiveness and salvation of sinners. Any objection respecting the justice of the case will be met elsewhere, and really is not pertinent here, because this exigency of moral government is met in the medi- ation of Christ by vicarious suffering, not by substi- tuted punishment. Only the latter element could carry the atonement out of such analogy to very many vicari- 1 Butler: "Analogy of Religion," Part ii, chap. v. 296 The Atonement. ous facts of human life, as to deny it the vindication of that analogy. And neither revelation, nor the general course of providence, nor reason itself, pronounces the scheme of vicarious atonement irrational. n. A Violation of Justice. No objection has been urged either more violently or persistently against the atonement than this. A few words, however, will answer for all the defense required of us. 1. No Infringement of Rights. — Injustice comes with the refusal of dues, with the deprivation of laAvful pos- sessions or inalienable rights, with wrongful injury or unmerited punishment, not otherwise. Such facts are a violation of justice, because a violation of rights. Without this there can be no injustice. On this ground we have an easy answer to the objection of injustice in the vicarious sacrifice of Christ. Others may answer for their own doctrine. 2. Analogy of Vicarious Suffering. — Men often en- dure toil and suffering, and jeopard life itself, in behalf of others. They do this electively, cheerfully, not of coercion. Do they suffer any violation of rights there- by? Is any injustice done them? Does their owd reason or the common moral judgment so pronounce? Surely not. Indeed, both approve such vicarious sacri- fice, and reprehend its refusal on proper exigency. 3. Atonement Clear of Injustice. — That the vicarious sufferings of Christ meet a special requirement of moral government in order to our forgiveness and salvation Objections. 297 introduces no element of injustice. Nor did Christ, in all his relations to the will of the Father respecting the deepest sufferings which he endured, ever evince any sense of injury or wrong. Nor was there any wrong to him: for, while he so suffered in obedience to the will of the Father, it was none the less his own elec- tion in the purest freedom. And it is no punishment >f one for the sin of another. All injustice, therefore, is excluded. 4. Vantage-ground against Moral Theory. — This is a common objection with those who maintain the Moral theory of atonement. We claim a position of the high- est advantage against them. They admit the sufferings and death of Christ as consequent upon his redemptive mission, and as for men in this sense. They admit the severity of his sufferings and the shameful manner of his death. But, on their scheme, his extreme suffering is only incidental to his saving work, while on ours it is the necessary ground of forgiveness and salvation. Therefore, our doctrine will vindicate such a divine economy, while theirs will not. The real problem is in such suffering of the innocent in behalf of the guilty. "State this fact as indeter- minately as you please ; rigidly adhere to the coldest and most undefining forms of language ; allow only that the innocent suffered for the advantage of the guilty ; what possible abatement of the charge of injustice do you supply? The difficulty, if any — the mystery, the awful mystery — remains in full proportion behind the flimsy cloud. That mystery is, the innocent, the vir- tuous, the perfect One, has borne tremendous agony. 298 The Atonement. This is the point of startling wonder, whatever the re- sult : of wonder to be diminished only by the exigency, the mighty good accruing, not otherwise to be at- tained." 1 The profound exigency is the vindicatory fact. Intense vicarious suffering, arising in a specially providential economy, and without a sufficient reason in attainable good, is of impossible defense. Such is the case with the Moral view. But the doctrine of a real atonement in Christ, with the necessity of his re- demptive sufferings as the means of salvation, and the infinite good attained, gives us the clearest and fullest theodicy. III. A Releasement from Duty. This objection, if intelligently and honestly made, must have in view some particular doctrine of atone- ment. Otherwise it has neither pertinence nor force, whatever weight logical validity would give it. 1. Fatal, if Valid. — No doctrine of atonement could stand against such an objection if grounded in truth. But duty has no surer ground, and no more imperative behest respecting all that constitutes the highest moral and religious worth, than in the atonement itself. Hence any doctrine really open to such an objection must be in error. Nor will the history of doctrines permit the assertion that no one has been so open. Antinomian- ism itself has a place in that history. And any com- mercial theory, or doctrine of atonement by absolute substitution in precept and penalty, is open to this ob- jection, however its advocates disclaim the implication. 1 Bev. Joseph Gilbert : " The Christian Atonement," p. 93. Objections. 299 A punishment so endured for us, and a righteousness so wrought on our account, cannot again be required of us under any claim of justice or sanction of law. But the doctrine which we maintain is not answerable in such a case. % Nugatory on a True Doctrine. — On a true doctrine the atonement in Christ is simply the ground of for- giveness, not the merited punishment of sin. Hence we are guilty all the same, though now with the privi- lege of forgiveness and salvation. And for such a result through redemptive grace there is required a true repentance for sin and a true faith in Christ; and, as the condition of his continued favor, a true obedience to his will. A measure of forgiveness in behalf of rebels would surely be no discharge from the obliga- tion and requirement of future loyalty, and especially when the continuance of the restored franchisements is conditioned on fidelity in future loyalty. Such are the facts respecting the atonement. And in all its truth and lesson it makes duty specially imperative and re- sponsible, and presses its claim with a weight of obli- gation and a power of motive peculiar to itself. It is, therefore, wholly and forever clear of this objection. IV. An Aspersion of Divine Goodness. This, also, must have in view some special doctrine of atonement. Otherwise, it is so manifestly ground- less that it can hardly be a mere fallacy, and must be a sophistry; not a mere error in its logic, but an inten- tional error. 800 The Atonement. 1. Reason of Law and Penalty. — Whence comes law? And wherefore penalty ? Is their origin in the cruelty of rulers? Is revengefulness the moving impulse of legislators and ministers of law ? Is vindictiveness the inspiration of punishment ? Is implacableness the sole restraint of the pardoning power ? No man can think so. The public good requires both law and penalty. Here is their source. This fact does not give us the highest principles of divine moral government, yet has enough analogy for illustration. Rulers in human gov- ernment, if by personal qualities well fitted for their office, cherish infinitely higher sentiments than the present objection would imply in application to them. With rulers of the highest and best qualities clemency would often release the criminal when the public good constrains his punishment. And they should have the honor of a wise and beneficent administration rather than suffer the reproach of vindictiveness. 2. iVb Aspersion of Goodness. — Now if the punitive ministries of justice imply no vindictiveness, but evince the wisdom and beneficence of government, how does the refusal of pardon so imply ? Then how would the requirement of such provision as would render forgive- ness consistent with the ends of government show any implacability ? And then how does the atonement, as necessary to the consistency of forgiveness with the infinite interest of moral government, impeach the clemency of the divine Ruler, or asperse his goodness ? When this is shown, other questions may be asked. Until then they are not necessary. 3. Divine Love Magnified. — The atonement has its Objections. 301 original in the divine love. Nor has it any other pos sible source. The human mind is powerless for the original conception of such a scheme. Nor could it have birth in the mind of angel or archangel, but in God only. And with him its primary impulse must arise in his love. It could not arise in any perfection of knowledge, or power, or justice, or holiness. There must be a profound sympathy with human woe. An infinite compassion must yearn over the miseries of sin. Love only can answer to such requirement. " God is love." * Herein is the primary impulse of human re- demption, and the ever active force in all its infinite sacrifices. To this one source the Scriptures ever trace it. And the divine love, so moving to an atonement for sin, must meet the sacrifices which it requires. These are infinitely great. A plan of human redemption must be adjusted to the profoundest interests of the moral universe. The infinite exigency reaches into heaven for the Son of the Father's love. He must be the atoning sacrifice. He must be delivered up to humiliation and death. The divine love answers to the infinite exigency. 2 And while the cross stands as the symbol of the atonement, and it is written "God so loved the world," that atonement casts no aspersion upon his clemency, but infinitely magnifies his love. 1 1 John 4: 16. •John 3: 16; Rom. 5: 6-10; 8: 32; 1 John 4: 10. 20 302 Extent of the Atonement. CHAPTER XH. UNIVERSALITY OF THE ATONEMENT. A RMINIANISM and Calvinism, the two leading evangelical systems, inevitably join issue on the ex- tent of the atonement. The former, by its principles of moral government, its doctrine of sin, and the cardinal facts of its soteriology, is determined to a theory of universality. The latter, by its doctrine of divine de- crees, its principles of soteriology, and the nature of the atonement which it maintains, is determined to a theory of limitation. Hence, as previously noted, the question of extent is more than a question of fact; it concerns the very doctrine of atonement. It specially concerns the doctrine of Satisfaction. If in the divine destination the atonement is alike for all, and actually as well as potentially sufficient for all, then that doc- trine cannot be true. Otherwise, all must be saved. Its advocates will not dissent from this. There is a modified Calvinism which holds a general atonement; but the fact does not affect the correctness of our statement respecting Calvinism proper. And this modified view rather shifts than voids the very serious difficulties of limitation, or replaces them with others equally grave. The new theory originated early in the seventeenth century with Camero, an eminent Protestant and pro- fessor of theology in France. Amyraut, Placaeus, and Detepmtntng Law. 308 Cappellus were his associates, and active in the develop- ment and propagation of his views. Baxter is in their succession. Many Congregationalists and New School Presbyterians have held substantially the same theory. 1 The doctrine, while maintaining a general atonement, holds in connection with it special election and a sov- ereign application of grace in the salvation of the elect. Christ died for all. The Gospel, with all its overtures of grace may, therefore, be preached to all in the fullest consistency. But all reject its proffered grace. They do this from a moral inability to its acceptance; yet responsibly, because of a natural ability to the accept- ance. Then God interposes, and sovereignly applies the grace of atonement in the salvation of the elect. In addition to the two distinctions of supralapsarian and infralapsarian election, this doctrine really gives us a third, which might be called infraredemptarian. A universal atonement could have no universal gracious purpose when beforehand God had elected a part tc the benefit of its grace, and treated the rest with at least an utterly dooming pretention. Indeed, such a previous election and a universal atonement cannot stand together. An election after redemption may be consistent with this modified Calvinistic soteriology. The theory, however, is really valueless for the relief of the very serious difficulties which beset the doctrine of a limited atonement. But we here dismiss it as not directly in the line of the present question. This further may be said, without any retraction re specting Calvinism, that there is nothing in its deeper 'M'Clintock & Strong: " Cyclopaedia," vol. i, pp. 209, 210. 304 Extent of tub Atonement. principles to limit the atonement, had it pleased God to destinate it for all. Such a divine sovereignty as the system asserts was surely free to embrace all in the covenant of redemptive grace. But as the atone- ment of Satisfaction, both by its own nature and by ^11 the principles of soteriology scientifically united ivith it must issue in the actual salvation of all for whom it is made, and as actual salvation is limited in fact, therefore such an atonement must have been limited in its divine destination. So it is held. The question of extent in the atonement has its is- sue and interest mainly between Arminianism and Cal- vinism. Historically, its polemics is specially between them. Nor shall we turn aside in this discussion to treat its comparatively indifferent relation to other schemes. Both of these systems maintain the reality of an atonement in Christ as the only and necessary ground of forgiveness and salvation. And as the question of its nature lies specially between them, so does that of its extent. L Determining Law of Extent. 1. Intrinsic Sufficiency for AU.—li the son of a king should mediate in behalf of rebellious subjects, and so much should be required, in whatever form of personal sacrifice, for each individual forgiveness, then the ex- tent of the forgiveness provided would be determined by the amount of sacrifice endured by the mediating son. The atonement in the mediation of Christ is on a different principle. So it is maintained, and has been, Determining Law. 305 with the exception of the now generally discarded Commercial scheme of an identical or equal penalty by substitute. Now by common consent the atonement is the same in intrinsic worth, and infinitely sufficient for all, whether really for all or for only a part. Hence, if there be a limitation to a part of mankind, it must be the result of a limiting divine destination, and not from any want of an intrinsic sufficiency for all. So far there is now no reason for any polemics between Calvinism and Arminianism. 2. Divine Destination Determinative. — The redemp- tion of men in a mass, and merely as such, or of hu- manity as a nature, and therefore of all individual partakers of the nature, is inherently erroneous and false to the true doctrine of atonement. The atone- ment is for sinners as such, and, therefore, must be directly for them as individual sinners. It is only as such that they may be either condemned or forgiven. It is only, therefore, in their distinct personalities that they can be either in need of an atonement or the re- cipents of its grace. This notion of the redemption of human nature as such, and therefore of all its indi- viduations in personality, has never gained any formal position in Arminian theology; yet it has not been entirely absent from individual opinion and utterance. It has, probably, commended itself to some as strongly favoring the universality of the atonement. If founded in truth it would be conclusive of the question. It is not founded in the truth, nor can it be; and for the reason previously given. Nor is such a position at all necessary to the grand truth of a universal atonement, 806 Extent of the Atonement. The atonement is for individual men by virtue of a divine intention. While, therefore, sufficient for all, it is really for all or for a part only, according to that same divine intention. We are so writing in full knowledge of the fact that such is precisely and explicitly the Cal- vinistic position. We shun it not on that account. It is the truth in the case, and, therefore, we fully accept it. We shall suffer no detriment, but find an advan- tage, in the maintenance of a universal atonement. But Calvinistic divines, while holding a limited atonement, are most pronounced upon its intrinsic sufficiency for all. And they warmly repel all accusation of a con- trary view, and all idea that a limitation of sufficiency can have any logical sequence to their scheme. No Arminian can be more explicit or emphatic in the dec- laration of this sufficiency. The question of their con- sistency is another question, but one that does not properly arise here. But they are consistent and right in maintaining that the extent of the atonement is de- termined by its divine destination. While intrinsically sufficient for all, it is really for only a part, because God so intended it. Such is their ground. We might verify these positions by numerous quota- tions from the highest Calvinistic authorities. Their truth, however, is so familiar to careful students of this subject, and so out of all question, as to be in little need of proof. A few quotations may be given rather in the way of example or illustration. " The obedience and sufferings of Christ, considered in themselves, are, on account of the infinite dignity of his person, of that value as to have been sufficient for Determining Law. 307 redeeming, not only all and every man in i articular, but many myriads besides, had it so pleased God and Christ that he should have undertaken and satisfied for them." ' On the question respecting the extent of the atone- ment: "It does not respect the value and sufficiency of the death of Christ, whether as to its intrinsic worth it might be sufficient for the redemption of all men. It is confessed by all, that since its value is infinite, it would have been sufficient for the redemption of the entire human family had it appeared good to God to extend it to the whole world. . . . The question which we discuss concerns the purpose of the Father in send- ing the Son, and the intention of the Son in dying." 2 " That the value of our Lord's satisfaction is, in itself, considered infinite; sufficient, if applied, to save the whole of Adam's fallen race; and that, had it been God's intention to save all mankind, our Saviour's obe- dience and sufferings would have been amply meri- torious, and no addition to the depth of his humilia- tion, or to the purity of his life, or to the intensity of his agonies, would have been required by divine jus- tice : all this we fully believe." 3 " The two sides of this question do not imply any difference of opinion with regard to the sufficiency of the death of Christ, or with regard to the number and character of those who shall eventually be saved. . . . But they differ as to the destination of the death of 1 "Witsius: "On the Covenants," vol. i, p. 225. 1 Turrettin: "Atonement of Christ," p. 123. • Dr. Janeway : " The Atonement." Presbyterian Tracts, vol i, p. 16. 308 Extent of the Atonement. Christ; whether in the purpose of the Father and the will of the Son it respected all mankind, or only those persons to whom the benefit of it is at length to be applied." ' "All Calvin ists agree in maintaining earnestly that Christ's obedience and sufferings were of infinite In- trinsic value in the eye of the law, and that there was no need for him to obey or suffer an iota more nor a moment longer in order to secure, if God so willed, the salvation of every man, woman, and child that ever lived." a It is needless to add to these authorities by further quotation. We add a few by reference. 3 Whether such a view has scientific consistency is a question which concerns not us, but those who maintain it. Dr. Schaff has real ground for saying, as he art- lessly does in the reference just given : " Full logical consistency would require us to measure the value of Christ's atonement by the extent of its actual benefit or availability, and either to expand or to contract it according to the number of the elect." If the atone- ment is by penal substitution, Avhy did Christ suffer a far deeper punishment than strict justice required as a full equivalent for the penal dues of the elect ? We know that the excess of merit is ascribed to the infinite 1 Dr. Hill : " Lectures in Divinity," pp. 505, 506. 1 Dr. A. A. Hodge: "The Atonement," p. 356. •Owen: "Works," (Goold's,) vol. x, p. 297; Schaff: "Creeds of Christondom," vol. i, pp. 520, 521; Symington: " Atonement and In- tercession," p. 185; Smeaton: "Apostles' Doctrine of Atonement, 1 ' p. 538; Hodge: "Systematic Theology," vol. ii, p. 544; Cunning- ham: "Historical Theology," vol. ii, p. 332. Determining Law. 309 rank of Christ. But, on this doctrine, his penal s offer- ing is a necessary element of atonement : and it is still true that he suffered a deeper punishment than justice required. Was this just ? Would God so punish him when a far less measure would be all that justice re- quired ? The Rectoral atonement has a place for the utmost vicarious suffering of Christ : but the Satisfac tion atonement has no place for any excess of substitu- tional punishment. There is an excess without any claim or ground in justice, or any end in grace. Pun- ishment, without an adequate ground in justice, is itself an injustice. This is equally true in the case of a sub- stitute in penalty as in that of the actual offender; and equally true of all excess of punishment above the re- quirement of justice, as of punishment without any ground in justice. And what a waste of atoning worth ! All the excess of unapplied grace — enough for all the finally lost and infinitely more — goes for nothing. And those who so cry out against a universal atonement as implying that Christ suffered and died for many in vain, are thoroughly estopped by the inevitable sequences of their own doctrine. Yet Satisfactionists will not surrender this infinite sufficiency. In maintaining a limited atonement they have the profoundest need for it. They could not presume to vindicate the universal overture of atoning grace upon an atonement confessed to be sufficient for only a part. It is surely clear enough from the quotations and references given, that Calvinism holds the divine des- tination of the atonement to be determinative of its extent. We fully accept this position, Calvinism is 310 Extent of the Atonement. right, not in the limitation of the atonement, but in the determining law of its extent. 3. The True Inquiry. — If the son of a king should interpose in atonement for rebellious subjects, any lim- itation must be imposed either by the will and purpose of the sovereign atoned, or by the will and purpose of the atoning son. No other has any power in the case. And if we knew the pleasure of each we could determine therefrom the extent of the reconciliation for which provision is made. The atonement is made between the Father and the Son. If limited, either the Father would not accept, or the Son would not make, an atonement for all. There is no other law of limita- tion. The true inquiry, therefore, respects the will of the Father and the Son, or what was the pleasure of each respecting the extent of the atonement. In this we are still in full accord with the Calvinistic position. This also is clear from the quotations and references previously given. To these many others might be added. " The pivot on which the controversy — respecting the extent of the atonement — turns is, what was the purpose of the Father in sending his Son to die, and the object which Christ had in view in dying; not what is the value and efficacy of his death." ' " But the question does truly and only relate to the de- sign of the Father and of the Son in respect to the per- sons for whose benefit the atonement was made; that ls, to whom, in the making of it, they intended it should be applied." a 1 Turrettin: " The Atonement of Christ," p. 124. * Dr. A. A. Hodge : " The Atonement," p. 359. Plejlsure of the Fathbb. 811 II. Pleasure of the Father. On such a question it is proper to conclude the pleas* ure of the Father from his own revealed character. There are intimately related facts of decisive testimo- ny; and, also, divine utterances authoritative in the case. 1. Question of his Sovereignty. — No plea of the di- vine sovereignty can bar the inquiry into the divine pleasure respecting the extent of the atonement. In any case, the question is not so much what God might have done as what he was disposed to do and really has done. We raise no question respecting a true divine sovereignty, but discard a purely arbitrary one as ut- terly inconsistent with the character of God and the great facts of his providence. Even an absolute arbi- trary sovereignty might as well conclude for a general as for a limited atonement. But God does not rule in such a sovereignty. All rewards of men according to moral character are to the contrary. So are the re- vealed decisions of the final judgment. And so is the atonement itself. An absolute arbitrary sovereignty would need no atonement in order to forgiveness, or in determining the happy destinies of men. Such an ad ministration would be far less inconsistent with the di- vine character than the unconditional reprobation, or equally dooming pretention, of the great part of man- kind. And if there be a few facts or utterances which might be construed in favor of an arbitrary sovereign- ty, they must yield to the great facts, with the atone- SI 2 Extent of the Atonement. ment itself, which prove the contrary. It is written, and often applied in this connection: " Even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight." } But can the forced application of such a text conclude this ques- tion ? And did it seem good in the sight of the heav- enly Father to limit an atonement sufficient for all to the benefit of only a part ? Good how, or for what ? Good as the expression of a sovereignty which his providence and the atonement itself disclaim? Good as a revelation of justice or grace? Good as a salutary lesson of moral government? It could have no such reason, because an arbitrary sovereignty can have no other reason for its acts than its own arbitrariness. 2. In one Relation to All. — God is the Creator and common Father of all men. 2 There is, therefore, no difference of divine relationship which could be a rea- son for limitation in the atonement. This point will carry us further. The atonement originated in the divine compassion, and in its provis- ions and purposes answers to the yearnings of that compassion. One reason of this compassion was in the divine Fatherhood. God so loved us as wretched and perishing, but especially because we were his wretched and perishing children. Hence the very reason of his redeeming love was common in all. It could not, there- fore- have been the pleasure of God to destinate the atonement to the favor of only a part, when his love, in which it originated, equally embraced all. And this universal divine love witnesses to a universal atone- ment. 1 Matt. 11:26. 'Num. 16: 22; 27: 16: Acts 17: 28; Heb. 12: 9. Pleasure op the Fatheb. 313 3. A Common State of Evil. — As all men appeared in the vision of the divine prescience, there was no dif- ference in their state of evil, certainly none which could be a reason for a partial redemption. Their depravity had a common source and was a common ruin. And however they might be foreseen to differ in actual life, Satisfactionists themselves vigorously deny any and every thing in them as the reason of the alleged limita- tion. Hence there is not any peculiar evil in a part as the reason of a partial redemption. This point, also, will carry us further. Again, the atonement originated in the divine compassion. God so loved us as to provide a ransom for our souls. This could be no other than a love of compassion, because the objects of it are sinners and enemies. 1 Why this pitying love ? Its subjective form in God has an ob- jective reason in us. That reason is, in the miseries of our moral ruin. And could this pitying love impose upon itself an arbitrary limitation when the very rea- son of it existed alike in all? And could it be the pleasure of the Father to limit the atonement to a part when his compassion, in which it originated, equally embraced all? 4. Voice of the Divine Perfections. — The atonement has a most intimate relation to the divine perfections. Hence they have testimony to give respecting the di- vine pleasure as to its extent. Justice. — Divine justice has no unsatisfiable claim. And the redeeming work of Christ, if so intended, is sufficient for its full contentment in behalf of all who 'Kom. 5: 8-10; Eph. 2: 4, 5. 314 Extent of the Atonement. accept its grace. So the most rigid partial ism will af firm. Forgiveness on the ground of such an atonement tarnishes no glory of justice, nor sacrifices any right or interest of moral government. Hence all reason for limitation in divine justice is excluded. Holiness. — The divine holiness has no reason for lim- itation. If the atonement is intrinsically efficacious in the sanctification of all the objects of its favor, then the broader its extent the greater the interest of holi- ness secured. Indeed, such higher realization of holi- ness must have been a great reason for the divine pref- erence of a universal redemption. Wisdom. — As the atonement is a sufficient ground of forgiveness, and, in the case of every sinner saved, a higher revelation of the divine perfections than could be realized in his merited penal doom, so the broader the atonement the greater the good attained. There would also be the greater service to the ends of moral government. Hence, on either theory of atonement, the broader its destination the broader is its helpful grace, and the more salutary its moral lessons. Can it, therefore, be consistent with the divine wisdom to pre- fer the less good when, through the same atonement, the infinitely greater might be procured ? Goodness. — Beyond these favoring facts, "he extent of the atonement is a question of the divine goodness What is the answer of that goodness? It is really voiced in the sublime words, " God is love ! " A God of love must prefer the happiness of all. And as in very truth — as according to all the deeper principles of Calvinism — there was no hinderance in the case, his Pleasure of the Son. Sib good pleasure must have been for a universal atone- ment. God has spoken to this point so directly, and in sueh utterances, as to put the fact of his good pleasure for a universal atonement out of all question. 1 Is it true, as he affirms under most solemn self -ad juration, that he has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that he turn from his way and live ? Is it true that he so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son for its redemption ? Is it true that he will have all men to be saved ? Is it true that he is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish ? Can it be, then, that in the absence of all hinderance, and with the presence of an infinitely greater good, he preferred a limited atonement, and sovereignly destinated one in- trinsically sufficient for all to the favor of only a part ? It cannot be. And the Father placed no narrower limit to the grace of redemption than the uttermost circle of humanity III. Pleasure of the Son. 1. Application of Preceding Facts. — All the facts and principles respecting the pleasure of the Father have full application in the case of the Son. They are of one mind, and the same objects of redeeming love are before them. There is equally with the Son an absence of all reason for a preference of limitation in the atonement, and the presence of the same reasons for his pleasure in its universality. 1 Ezek. 33- 11 ; John 3: 16; 1 Tim. 5?: 4; 2 Peter 3 : 9. 316 Extent of the Atonement. 2. Atoning Work the Same. — In an atonement by identical or equal penalty, the greater sacrifice required by the greater extent might have been a reason with the Son for limitation. But the atonement is not such. And no lower step of abasement nor deeper anguish was required to embrace all within the sufficiency of its redemptive grace. The vicarious sufferings of Christ as actually endured are all sufficient for a universal atonement. We are here in full accord with the highest authori- ties on the doctrine of Satisfaction. This will appear on a recurrence to citations and references previously given. 1 We may add one here. "All that Christ did and suffered would have been necessary had only one human soul been the object of redemption; and nothing different, and nothing more, would have been required had every child of Adam been saved through his blood." 2 While this view is utterly inconsistent with the principles of Satisfactionists, it shows equally well their position on the question in hand. And they ever allege this sufficiency as the chief ground on which they attempt a defense of the divine sincerity in a uni- versal overture of redemptive grace. If, therefore, the sufferings of Christ as actually en- dured are sufficient for the salvation of all men, there could have been no reason or motive from the amount of suffering necessary to give him preference for a lim- ited atonement. 3. A Question of his Love. — The question, then, 1 Chap, xii, I, 3. * Dr. Hodge- "Systematic Theology," vol. ii, p. 545. Scripture Testimony. 317 respecting the pleasure of the Son has its answer from his love. That answer must be decisive. Nor is it in any doubt. The Son of God, who, in pitying love to sinners parted with his glory and humbled himself to the deepest suffering and shame, was not wanting m redeeming love to all men. And it was his good pleas- ure that his atonement should be for all. His cross so affirms, IV. Scripture Testimony. Under this heading we might discuss at length the Scripture texts usually brought in proof respectively of limitation and universality in the atonement. This, however, is not our purpose; and a brief treatment will answer for our plan. A full treatment of the present question would also require a thorough discussion of certain assumptions alleged in proof of a limited atonement. We may name the following: A decree of sovereign election to salvation. The elect are given to the Son for the pur- pose of redemption. His intercession and the gift of the Holy Spirit are limited to them. Christ loved his own people with a special love, and, therefore, re- deemed them only. He purchased faith and repentance for them only. The efficacious application of grace, necessary to salvation, is limited to them. 1 Such assumptions can witness for a limited atone- ment only on the ground of their own truth. There must be a sovereign decree of election, whereby a part ^urrettin: " The Atonement of Christ," pp. 135-139. 21 318 Extent of the Atonement. are unconditionally destined to eternal liie. Moner- gism — the invincible saving of the redeemed by the sole agency of the Holy Spirit, and against all possible re- sistance — must be true. An unconditional final perse- verance must be true. The atonement must, from its own intrinsic nature, save all, or require the saving oi all for whom it is made. Otherwise, there is no ground for the alleged parallel of extent between it and the other facts of the system. But it is not our purpose to discuss these questions. This is not necessary to the argument which we are conducting. And we are entirely satisfied with the result of their previous discussion. Since the time of Arminius and the Synod of Dort, with its celebrated " Five Points," they have held a prominent place in the polemics of theology. If, as we believe, Arminian- ism has the truth on these questions so vitally concern- ing the extent of the atonement, it is not limited to a part; and, therefore, not of the nature maintained by Calvinism proper. And so far as these tenets of the system bear on the extent of the atonement, we are content to rest the question on the results of their pre- vious discussion. 1 1. Proof-texts for Limitation, — The texts of Scripture 'This discussion is open to all who have a mind to investigate it. The literature is immense. Among the leading names are, on the one side, Calvin, Turrettin, Witsius, Owen, Scott, Toplady, Edwards, Hodge; on the other, Arminius, Episcopius, Goodwin, ("Redemption Redeemed,") Whitby, ("On the Five Points,") Wesley, Fletcher, ("Checks to Antinomianism,") Watson, Bishop Tomline, (" The Refu- tation of Calvinism,") Dr. Fisk, ("The Calvinistic Controversy,") Bishop Foster, (" Objections to Calvinism,") on the philosophic phases of the issxie, Dr. Bledsoe, Dr. Whedon. Scripture Testimony. 319 more directly applied in proof of a limited atonement are not numerous. Nor will they require a critical or elaborate exegesis to show either their affirmative in- conclusiveness, or their utter impotence against the many which so explicitly assert its universality. We shall give the texts for limitation by reference and without full citation. And for the sake of a manifest fairness we will give them from a master in Calvinism, with his own italicising, and connecting and explan- atory words. " The mission and death of Christ are restricted to a limited number — to his people, his sheep, his friends, his Church, his body ; and nowhere extended to all men severally and collectively. Thus Christ ' is called Jesus, because he shall save his people from their sins.' 1 He is called the Saviour of his body ; 2 ' the good shep- herd who lays down his life for the sheep,'' 8 and ( for his friends.' 4 He is said ' to die — that he might gath- er in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.' 6 It is said that Christ 'hath purchased the Church with his own blood.' 6 If Christ died for every one of Adam's posterity, why should the Scriptures so often restrict the object of his death to a few?" 7 This should be noted first, that in all the texts given there is not one word which limits the atonement to the subjects named. And with infinitely more reason and force may we ask, If the atonement is only for a few, why do the Scriptures so often assert that it is for 1 Matt. 1:21. »Eph. 5:23. 'John 10: 15. 4 John 16 . 13. 5 John 11 : 52. a Acts 20 : 28 ; Eph. 5 : 25, 2C. T Turrettin: "The Atonement of Christ," pp. 125, 126. 320 Extent of the Atonement. all ? If, as assumed, it is in its own nature necessarily saving, and the actual saving is included in it, then, of course, there is a limitation. But it is not such. Suf- ficient proof to the contrary has already been given. Nothing respecting the atonement is more certain than the real conditionally of its saving grace. Hence, it A a mere assumption that the atonement is necessarily saving, and, therefore, that the actual saving is the ex- tent of it. And the elimination of this assumption in- validates the sura of the author's argument. Christ did die for the subjects named in these texts; but as they are without a restricting word, they are without proof of a limited atonement. Stress is laid upon the terms, his people, his sheep, his friends, his Church, his body, as though they desig- nated a distinct and limited class for which Christ died. They are a distinct and limited class, but as actually saved, not simply as redeemed, and especially not be- fore their redemption. There is no such a class ex- cept as the fruit of atonement. Hence, there could be no such a restricted class for which Christ died. The atonement, as the only ground of their peculiar re- lation to Christ, must precede that relation, and be made for them as lost sinners, ungodly, and enemies. 1 They can enter into such a peculiar relation to Christ only through the grace of an atonement previously made for them. That same atonement, previously made for them as sinners, was so made for all men. If these texts prove a limited atonement, they must be inconsistent with its universality ; or, if consistent J Roa 5: 6-10; Eph. 2: 11-22. Scripture Testimony. 321 with this, they do not prove a limited one. There is not the least difficulty in this consistency. It is true, indeed, that Christ died for all the actual sharers in the saving grace of atonement. And there are special rea- sons for emphasizing the fact. Thus Christ impresses upon their mind the greatness of his love to them, and the greatness of the benefits received through the grace of his redemption, and so enforces his own claim upon their love. But no law of interpretation either requires or implies the assumed restriction in such a use of terms. And the scheme of universality can use them just as freely and consistently as the most rigid partialism. 2. Proof-texts for Universality. — There is one class with the universal terms all and every. " For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." ! Yes, to be testified as a truth, and not to be witnessed against. And the text gives its own testimony. We know not a formula for the better expression of a universal atonement. " For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." 2 If God is not in some similarity of sense the Saviour of all men, as he is specially the Saviour of believers, there is here a comparison without any basis in analogy. If many are foreordained to eternal destruction, or merely under the pretention of a limited atonement equally dooming them to perdition, God is not in any sense the Saviour of all men. But with a universal atonement, whereby 1 1 Tim. 2: 5, 6. 2 1 Tim. 4: 10. 21 322 Extent of the Atonement. the salvation of all is possible, as that of believers is actual, there is a clear sense in which he is the Saviour of all men, and a sense consistent with the implied analogy of the text. " But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." ' Every man is every man. The identity of the two terms of a proposition does not exclude their equivalence. Rather, we have the simple truth that a fact is what it is. And no skill in exegesis can reduce this text to the measure of a limited atonement. There is another class which affirms the redemption of the world, and in the truest sense of a universal atonement. 2 The weakness of all attempts to reduce these texts to the sense of a limited atonement really concedes their irreducible universality. The attempt requires an iden- tification of the icorld with the elect. They must have one sense, in that both must mean the same persons. These texts would thus be classed in sense with the proof -texts of limitation, previously considered. World would be one in meaning with the people, sheep, friends, Church, body of Christ. Will it bear such a sense? The exegete has not yet arisen who can answer affirm- atively, and make good his answer. 3. In Extent of the Evil of Sin. — More than once is the co-extension of sin and atonement set forth. 1 Heb. 2 : 9. 2 John 1:29; 3:16,17; 12: 47; 2 Cor. 5: 18, 19; 1 John 2: 1,2; 4: 14. Scripture Testimony. 323 " Therefore, as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the right- eousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." * The " all men " in relation to Adam are all in the fullest sense. No real Calvinist will question it. But the " all men " in relation to the redemption in Christ, must be all in the same sense of universality. Indeed, the "all men" in the two rela- tions to Adam and Christ are the very same ; and only a forced interpretation could give less extension to the term in the latter case than in the former. The text clearly gives us a universal atonement. "For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead; and that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again." 2 In the full sense of Scripture, Christ died for men as in a state of sin and death, and only for such. But he died for all; there- fore all were dead. Thus, in a somewhat syllogistic statement the text gives the universality of the aton- ing death of Christ as the major premise. It is thus placed as a truth above question. For " all dead," some give the rendering " all died" — died in and with Christ. 3 Thereon an attempt is made to limit the atonement to the elect. 4 We will not con- tend about the new rendering, but must dispute the limiting sense. Candlish here finds the Headship of 1 Rom. 5 : 18. 2 2 Cor. 5 : 14, 15. 3 Dr. Candlish : " The Atonement," p. 62 ; Alford, in loco. 4 So Candlish, not Alford. 324 ExTEXT OF THE ATONEMENT. Christ and the doctrine of imputation of sin to him, and of all that he does and suffers to those whom he represents, in a sense " that whatever befalls the Head must be held to pass, and must actually pass, effica- ciously, to all whom he represents." This is the neces- sary salvation of all for whom Christ died. Hence, he must have died for only a part, or the apostle's argu- ment is implicated in Universalism. " Not only is the argument thus hopelessly perplexed, but, as in the for- mer case, it is found to tell in favor of the notion of universal salvation rather than any thing else; making actual salvation, through the death and life of Christ, co-extensive with death through the sin of Adam." We would not deplore such a realization. Nor would Dr. Candlish. His trouble is with the logic of the case. Actual salvation is limited in fact; therefore, an atone- ment necessarily saving must be limited. He is logic- ally right. But his trouble comes from his erroneous doctrine of Satisfaction. With an atonement in vicari- ous suffering sufficient for all, but really conditional in the saving result, its universality is in full logical ac- cord with a limited actual salvation. There is, there- fore, no exigency of interpretation from a necessary harmony of fact and doctrine, requiring either the ex- clusion of the manifest comparison of sin and atone- ment in co-extension, or the reduction of a universal term to the meaning of a part. And the text above cited, despite all the efforts of a limiting scheme, is clear proof of a universal atonement. 4. The Great Commission. — " And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every Sceiptube Testimony. 325 creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned." ' This great commission laid its solemn charge upon the apostles with all the obligation and authority which the Master, now risen and with all power in his hand, could impose. So it comes down the ages upon all Churches and ministers. And so all true Churches and ministers receive it. We thus have certain indisputable facts intimately related to the extent of the atonement, and decisive of its universality. i. The Gospel for All. — The very terms of the great commission are decisive of this, that the Gospel is for all. And its universal preaching should be, and in the very nature of it must be, the free offer of saving grace in Christ to all. The most rigid Limitationists fully admit this. 2 Indeed, they have no alternative. Nor need we insist upon what no one questions. ii. Salvation the Privilege of All. — The Gospel is the overture of salvation. All to whom it is preached may accept it and be saved. To this end is it preached. And the same privilege would ever accompany the Gospel, were it fully preached in all the world. Nor need we here contend for what is fully conceded. 3 Hi. Saving Faith the Duty of All. — It is the duty of all to whom the Gospel comes to accept it in faith, and a faith unto salvation. The same would be true, were it in the fullest sense preached to all. This obligation is in the very terms of the great commission. Hence, 1 Mark 16 : 15, 16. 9 Dr. Symington : " Atonement and Intercession," pp. 209, 210. 8 Dr. Hodge : " Systematic Theology," vol. ii, p. 558. 326 Extent of the Atonement. eternal destinies are determined according as the Gospel is received or rejected. " He that believeth and is bap- tized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Only on an obligation to a true, saving faith in Christ could our action in the case have such conse- quence. Other texts equally express or imply the same duty of a saving faith. 1 We shall have everlasting life or perish, according as we believe or believe not ; are in condemnation or free from it, according to the same ac- tion ; are heirs of life eternal or under the abiding wrath of God, as we believe on the Son or do not believe. Limitationists concede and maintain this duty of faith. 3 Hence, we need not further support what is not disputed. Indeed, special account is made of this obligation for the vindication of divine justice in the final doom of unbelievers. The duty of a saving faith in Christ implies an ac- tual grace of salvation in him. The required faith must terminate in his redeeming death. An attainable grace of salvation absolutely conditions the obligation of such a faith. But, on a limited atonement, the Gos- pel comes to many for whom there is really no such grace. Nor will the assertion of an intrinsic sufficiency for all void this consequence. Then can this faith be the duty of any one for whom there is no saving grace ? How can it be? It has no objective truth, and would be a trust in what does not exist. Nor could the sal- 1 John 3: 14-16, 18, 36. 2 " Princeton Essays : " First Series, p. 287 ; Prof. Crawford : " The Scripture Doctrine of the Atonement," p. 202 ; Dr. Candlish : " The Atonement/' pp. 172, 260. Sceipture Testimony. 327 vation possibly accrue upon the faith. And has Christ enjoined the offer of an impossible blessing ? Has he commanded faith in what is not real ? Has he made the unbelief of what is not true a sin of exceeding de- merit and damnableness ? No, he has not done any of these things. We can most positively so deny; but only on the ground of a real atonement for all. On a limited atonement, the duty of this faith must be most difficult — too difficult, indeed, to be so re- sponsible. The faith implies, not only an intrinsically sufficient, but an actually sufficient, atonement for any one exercising it. Faith in this fact of an actual atone- ment must precede, as its necessary condition, the faith of a saving trust in Christ. This is denied. 1 Both au- thors given in the reference properly distinguish the mental acts of one in believing that Christ died for him, and in believing in him for his salvation ; but, strange enough, both deny a necessary precedence to the for- mer act of faith, and, indeed, give precedence to the latter. We know not the mental philosophy by which they place these facts in this order. It must originate in the exigency of their soteriology rather than in the careful study and scientific use of the facts of psychol- ogy. But no man ever did or can believe in Christ unto salvation without first believing that he died for him. This is the necessary order of the mental facts. And it is utterly nugatory to plead that no one is com- manded first to believe that Christ died for him. This is not claimed. And the necessity arises, not from the 1 Turrettin : "Atonement of Christ," p. 178 ; Prof. Smeaton : " The Doctrine of the Atonement," p. 322. 328 Extent of the Atonement. immediate command of such a preceding faith, but from inevitable laws of the mind, under the obligation of a divinely-enjoined saving faith in Christ. Such is the necessary order of kindred facts as given by St. Paul : " For he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." ' Here faith in God, as existing and good, must precede all successful coming to him in an earnest seeking and a true faith of trust for his blessing. There is the same necessary order of facts respecting our faith in Christ: first, in believing that he died for us; then, in a sure trust of faith in him for his salvation. It is here that, on a limited atonement, the exceed- ing difficulty of the divinely-required faith arises. If Christ died for only a part, and, as many hold, for only the far smaller part of adults, no man has, nor can have, previous to his conversion, satisfactory evidence that there is an atonement for him. And, according to the doctrine of chance as applicable in the case, the presumption is strongly against it. How, then, can he savingly trust in Christ? It is nothing to the point to answer, that he does not know that he is left without redemption ; for what he needs to be assured of, as the necessary condition of a saving faith in Christ, is, that he did provide for him. iv. The Atonement for All. — We group the facts given us under the great commission. The Gospel is for all, and in the free overture of saving grace in Christ. Salvation is the privilege of all to whom the gracious overture is made. A saving faith in the re- 1 Heb. 11: 6. Scripture Testimony. 329 demption of Christ is the duty of all who have the Gos- pel. These are not mere inferences, but facts clearly- given in the Scriptures, and fully conceded by the ad- vocates of a limited atonement. By all the force of their logic they witness to the fact of a real atonement for all. They have no other ground. The overture of saving grace has no other; nor the privilege of salva- tion; nor the duty of a saving faith in Christ; nor the guilt and damnableness of unbelief. Therefore, these facts imperatively require a universal atonement, and, so requiring, affirm its truth. V. Fallacies of Limitation. The law of scientific accordance in vitally related truths and facts makes Yerj serious trouble for the scheme of limited atonement. Certain very discordant but admitted facts require reconciliation with the lim- itation, or rather, with the divine sincerity, as con- cerned in them. We shall show that the attempted reconciliation proceeds with fallacies, and, therefore, ends in fallacy. 1. Facts Admitted. — These facts were given with the great commission in the previous section, and need only to be recalled. The Gospel is for all. Salvation is the privilege of all under the Gospel. A saving faith in Christ is the duty of all who hear the Gospel. Such are the facts. They have the authority of Scripture. Limitationists fully admit them, as manifest in refer- ences previously given. Such references might be in- creased to a great number. No modern Calvinistic 330 Extent of the Atonement. author of any influence will question them. The com- mon attempt to reconcile them with the divine sincerity- is in their full admission. 2. I/iconsiste?it with the Divine Sincerity. — There is here no issue either on the admitted facts or on the divine sincerity: the question respects the consistency of the facts with that sincerity, on the ground of a limited atonement. We assert their inconsistency, and accuse their attempted reconciliation of egregious fal- lacy. On a limited atonement, the Gospel cannot be sincerely preached to all. Nor can salvation be the privilege of all. Nor can a saving faith in Christ be the duty of all, nor of any for whom his death was not di- vinely destinated as an atonement. Such a divine over- ture of grace and requirement of faith would be to the unredeemed a mockery and a cruelty. These facts go into the present issue. There are no other facts or vindicatory pleas which can void the force of their logic. They do not implicate the divine sincerity, but conclude the universality of the atonement as the only ground of their consistency with that sincerity. 3. Sufficiency of Atonement in Vindication. — The ground on which Limitationists specially attempt a vindication of the divine sincerity in a universal over- ture of saving grace, with the other admitted facts, is an alleged sufficiency of the atonement for all. 1 The fact is so familiar that there is but slight reason for any reference. We have previously shown how fully the advocates of a limited atonement maintain its in- 1 " Princeton Essays : " First Series, p. 291 ; Dr. Symington: "Atone- ment and Intercession," pp. 186, 213. Fallacies of Limitation. 331 trinsic sufficiency, in just what Christ did and suffered, for the salvation of all men. 1 Thus they have their position of defense in the present issue. Whether, on their doctrine of atonement, there is a real and avail- able sufficiency, such as will answer for the required vindication, we shall directly consider. For the pres- ent it may suffice to note the ground on which the vindication is attempted. 4. True Sense of Sufficiency. — We must distinguish between a mere intrinsic and an actual sufficiency. There is reason for the distinction. Satisfactionists fully recognize it, especially in application to the re- demptive work of Christ. An intrinsic sufficiency is from what a thing is in its own capability. An actual sufficiency is from its appropriation. A life-boat may have ample capacity for the rescue of twenty ship- wrecked mariners; but if appropriated, and limited by the appropriation, to the rescue of only ten, the actual and available sufficiency is only so much. One man has money enough for the liberation of twenty pris- oners for debt; but whether it shall be available, and so actually sufficient, depends upon his use or appro- priation of it. Even if he should appropriate the whole sum, but at the same time destinate it to the benefit of a fixed number — ten of the twenty — then, while intrinsically sufficient for the liberation of all, it would be actually sufficient and available for only the designated ten. The atonement of Satisfaction must yield to such a consequence. The redemptive mediation of Christ, in just what he did and suffered, 1 Chap, xii, I, 1, 2. 332 Extent of the Atonement. has intrinsic sufficiency for the salvation of all men, but there is a limiting divine destination. Such are the facts as given by Satisfactionists themselves. The sufficiency for all is only potential, not actual from a universal destination. But for the divine vindication in a universal overture of saving grace in Christ, and in holding all to so responsible a duty of faith in him, a mere intrinsic sufficiency will not answer. Only an actual and available sufficiency will so answer. 5. Sufficiency only with Destination. — The sufferings of Christ have no atoning value except as they were vicariously endured for sinners with the purpose of an atonement. His incarnation and death are conceivable and possible entirely apart from the purposes of re- demption. In that case they would have no atoning element. All atonement is absolutely conditioned by his so suffering for sinners. The extent of the atonement is thus determined by its divine destination. This agrees with the above principle. And, as we have seen, it is a primary prin- ciple in the doctrine of Satisfaction. Hence, as atone- ment is necessarily conditioned on the divine appoint- ment and acceptance of the sufferings of Christ as a substitute in behalf of sinners, so the divine destina- tion absolutely fixes the limit of its extent. There is no atonement beyond. As the sufferings of Christ are an atonement for sin only with their divine destination to that end, so they have no atoning value for any one beyond those for whom they were redemptively des- tined. And the plea of a sufficient atonement for all, while its limited destination is firmly maintained, is Fallacies of Limitation. 333 the sheerest fallacy. It is as utterly insufficient for all for whom it was not divinely destinated as though no atonement had been made for any. Hence the alleged ground on which it is attempted to vindicate the divine sincerity in the universal overture of saving grace, and the imperative requirement of saving faith in Christ, is no ground at all. 6. Limited in Satisfaction Scheme. — If we test the assumption of a universal sufficiency in the atonement by the principles of the Satisfaction theory, we shall further see how utterly groundless the pretension is. This is an entirely fair method. For unless there be a sufficiency according to these principles, it is the sheerest assumption, and the vindicatory use of it ut- terly groundless. And this we maintain, that the Sat- isfaction atonement is, from its own principles, of lim- ited sufficiency. In this theory atonement is by substitutional punish- ment in satisfaction of justice. Sin must be punished according to its desert. Any omission would be an in- justice in God. So the theory maintains, as we have previously shown. There is no salvation for any sin- ner except through a substitute in penalty. There is no atonement for any one except in penal substitution. But by divine covenant and destination Christ suffered the punishment of sin for only an elect part, not for all. So the theory asserts. Such an atonement is as ut- terly insufficient for any and all for whose sins penal sat- isfaction is not rendered to justice, as though no atone- ment were made, or there were no Christ to make one. From its own principles the atonement of Satisfac- 22 334 Extent of the Atonement. tion is necessarily efficient just as broadly as it is suffi- cient. The necessary elements of its sufficiency must give it efficiency in the actual salvation of all for whom it is made. If Christ, as accepted substitute, took the place of an elect part under both precept and penalty, and rendered full satisfaction in respect of both, of course they must all be saved. Their repentance and faith are the purchase of redemptive grace, and must take their place as necessary facts in a process of salva- tion monergistically wrought. While such is the logic of the principles of Satisfac- tion, its advocates fully support the same view. The fact is given in previous citations and references. 1 Many such might be added, though a few will suffice. " His atonement may be truly called * a finished work,' securing not only a possible salvation, but an actual sal- vation." 2 " If the fruits of the death of Christ be to be communicated unto us upon a condition, and that condition to be among those fruits, and be itself to be absolutely communicated upon no condition, then all the fruits of the death of Christ are as absolutely pro- cured for them for whom he died as if no condition had been prescribed; for these things come all to one. . . . Faith, which is this condition, is itself procured by the death of Christ for them for whoni he died, to be freely bestowed on them, without the prescription of any such condition as on whose fulfilling the collation of it should depend." 3 " But God, in his infinite mercy, 1 Chap, vii, VI, 2. '-' Prof. Crawford: "Scripture Doctrine of the Atonement," p. 200. en : "Works," (Goold's,) vol. x,. p. 450. Fallacies of Limitation. 335 having determined to save a multitude which no man could number, gave them to his Son as his inheritance, provided he would assume their nature and fulfill all righteousness in their stead. In the accomplishment of this plan Christ did come into the world, and did obey and suffer in the place of those thus given to him, and for their salvation. This was the definite object of his mission, and, therefore, his death had a reference to them which it could not possibly have to those whom God determined to leave to the just recompense of their sins." 1 Respecting the atonement for the elect: "Is it any thing short of a real and personal substitution of Christ in their room and stead, as their representative and surety, fulfilling all their legal obligations, and un- dertaking and meeting all their legal liabilities ? Is it any thing short of such a substitution as must insure that, in consequence of it, they are now, by a legal right — in terms of the law which He as their covenant head has magnified and made honorable in their behalf — free from the imputation of legal blame ; that as one with him in his righteousness they are judicially ab- solved and acquitted, justified from all their transgres- sions, and invested with a valid legal title to eternal life and salvation ? " 2 Such is the atonement of Satisfaction. From its own nature it must save all for whom it is made. It has 1 Dr. Hodge : " Systematic Theology," vol. ii, p. 547. 2 Dr. Candlish : " The Atonement," pp. 247, 248. For like views see also Prof. Smeaton : " The Apostles' Doctrine of the Atone- ment," pp. 537-540; Dr. Hill: "Lectures in Divinity," pp. 510, 511; Dr. Janeway : " The Atonement ; " " Presbyterian Tracts : " vol. i, pp. 16, 17 ; Witsius : " The Covenants," vol. i, p. 206. 336 Extent of the Atonement. ever waged war upon Arminianism for the denial of this causal efficiency as being a denial of the true nature of atonement. It is such that, were it for all, then all must be saved. Hence it is denied that it is for all. A limited actual salvation is ever given as the proof of a limited atonement. It is the only possible atonement. The facts of substitution in Christ necessary to an atone- ment must be efficient in the salvation of all whom he substitutes. Is such an atonement sufficient for all ? It is made, as maintained, on a covenant between the Father and the Son. By their consenting pleasure it is for a given number of elect souls, and no more. We accept the divine destination as the determining law of its extent. We give full credit to its advocates for asserting its intrinsic sufficiency for all. But an intrinsic or poten- tial sufficiency is one thing, while an actual and avail- able sufficiency is another. Recurring to the citations of Limitationists in the assertion of this sufficiency for all, we often find a qualified expression after this man- ner : The mediation of Christ, in just what he did and suffered, is sufficient for the salvation of all men, had it pleased the Father and the Son to destinate it for all. But this destination is denied. It is the determining fact of a limited atonement. Hence, on this doctrine, there are many whose place Christ did not take either in precept or penalty. The fact concludes the question of sufficiency against the Limitationists. They must not ignore their own absolutely limiting doctrine, nor must they, in the exigency of defense, be allowed to call a contingent a sufficiency — a sufficiency that might Fallacies of Limitation. 337 have been, but is not — a real sufficiency. They must abide by their own principles. How can there be a sufficient atonement for the non- elect, when according to the principles and averments of this theory there is for them no atonement ? Will Limitationists answer ? Did Christ die for them ? Did he fulfill for them the righteousness which the divine law imperatively requires, and without which there is no salvation ? Did he suffer the merited pun- ishment of their sins, also held to be absolutely neces- sary to their discharge ? A limited atonement has only a negative answer. Where, then, is the sufficiency for them ? The doctrine must deny its most fundamental principles even to pretend to a sufficiency. The atone- ment is now, but the work of Christ in making it is in preterit time. Its extent was then absolutely deter- mined. It is for those for whom it was made, and never can be for others. The principles of the doctrine so determine it. An immutable divine decree so bounds it. 1 And only with egregious fallacy can there be even a pretense of sufficiency in the atonement for the non- elect. Then, on the doctrine of a limited atonement, it is impossible to reconcile the free and universal overture of saving grace in Christ, and the imperative duty of all who hear the Gospel savingly to believe in him, with the divine sincerity. There is for many no suf- ficient atonement or saving grace. The offered grace is not in the offer. The utmost faith is utterly ground- less and delusive. Could one non-elect soul, held to 1 " The Westminster Confession," ch. iii, III-VII. 22 338 Extent of the Atonement. the duty of a saving trust in Christ under the penalty of endless perdition, have a faith equal in strength to the combined faith of millions saved, it would be fruit- less of forgiveness and salvation to him, as a soul with- out the substitution of Christ cannot be forgiven and saved. So the doctrine of Satisfaction affirms. What is the conclusion ? The real and unquestioned facts are still before us. On the one hand are the uni- versal overture of saving grace and the responsible duty of saving faith; on the other, the divine sincerity therein. There is no issue between them. There is no question of any such issue. The question is, whether the former are consistent with the latter on the ground of a limited atonement ? Certainly they are not. Nor can the divine sincerity be thereon vindicated. We give this discussion of the question in proof. The at- tempted reconciliation proceeds with fallacies and ends in fallacy. The inevitable conclusion is the universality of the atonement. 1. Only a Seeming Inconsistency. — With seeming doubt as to the satisfactoriness of the preceding de- fense, it is assumed that, after all, the admitted facts may not be inconsistent with the divine sincerity; that our inability to reconcile them is not conclusive of an absolute contrariety; that to higher intelligences, and especially to God, they may appear in full harmony. " That we are incapable of reconciling them does not prove them to be irreconcilable. God may be capable of reconciling them; creatures of a higher intellectual and moral rank may see their reconcilableness; or we ourselves, when elevated to a brighter sphere of being, Fallacies of Limitation. 339 may yet be fully equal to the difficult problem." 1 But so conjectural a solution will not answer for so real a difficulty. And there are contrarieties absolutely ir- reconcilable. Such is the case here. Our highest rea- son must so pronounce. We cannot rationally go be- hind it, not even hypothetieally. We may accept in faith what is above our reason, but we cannot solve, nor even relieve, a difficulty by an assumption con- tradictory to our reason. This is the insuperable diffi- culty here. God cannot sincerely offer saving grace to any soul when the grace is not in the offer. Nor can he righteously impose the duty of a saving faith in Christ upon any one for whom there is no salvation in him. 8. Mixed State of Elect and Non-elect. — Another vin- dication is attempted on the assumption of a necessity arising out of the mixed state of elect and non-elect. The only alternative to an indiscriminate offer of grace and requirement of faith would be an open discrimina- tion of the two classes. " The warrant of faith is the testimony of God in the Gospel. And, it may be asked, could not this testimony have been made only to those to whom it was his design to give grace to receive it ? We answer : Not without doing away with that mixed state of human existence which God has ap- pointed for important purposes ; not without making a premature disclosure of who are the objects of his special favor and who are not, to the entire subversion of that moral economy under which it is the good pleasure of his will that men should subsist in this 1 Dr. Symington : " Atonement and Intercession," p. 210. 340 Extent of the Atonement. world ; not without even subverting the very design of salvation by faith." ' The reasons alleged for secrecy in the elective and reprobative purposes of God are without force ; cer- tainly without sufficient force for his vindication in a graceless offer of saving grace in Christ. The mixed state of elect and reprobate would continue as it is. The moral economy under which we live would remain. It is God's own, and of his appointment. And has he so ordered it as to require of him a free overture of saving grace to many for whom there is none ? Nor would the plan of salvation by faith be subverted. Many, without any question of an atonement for them, refuse all saving faith in Christ ; while many, equally without doubt of an atonement for them, do savingly believe in him. With this discrimination there would still be a proper sphere of saving faith for the elect ; and, on the doctrine of Satisfaction, the faith would be under the same determining law as now. This disclosure would accord with the facts in the case, and be far better than a false show of grace. It must be made sometime, and is just the same if made now. Nor would the destiny of any soul be affected thereby. Destiny is determined by the decree of God, not by the disclosure of its elective discriminations. Believers and unbelievers would be the very same — neither more nor less, nor other in either class, as the immutable / decree of election and pretention is im- mutable. There is no urgent reason for this indis- criminate overture of partial grace ; while no urgency 1 Dr. Symington : "Atonement and Intercession," p. 212. Fallacies of Limitation. 341 could justify it. Let the atonement be preached, with the announcement of its partialism, and that the non- elect have no interest in it and no duty respecting it, and the result, as determined by an absolute sover- eignty working monergistically, will be the very same. And a limited atonement still contradicts facts divinely given. It must, therefore, be an error. 9. Secret and Preceptive Divine Will. — As a last re- sort, the reconciliation of this overture of grace and requirement of faith with the divine sincerity, is at- tempted on a distinction between the secret or decre- tive and the preceptive will of God. " The purposes of God are not the rule of our duty, and whatever God may design to do, we are to act in accordance with his preceptive will." l "The Gospel call may be regarded as expressive of man's duty rather than of the divine intention." 2 Is this reasoning ? The characters of Dr. Hodge and Dr. Symington will not allow us to question its sincerity. But can the precepts and pur- poses of God run counter to each other ? Can he openly offer a grace, and with the forms of gracious invitation and promise, which he secretly intends not to give, and by an eternal purpose withholds ? Can he openly command the duty of a saving faith upon any one for whom there is no saving grace, and whom his eternal decree absolutely dooms to the perdition of sin ? How could these things be without duplicity ? And it is a marvelous supposition that the Gospel, as the invitation and command of God, may represent our 1 " Princeton Essaya : " First Series, p. 285. 8 Dr. Symington; "Atonement and Intercession," p. 211. 342 Extent of the Atonement. privilege and duty, conveying the one and imposing the other, but not his secret will and decree respecting us. Yet it is only on such a supposition that this at- tempted vindication can have any pertinence whatever. Indeed, the attempt proceeds upon the assumption of this contrariety. A doctrine with such exigency of defense cannot be true. The atonement, as a provision of infinite love for a common race in a common ruin of sin, with its unre- stricted overture of grace and requirement of saving faith in Christ, is, and must be, an atonement for all. INDEX. FA&M Abelarcl, anticipates the Socinian atonement 122 dissents from Anselm 206 Acceptilatio, theory of 206 its affinity with the Anselmic view 207 Alcott, his method of school-discipline 240 Alexander, on Isaiah, chapter 53 53 Alford, on 2 Cor. 5 : 14, 15 323 Amaraut, a follower of Camero 302 Angels, interested in human redemption 283 Anselm, his " Cur Deus Homo " 92 scientific treatment of atonement 92, 94 his relation to the theory of Satisfaction 93 principles of his theory 93-95 Antlion, the case of Zaleucus 242 Antinomianism, alien to the Rectoral theory 197 its relation to the theory of Satisfaction 198 Aquinas, the active ohedience of Christ 94 Arminianism, Wesleyan, true to the fact of atonement 209 less explicit on the doctrine 209 doctrinal requirement of its soteriology 15, 22, 215 Arminius, conditional penal substitution 117 his issues with Calvinism 318 Athanasius, divine freedom in redemption 208 Atonement, comprehension of the question 13 its special doctrinal relations 13 the questions of fact and doctrine 17 its scientific relation to theology 19 definition of 23 reality of 26 sense of the original term 39 instances of, without any sacrifice 41 its necessity 60 a truth of Scripture 61 from the requirements of moral government 63 from the perfections of God 72 the nature of 23, 73, 96, 100, 229 truth of its moral influence. 125 its rectoral value 237 elements of its sufficiency 266 theories of 90 notion of a ransom to Satan 90 popular number of theories 95, 120 344 Index. PACl Atonement, relation of theory to necessity 97, 230 principles of scientific classification 96 summary review , 101 leading theories U9 only for the human race 280 related to all intelligences 65, 281 its moral grandeur 290 consistent with the highest reason 294 accords with the principles of justice 296 the most imperative ground of duty 299 the highest revelation of divine love 300 extent of, concerns the doctrine 190, 302 in issue between Calvinism and Arminianism 302, 304 question of its sufficiency for all 304, 331 determining law of extent 310 fallacies of limitation 329 Augustine, believed in a ransom to Satan 91 the divine freedom in redemption 207 Baird, realistic view of mankind 113 Balguy, a representative of the Middle theory 115 Barnes, on Christ made a curse for us 253 Baur, his review of Grotius 202 charges Grotius with acceptilation 205 Baxter, in the succession of Camero 303 Bernard, dissents from Anselm 206 divine freedom in redemption 208 Blackstone, the end of human punishment 226 Bledsoe, his doctrine of atonement 214 philosophic phases of Calvinistic controversy 318 Bruee, denies penal substitution in Anselm 94 the Mystical theory 114 contents of the Socinian theory 122 perplexities of penal substitution 168 Christ never under his Father's displeasure 194 elements of sufficiency in the atonement 266 universal lesson of the atonement 289 Buchanan, the Middle theory 115 the satisfaction of justice 137 Burge, the New England theory 198 Bushnell, with the Moral view 34 modifies his theory 107 the pre-requisite to forgiveness 108 law of the divine forgiveness 108 review of his theory 109 Butler, a moral government 65 the insufficiency of repentance 85 the vicarious principle in human life 295 ('aider, the issues of Calvinism and Arminianism 216 Calvin, literature of Calvinistic controversy 318 Camero, author of " Hypothetic Universalism " 302 Index. 345 PAGE Campbell, theory of vicarious repentance 102 Candlish, on 2 Cor. 5: 14, 15 323 saving faith the duty of all 326 ahsolute substitution of Christ 335 Cappellus, a follower of Camero 303 Cave, the sense of atonement 39 theories of atonement 96 Chalmers, higher orders interested in redemption 281, 284 Childhood, relation of, to atonement 262 Christ, his holiness in atonement 15, 266 his death a reconciliation 42 a propitiation for sin 46 a ransom for sinners 48 his priestly office 54 himself a sacrifice for sin 55 a substitute in suffering 191 not a substitute in penalty 179, 192 his sufferings necessary to atonement 275 depth of his suffering 194, 276 excess of suffering, if penal 308 suffered as the God-man 278 his universal Lordship 285 Chubb, parable of the prodigal son 87 Cook, on atonement 240 Cousin, his theory of punishment 123, 124 Crawford, theories of atonement 95 the Realistic theory 113 saving faith the duty of all 326 the atonement an actual salvation 334 Cunningham, the scheme of Abelard 122 sufficiency of atonement for all 308 Curry, Satisfaction a justification by works 138 Dale, earlier views of atonement 90 the theory of Grotius 203 Delitzsch, on Isaiah, chapter 53 53 Dick, redeemed sinners without guilt 183 Dort, the Synod of 199 Edwards, the elder, and the Edwardean theory 198 literature of the Calvinistic controversy 318 Edwards, the younger, and the Governmental theory 198 Election, distinctions of 303 Emmons, the New England theory 198 Episcopius, the literature of Arminianism 318 Faith, necessary to salvation 30 distinct office of, in justification 32 the law of moral influence in atonement 33 declared the duty of all 326 not the duty of the unredeemed 337 order of mental facts in saving faith 327 346 Index. PAOI Fisk, D. T., on leading theories of atonement -. 120 Fifek, Wilbur, literature of Armlnian soteriology 318 Fletcher, the Calviuistic controversy : 318 Forgiveness, none on divine sovereignty 79 of one another A ; §5 parental forgiveness . f 86 unconditional, on penal satisfaction 118, 184 real in the hour of actual salvation 186 pre-eminently an act of divine grace. 259 Foster, F. A., the translation of,Grotius 200 Foster, Bishop, on Calvinism 318 Gesenius, the sense of atonement 39 Gilbert, the insufficiency of repentance 4 85 broader relations of the atonement. . .' 281 mystery of Christ's suffering 297 Gillett, a divine moral government 65 Goinar us, his Calvinism 199 Goodwin, the issues of Calvinism and Arminianism 318 Government, moral, the fact of 64 its broader realm and requirements 65 special requirements for man 66 one and universal , 290 Griffin, the Edwardean theory 198 Grotius, conditional penal substitution 117 his abilities and learning 198 author of the Governmental theory. 199 principles of his theory 201 on the relaxation of law 203 his formal rejection of acceptilation 205 his principles exclude acceptilation 207 the divine freedom in redemption 207 not a theory of mere expediency 208 Guilt, the amenability of sin to penalty 172 theory of its imputation 173, 175 cannot exist apart from sin 176 distinction of guilt and sin 180 fact of, in redeemed sinners 184 255 Hagenbach, notion of a ransom to Satan 91 the theory of Anselm 92 the acceptilation of Scotus 206 Hall, holiness in the Mediator 267 a voluntary substitution 270 human brotherhood of the Redeemer 274 Hill, on the sense of redemption 47, 51 on the Middle theory 115 the position of Abelard on atonement 122 atonement sufficient for all 308 an unconditional salvation 335 Hodge, A. A., the satisfaction of justice 137 penal substitution and Arminianism 143 Index. 347 PAGE Hodge, A. A., merited punishment a necessity of justice.. . , 171 atonement sufficient for all 308 determining law of extent in atonement 310 Hodge, Charles, theories of atonement 95 the Mystical theory 114 punishment a necessity of justice 169 distinction of guilt and demerit 172, 175 imputed guilt as ground of punishment 173 distinctions pecuniary and penal substitution 182 Satisfaction the only pacification of conscience 196 erroneous views of the Rectoral theory 225, 227 the atonement sufficient for all x 308, 316 salvation the privilege of all 325 atonement made for only a part 335 on secret and perceptive divine will. 341 Incarnation, the, an element of atonement 276 two facts of self-sacrifice 277 Infraredemptarianism 303 Intercession, of Christ in heaven ; 58 Irenaeus, notion of a ransom to Satan 90 Jane way, atonement sufficient for all 307 an unconditional salvation 335 Jenkyn, elements of sufficiency in atonement 266 the commercial redemption , 274 vicarious suffering in atonement 275 Justice, its doctrinal relation to atonement 144 distinctions of 144 as punitive in God 147 as satisflable 150 public, relation of, to atonement 217 divine, in moral administration 218 sin the only ground of its penalties 219 the nature and fact of 222 penally retributive for rectoral ends 234 Justification, the sense of, in Calvinism 13, 138 in the Arminian sense 15, 33, 258 on the condition of faith 32 distinct office of faith in 34 Knapp, earlier views of atonement 90 on the theory of Anselm 93 Leibnitz, justice and benevolence 147 Lombard, dissents from Anselm 206 favors the view of Abelard 122 Lovvtb, on Isaiah, chapter 53 53 litither, the guilt and punishment of Christ 179 Macknight, on reconciliation 45 on ajuaprta as sin-offering 251 348 Index. PAGE Magee, on the sense of atonement 39 on sins of ignorance 40 the insufficiency of repentance 85 Maurice, with the Moral theory 34 Maxcy, the Edwardean theory 198 WClintock and Strong, on Grotius 199 on Camero and his theory 303 Nazaritis, divine freedom in redemption 308 Neander, on the theory of Anseltn 93 denies to it the sense of penal substitution 94 Newton, concerning guilt in redeemed sinners 185 O rf gen, theory of a ransom to Satan 91 held an atonement for other orders 280 Owen, active and passive obedience of Christ 139 substitution in identical penalty 140 on justice 145 justice must punish sin 170 the atonement sufficient for all 308 literature of Calvinism and Arminianism 318 salvation in Christ unconditional 334 O xe nli am, earlier views of atonement 90 the notion of a ransom to Satan 91 the theory of Anselm 92 denies to it the sense of penal substitution 94 Paley, the end of human punishment 226 Park, the Edwardean theory 198 Penalty, laws of its measure 69 grounds of its necessity 71 irremissible on the doctrine of Satisfaction 149 ends of its infliction 70, 221 the only rational account of it 222 remissible on proper grounds 228 remissibility gives place for atonement 229 its rectoral value 233 Placaeus, a follower of Camero 302 Pope, attributes acceptilation to Grotius 205 Price, a representative of the Middle theory 117 Propitiation, the sense of 45 Christ a propitiation for sin — 46 Punishment, a judicial infliction of penalty 71 demerit its only just ground 219 may not exceed demerit 69 its relation to divine disposition 154 as an obligation of divine veracity 158 as a requirement of judicial rectitude 162 the duration of 78, 166 perplexities of, by substitution 168 concerning the satisfaction of conscience 196 combination of retributive and rectoral elements 224 Index. 349 PAGB Randies, the rationale of atonement 18 the insufficiency of repentance 85 the divine Trinity iu soteriology 260 Raymond, his doctrine of atonement 213 the nature of justification 213 the sense of satisfaction 245 Christ suffered as the God-man 278 Realism, relation of Christ to mankind 112 as concerning the incarnation 113 Reconciliation, by the death of Christ 42 sense of being reconciled to God 44 Redemption, the sense of 47 Christ a ransom for sinners 48 doctrinal sense of 51 Repentance, necessary to salvation 81 not a ground of forgiveness 82 possible only through redemptive grace 84 Rigg, on the Realistic theory 113 Righteousness, the, of God 247 Ritschl, the history of atonement 14 the theory of Anselm 92 Sacrifices, the Levitical 56 the typical sense of 57 Christ a sacrifice for sin 55 Satisfaction, the leading theory of Calvinism 135 a requirement of the Reformed system 136 the doctrine of 137, 335 the absolute requirement of justice 149, 153, 169 the punishment of sin necessary to 167 impossible by substitution 168 denies the grace of forgiveness 260 an atonement of limited sufficiency 336 the true sense of 244 definition of 245 Sen aff, Satisfaction and limit edatonement 186, 308 issues of Calvinism and Arminianism 216 Scott, the literature of Calvinism 318 Scotus, his theory of acceptilation 206 Snedd, notion of a ransom to Satan fll scientific estimate of " Cur Deus Homo " 92 active obedience of Christ in atonement 94 Realism— a generic humanity 113 the satisfaction of justice 137 equivalent penal substitution 142 divine yearning for the perishing 155 justice must punish sin 171 concerning the satisfaction of conscience 196 no guilt in redeemed sinners 256 atonement as a depository of grace 257 Christ suffered as the God-man 278 Sin, in the view of Anselm 93 350 Index. PAGE Si ii, its natural consequences not penal 71 the demerit of 69, 146 concerning its imputation to Cbrist 172, 179 Snialley , the New England theory 198 Suieaton, earlier views of atonement 90 the theory of Anselm 92 Satisfaction and the " Federal Theology " 196 Edwards and the Edwardean theory 198 issues of Calvinism and Arminianism 216 atonement sufficient for all 308 order of mental facts iu saving faith 3^:7 an unconditional salvation 335 Smith, the sense of atonement. 39 on redemption 47 on the great yearly atonement 57 Socinus, author of the Moral theory 122 its consistency with his system 123 Sophocles, on dfiapria as sin offering 251 Sovereignty, the, of God 304, 311 Stillingfleet, in defense of Grotius 210 Substitution, of Christ for sinners 52 theory of conditional penal substitution 116 if penal, salvation not conditional 117, 119 different senses of penal substitution 140 as absolute, distinctive of Satisfaction 142 if absolute, the salvation absolute 334 as conditionally redemptive 191 what it replaces in atonement 238 the only sufficient atonement 243 Swain, Baur's review of Grotius 202 Symington, redeemed sinners without guilt 183 atonement sufficient for all 308 the overture of grace to all 325 laboring with perplexing facts 339-341 Taylor, Isaac, ultimate purpose of the incarnation 291 Taylor, John, the Middle theory 115 Terry, on Isaiah, chapter 53 53 Tomline, Arminian literature 318 Toplady, Calvinistic literature 318 Turrettin, justice no claim against the redeemed 183 atonement sufficient for all 307 determining law of extent in atonement 310 doctrines related to extent of atonement 317 issues of Calvinism and Arminianism 318 Scripture proofs of limited atonement 319 order of mental facts in saving faith 327 I" 11 man, the moral power of the cros9 83 the holiness of Christ in atonement 267 Unitarianism, Socinian on atonement 123 I ' ni versalism, no forgiveness, no salvation 76, 77 Index. 351 PAGE Warburton, religious faith and civil government 68 the atonement by Zaleucus 242 Wardlaw, "distinctions of justice 145 Warren, Grotius and the Edwardean theory 109 Watson, the great yearly atonement 58 conditional penal substitution 117 chief Methodist writer on atonement 210 modification of the theory of Satisfaction 211 doctrinal requirement of his principles 211 higher orders acquainted with redemption 282 wider benefits of the atonement 293 doctrinal issues with Calvinism 318 "Weeks, the New England theory 198 Wesley, Arminian literature 318 Westminster Confession, on sovereign grace 15 substitution in precept and penalty 188 absolute limitation of atonement 337 Wh eclon, nature of the atonement 212 neither sin nor punishment transferable 192, 212 philosophic phases of Calvinistic controversy 318 Whitby, literature of Arminianism 318 Witsius, atonement sufficient for all 306 issues of Calvinism and Arminianism 318 salvation without condition 335 Wood, on Christ made a curse for us 253 Worcester, forgiving one another 85 parable of the prodigal son 87 Wrath, the, of God 245 You ng;, redemption by love • 104 moral power of the cross 127 Zaleucus, his atonement for his son 241 requirement of an adequate substitution 243 THE END. JUL 31 1907 Deacidified using the Bookkeeper p Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxk Treatment Date: July 2005 PreservationTechnolc A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESER 1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive fVanhorrw TnwtmQhm PA 1fifl LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 014 226 924 7