TheAtonement

byArchibaldAlexanderHodge,D.D.,

PROFESSOROFDIDACTIC,HISTORICALANDPOLEMICALTHEOLOGY,INTHEWESTERNTHEOLOGICALSEMINARY,AT

ALLEGHENY,PA.

PHILADELPHIA:PRESBYTERIANBOARDOFPUBLICATION,No.1334CHESTNUTSTREET

EnteredaccordingtoActofCongress,intheyear1867,by

THETRUSTEESOFTHEPRESBYTERIANBOARDOFPUBLICATION,

IntheClerk'sOfficeoftheDistrictCourtoftheUnitedStates,fortheEasternDistrictofPennsylvania.

WESTCOTT&THOMSON,

Stereotypers,Philada.

TableofContents

PREFACE

PARTI:THENATUREOFTHEATONEMENT

CHAPTERI:INTRODUCTORY

Vital importance of the doctrine—General agreement of the ChristianChurch in all ages—Danger of Rationalism, and its prevalence in the

present age—All error partial truth—Systems of doctrine unavoidable—AllcontroversyuponthesubjectistobedeterminedbyasimpleappealtoScripture—Objections to theevidenceuponwhichadoctrinerests tobefranklyconsidered,butall rationalisticobjectionsto theplain teachingsof inspiration inadmissible—The plan of the following treatise brieflystated.

CHAPTERII:STATEMENTOFDOCTRINE

TheattitudeofGod,oftheindividualsinner,andofthemoraluniverseinrelation to theAtonement severally considered—TheOrthodoxdoctrineshowntobecomprehensiveandconsistent,andtheMoralInfluenceandGovernmental Hypothesis shown to be partial and inconsistent—Theelements of the Orthodox Doctrine stated in respect to its Motive, itsNature,anditsEffects.

CHAPTER III: DEFINITION OF TERMS, AND SPECIFICATION OFTHEPRINCIPALPOINTSINVOLVEDINTHEORTHODOXDOCTRINEOFTHEATONEMENT

Necessity of technical terms, and need of acurate definitions—ATONEMENTandSATISFACTION—Thedifferencebetweenapenalandapecuniarysatisfaction—PenaltyanddistinctionbetweenCALAMITIES,CHASTISEMENTS and PENAL EVILS—Meaning of the termsSUBSTITUTION and VICARIOUS—EXPIATION and PROPITIATION—IMPETRATIONandAPPLICATION—REDEMPTIONandATONEMENT—MERITUM and SATISFACTIO, or the distinction between active andpassiveobedience—Theprincipalpointsinvolvedinthedoctrinestated.

CHAPTERIV:THEULTIMATEMOTIVESOFALLGOD'SACTSAREINHIMSELF; AND THE IMMUTABLE PERFECTIONS OF THE DIVINENATUREDEMANDTHEPUNISHMENTOFSIN

The ultimate motives of all God's act ons are in himself proved—TheScripturespredicateholinessofthedivinenatureaswellasofthedivinewill—TheyassertthatGodhatessin,andregardsitasintrinsicallyworthyof punishment—The different answers to the question, Why does Godpunish sin? considered—Thehypothesis thatDisinterestedBenevolence

is the whole of Virtue, disproved—The punishment of sin intrinsicallyright,andessentialtothemoralperfectionofGod—JUSTICEvoluntary,butnotoptional—GRACEnecessarilyamatterofsovereignchoice.

CHAPTER V: THE CHURCH DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENTPROVEDFROMTHEFACTTHATTHEDIVINELAWISABSOLUTELYIMMUTABLE

Thedivinelawshowntobeimmutable—Dr.Fiske'sadmissions—Thelawceremonialandmoral—ThePenaltyshowntobeanessentialpartoflaw—The admissions and inconsistencies of Fiske and Barnes—ThesufferingsofChristshownnottohavebeena"substituteforthepenalty,"tohavebeennotidenticalwiththesufferingsdemandedofhispeopleinperson, considered as suffering, but precisely identical considered aspenalty—ScriptureteachesthatChristcamewiththedesignoffulfilling,notrelaxingthelaw—ThepositionofDr.JohnYoungastothenatureofmorallaw,anditspenaltystatedandrefuted.

CHAPTER VI: THE THREE-FOLD RELATION WHICH MORALAGENTSSUSTAINTOTHEDIVINELAW

Thedistinctionbetween theNatural,FederalandPenal relationswhichmensustaintothedivinelawstatedandapplied.

CHAPTERVII:ADAMWAS,INTHESTRICTSENSEOFTHEWORDS,THE FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE RACE; AND THEANTENATAL FORFEITURE, OF WHICH EACH OF HISDESCENDANTSISSUBJECT,ISTHEPENALCONSEQUENCEOFHISPUBLICSIN

Theadmittedfactsofman'sbirthintoaninevitableconditionofsinandmiserystated—TheOrthodoxandtheRationalistagreedthatGodcouldnot bring the new-born soul into such a condition, unless his naturalrights had been justly forfeited before birth—The two questions thencearise,WHYGod allows such a curse to be transmitted, andHOW it istransmitted—I.Theattemptedsolutionswhichdenythatman issubjectto a just antenatal forfeiture—TheManichæan doctrine of the absoluteimpreventability of sin—Pantheistic hypothesis that sin is a necessary

incident to moral development—The New England Root Theory andPlacæus' doctrine—Mediate and Consequent Imputation stated andrefuted—II. The attempted solutionswhich admit antenatal forfeiture—Theory of pre-existence is maintained by Dr. E. Beecher and JuliusMüller stated and refuted—The Realistic theory of our oneness withAdam,asadvocatedbyDrs.BairdandShedd,stated,provednottohavebeen the doctrine of the men who wrote the Creeds of the ReformedChurches, andnot tobe true—TheDoctrineofPresidentEdwards—TheSeveralpointsinvolvedinthetruedoctrine,1st,Astotheimputationofguilt,and2d,Astotheoriginationofmoralcorruptionineachnew-bornsoul, stated, and the whole proved from Scripture, and the consent ofChurches.

CHAPTER VIII: CHRIST WAS, IN THE STRICT JEWISH SENSE OFTHE TERM, A SACRIFICE. THE JEWISH SACRIFICES WERESTRICTLY PIACULAR, AND THEY WERE TYPICAL OF THESACRIFICEOFOURLORD

Headsofargumentstated—I.ThedivineoriginofSacrificesproved—Theprimitive Sacrifices were piacular—The principle established by thecommonconsentofmankind—II.ThattheJewishSacrificeswerestrictlypiacular, the doctrine of the entire Christian Church—The opinions ofBähr, Maurice, Jowett, Bushnell and Young—The different kinds ofSacrifice—The Orthodox doctrine proved (a) from the occasions uponwhich the sacrifices were offered, (b) The qualifications and sacrificialdesignationsof thevictims,(c)Theritualof thesacrifice,(d) fromtheirdeclaredeffects,and(e)fromthetestimonyoftheinspiredprophets,andof ancientheathens, Jews andChristians—III.TheSacrifices of the lawwere typical of the sacrifice of Christ—This proved from the words ofChrist—fromthefactthattheOldTestamentsacrificesaredeclaredtobeshadows, &c., of which Christ is the substance, and from the fact theScripturesexplicitlyassertthatChristsaveshispeoplebybeingofferedasasacrificeforthem.

CHAPTER IX: THEORTHODOXDOCTRINEPROVEDBY THE FACTTHAT CHRIST EFFECTED SALVATION BY ACTING AS THE HIGHPRIESTOFHISPEOPLE

The position assumed by the advocates of the Moral Theory as to thenatureofChrist'sPriesthoodstated—ThesameastotheadvocatesoftheGovermentalTheory—I.ThePriestwasordainedtoactinbehalfofmanin those things which bear upon God—That the effect of his workprimarily terminatesuponGod,proved fromScripture—II.Theworkofthepriestsecuredthesalvation,notthesalvability,ofthoseforwhomheacted, andheactedas the representativeof certainpersonsdefinitely—III. That Christ was a real and not ametaphorical priest, proved fromScripture—Theinferencesfromthesepositionsdeduced.

CHAPTER X: CHRIST'S SUFFERINGS WERE STRICTLY ANDDEFINITELYVICARIOUS

Bushnell'sperversionofthephraseVicariousillustratedanddisproved—Thetruerelationofthewords,Vicarious,Substitute,RepresentativeandMediator, stated—Barnes' definition of a substitute accepted as true—That Christ is in the strict sense the Substitute of his people and hissufferingsvicarious,proved—Barnes'inconsistencyexposed.

CHAPTER XI: THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE PROVED FROM THEFACT THAT THE SCRIPTURES DECLARE THAT OUR SINS WERELAIDUPONCHRIST

Passageswhichassertthefactcited—Differentsensesoftheword"sin"inScripture—Thescripturalusageof thephrase"to imputesin."explainedand illustrated and proved—The doctrine guarded from abuse, and themisrepresentations of adversaries rebuked—The usage of the phrase,"bear sin or iniquity," both in the Old and in the New Testament,illustratedandproved—Bushnell'sextravagantassertionsexposed.

CHAPTERXII: THE ORTHODOXDOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENTPROVED BY THE CHARACTER OF THE EFFECTS WHICH AREATTRIBUTEDTOITINSCRIPTURE

I.TheeffectofChrist'sdeathas itrespectsGod—TheclassicalandNewTestament usage of the phrase καταλλάσσειν stated and proved—Theclassical andNewTestamentusageof thephrase λάσκεσθαι statedandproved—The Biblical usage of כפר explained—II. The effect of Christ's

deathasitrespectstheguiltofsin—TheobjectionsofYounganswered—TheAtonementshowntobetheeffectandnotthecauseofGod'sloveforhispeople—TheOrthodoxdoctrineshownnotto involveTritheism—III.TheeffectofChrist'sdeathasitrespectsthesinnerhimself—TheBiblicalusage of the terms γαράζειν, λυτρόω, λύτρον explained—This languageprovednottoimplythattheAtonementwasacommercialtransaction—This usage establishes theOrthodox doctrine—The Scriptures combinevariousmodesofconceivingoftheAtonementinthesamepassages,andthusdefinethespeciesaswellasthegenusoftheAtonementasdefinitelyasanyoneoftheCreeds.

CHAPTERXIII:THETRUENATUREOFTHEATONEMENTPROVEDBYTHENATUREOFTHEUNIONWHICHTHESCRIPTURESASSERTSUBSISTSBETWEENCHRISTANDHISPEOPLE

Thecommonobjectionthatvicariouspunishmentisunjustconsidered—I.ThefactthatChristandhispeopleareoneprovedfromScripture—Thesubstanceofallthatisrevealedastothenatureofthisunionstated—II.The fact of this union, as thus proved from Scripture, shown to beconsistent only with the Orthodox doctrine of the nature of theAtonement.

CHAPTERXIV: THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE, AS TO THE NATUREOF THE ATONEMENT, PROVED FROM WHAT THE SCRIPTURESTEACHASTOTHENATUREANDGROUNDSOFJUSTIFICATION

I. Justification proved to be a forensic act of God as Judge, and thusshown to stand in irreconcilable opposition to the Moral InfluenceTheory as to the nature of theAtonement—The arguments ofDr. JohnYoung answered—II. The view of Justification corresponding to theGovernmental Theory of the Atonement stated—The true doctrine, viz.that Justification is not mere pardon, that it is a Judicial and not aSovereignact,and that itsground is theperfect righteousnessofChristimputedtothebeliever,statedandproved.

CHAPTERXV:THEORTHODOXDOCTRINE,ASTOTHENATUREOFTHEATONEMENT,PROVEDFROMTHETEACHINGSOFSCRIPTUREASTOTHENATUREANDOFFICEOFFAITH

That faith includes trust proved—That faith in or on Christ as the solecondition of salvation is the gospel preached by theApostles, proved—That this fact is perfectly consistent with the Orthodox view of theAtonement,bututterlyirreconcilablewitheithertheGovernmentalortheMoralTheory,shown.

CHAPTERXVI: THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE, AS TO THE NATUREOF THE ATONEMENT, PROVED FROM WHAT THE SCRIPTURESTEACH AS TO ITS ABSOLUTE NECESSITY IN ORDER TO THESALVATIONOFSINNERS

DifferentopinionsastothegroundoftheNECESSITYoftheAtonement,stated—ThebearingofthisquestionuponthequestionastotheNATUREof the Atonement—The true ground of the necessity of the Atonementstatedandproved.

CHAPTERXVII:THENATUREOFTHEATONEMENTDETERMINEDBYWHATTHESCRIPTURESTEACHASTOITSPERFECTION

I.ThattheAtonementofChristisintrinsicallyperfectinitslaw-fulfillingandjustice-satisfyingvalue—Differentviewsstatedandcompared—Thetrue doctrine stated and proved—II. That the atoningwork of Christ isperfect and complete in the sense of infallibly securing its ownapplicationtoallof those forwhomitwasdesigned—Thispointproved(a)inoppositiontotheRomishdoctrineofthemeritofgoodworksandtheefficacyofpenance, (b) inopposition to theProtestantadvocatesofanindefiniteAtonement.

CHAPTER XVIII: THE SATISFACTION RENDERED BY CHRISTPROVED TO EMBRACE HIS ACTIVE AS WELL AS HIS PASSIVEOBEDIENCE

Ambiguity of the word Atonement—The term Satisfaction precise andcomprehensive—Defect of Symington's book—That the obedience ofChrist is inseparable from his suffering, proved—General object ofchapter to prove that Christ's obedience as well as his sufferings isvicarious—Threefold relation mankind sustain to law—Obedience is asabsolutelynecessaryinordertothepromiseoflifeasispenalsufferingin

order to the judicial reconciliation—I. The original covenant wasaccompaniedbytwosanctions,apromiseconditionedonobedienceanda penalty—The two alternative theories of justification stated, and thetruth of the Calvinistic view proved—II. The doctrine contended forshowntobeexpresslystatedinScripture—III.Christ'sobedienceshowntohavebeenvicarious,fromthefactthathispersontranscendedthetheclaims of law—IV. Only a perfect righteousness can be the ground ofjustification—V.ThaobjectionofPiscator,&c.,refuted.

CHAPTERXIX:THEREFORMEDDOCTRINEASTOTHENATUREOFTHE ATONEMENT PROVED TO HAVE BEEN THE FAITH OF THEENTIRECHRISTIANCHURCHTHROUGHALLAGES

I. General statement of the points which the historical evidence to beadducedareclaimedtoprove—II.ThehistoricalargumentofDr.Youngstated and refuted, and the testimony of writers from the time of theApostles to the present time adduced, together with citations from theCreedsoftheGreek,Roman,LutheranandReformedChurches—III.Theresultof thishistoricalreviewshowntobethat theuniformfaithof theentireChurchhasincludedtheelementofexpiation,andconsequentlyisinconsistentwitheither theMoralor theGovernmentalTheoriesof theAtonement.

CHAPTER XX: THE PRINCIPAL OBJECTIONS TO THE CHURCHDOCTRINESTATEDANDANSWERED

1st. The objection that our doctrine ascribes vindictiveness to God,disproved—Show that both the Moral and the Governmental Theoriesresolvejusticeintobenevolence—2d.TheobjectionofSocinusandothers,that our doctrine excludes grace, disproved—3d. The general principlethatthedemandsofthelawarepersonalshownnottoimpugnthetruthofoursystem—4th.TheobjectionthatChristwasbutasingleperson,andhissufferingsfiniteandofshortduration,shownnottohaveweight—5th.The Church doctrine of "Imputation" shown not to include the absurdfigment of the "transfer of moral character"—6th. The objection thatChristowedobedienceforhimself,disproved.

CHAPTER XXI: THE MORAL INFLUENCE AND THE

GOVERNMENTALTHEORIESOFTHEATONEMENT

I. TheMoral Influence Theory—The object of Christ's death defined bySocinus—Statements to the same effect by Bushnell and Young—TheobjectionstotheMoralVieware,1st.Themoralinfluenceinquestionisbetter effected by the Atonement when conceived of according to theOrthodoxview—2d.TheMoralTheory fails, as its advocates confess, toaccountfortheproductionofthemoraleffect—3d.Inconsistentwithtruenatureanddesignofasacrifice—4th.InconsistentwiththeapplicationoftheworkofChristtothosewhodiedbeforehisadvent—5th.Thisdoctrineis condemned by its historical record—II. The Governmental Theory—Historyandstatementofthedoctrine—ItssuperioritytoMoralTheory—Objectionstothistheoryare,1st.ThepositivetruthoftheGovernmentalHypothesis better taught by the Orthodox doctrine—2d. It shows noconnectionbetweenthedeathofChristanditsacknowledgedeffects—3d.Itisfoundeduponafalsetheoryofvirtue—4th.ItrepresentstheworkofChrist as an exhibition of principles not truly in exercise—5th.Inconsistent with true idea of law, sacrifice, vicarious suffering andransom,&c—6th.Itnecessitates theconclusionthat theAtonementwasindefinite—7th. It is connected with the false theory of co-operativejustification—8th. Is contradicted by the uniform faith of the Church—9th.ItwasnotdevelopedfromScripture—10th.ItsonlyplausiblesupportisitsrelationtothefigmentofanindefiniteAtonement—11th.ItsknownArminianoriginprovesitsinconsistencywithCalvinism.

PART II: THE DESIGN OR INTENDED APPLICATION OF THEATONEMENT

CHAPTERI:INTRODUCTORY

The question as to the design of the Atonement considered as it isinvolved in our controversy—1st. With the Arminians—2d. With theCalvinisticUniversalists.

CHAPTER II: THE TRUE DOCTRINE AS TO THE DESIGN OF THEATONEMENTACCURATELYSTATED

The question stated first negatively and then positively under several

heads.

CHAPTER III: THE QUESTION, WHAT IS THE TRUE RELATIONWHICHTHEPROBLEMASTOTHENATUREOFTHEATONEMENTSUSTAINSTOTHEPROBLEMASTOITSDESIGN,EXAMINED

TheviewastotheDesignoftheAtonemententertainedbytheadvocatesof, 1st. TheMoralView, 2d.TheGovernmentalTheory, 3d.The strictlyMercantileView,4th.TheviewoftheLutheranChurches,5th.TheviewoftheReformedChurchesandoftheArminians.

CHAPTER IV: HISTORY OF OPINION AMONG CALVINISTS UPONTHEQUESTIONASTOTHEDESIGNOFTHEATONEMENT

Theuseof indefinite languagebymanystrictCalvinists explained—Thedifferent senses inwhich thephrase "ThatChrist died for allmen"hasbeen used—The doctrine of Amyraldus and its reception by the FrenchSynod—The doctrine of theMarrow-men as to the general reference oftheAtonement—ThetwoclassesoftherecentadvocatesofanindefiniteAtonementconsidered.

CHAPTER V THE QUESTIONS, WHAT WAS THE OPINION OFCALVINASTOTHEDESIGNOFTHEATONEMENT?WHAT ISTHESTANDARD OF CALVINISM? AND WHAT IS THE DOCTRINE ONTHIS SUBJECT OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION ANDCATECHISM?CONSIDEREDANDANSWERED

ThetruepositionofCalvinonthissubjectcarefullyshown—ThestandardofCalvinismshown,andprovedtoadmitonlythedoctrineofadefiniteAtonement—ThedoctrineoftheWestminsterConfessionandCatechismdemonstrated.

CHAPTER VI: THE ARGUMENTS STATED UPON WHICH THEREFORMEDDOCTRINEASTOTHEDESIGNOFTHEATONEMENTRESTS

This proved—1st. From the very nature of the Atonement, since Christsuffered as the personal Substitute of his people, and his work was a

satisfaction, and he died with the design of actually saving those forwhomhedied—2d.Christpurchasedfaithandrepentanceforhispeople—3d.Hediedafterhalfthehumanracewerealreadydead—4th.HediedinexecutionofthetermsofaneternalcovenantwithhisFather—5th.Hismotivewasthehighestpersonalloveforhisownpeople—6th.Hisdesigndeclared to be the salvation of "his sheep," the "Church," &c.—7th.Christ'sworkasHighPriestwasonework,andprovedfromthedoctrineofelection—8th.Ourdoctrineharmonizesallthefacts.

CHAPTER VII: THE OBJECTIONS BROUGHT AGAINST THEREFORMEDVIEWOFTHEDESIGNOFTHEATONEMENTSTATED,ANDTHEANSWERTOTHEMINDICATED

Itisobjectedthatourdoctrineisinconsistent—1st.WiththegeneralofferoftheGospel;answer—2d.Withthosepassageswhichdeclarehesufferedfor"all,"or"theworld;"answer—3d.WiththosepassageswhichspeakofthepossibilityofthosedyingforwhomChristdied;answer.

PREFACE

IN the fall of 1866 the senior Editor of the "Presbyterian Banner," ofPittsburg,askedtheauthorofthisbooktowriteaseriesofarticlesontheAtonement.Thereasonassignedwasthatourviewsof thegreatcentraldoctrinesofthegospelwerefrequentlymisrepresentedbymanyoutsideofourowncommunion,andthatfortheinstructionofourownpeoplearestatement of the venerable faith of the Reformed Churches was nowverymuchneededinaformspecificallyadaptedtothecircumstancesofthepresentgeneration.Being infullsympathywiththereasonsgiven,Iwrote the articles, which appeared before the public last winter. Thosearticlesfurnishaboutonefourthpartofthepresentvolume,whichisnowsentforthasthebestcontributionwithinmypowertothevindicationoftheancientfaithofthePresbyterianChurch.

While jealously guarding the essential principles of the Calvinisticsystem,Ihavedesignedtorepelwithallmymightalikeallthosepositiveheresies which attack it openly, and with even greater solicitude thatlatitudinarianindifferencetoexactconceptionsandcarefulstatementsofdoctrinewhichtendssecretly,yetnotlesscertainly,todestroythetruth,andwhichinthepresentageisourchiefsourceofdanger.Iwouldprayandlabourthatingainingbreadthwemaynotloseheight,andingainingpeace and love we may not lose purity and truth. With all the veryobvious imperfections of the offering, I trust that the condescendingSaviourwillgraciouslyacceptit,andrenderitaninstrumentofblessingto his Church, to its ministry, and to those hopeful candidates for itsservicetowhoseeducationmylifeisdevoted.

ALLEGHENYCITY,PA.,October,7,1867.

PARTI:THENATUREOFTHEATONEMENT

CHAPTERIINTRODUCTORY

THE doctrine of the Atonement is evidently the central and principalelementofthedoctrineofJustification,whichLuthertrulyaffirmedtobethearticleofastandingorafallingChurch.Thetruthofthisaphorismisobvious,bothbecausethistruthconcernsthefoundationuponwhichourrelationstoGodasourheavenlyFather,andconsequentlyallourpresentlifeandourfuturehopes,depend,andalsobecauseourconceptionofthiscentral principle necessarily determines our conception of all the otherelements of the entire system of revealed truth; such as the moralattributesofGod, thenatureofhisMoralGovernment,ofLaw,SinandPenalty, thePersonof theGod-man, thePerson andOffice of theHolySpirit,theOfficeofFaith,andhencetheentirecharacterofourreligiousexperience.

IncontradictionoftheassertionofBushnell,andthevagueimpressionofmany others, that no consistent view as to the nature of Christ'sredemptiveworkhascharacterized the faithof theChurch inallages, Iexpect to show in the following chapters that, although theChurch did

notattaintoadefiniteandcompletescientificstatementoftheDoctrineofRedemptionbeforetheperiodoftheSociniancontroversyintheearlypart of the seventeenth century, it is nevertheless a fact that thewholeChurch,initshistoricaldivisionsfromtheapostolicage,andeachbranchofitinexactproportiontoitsgeneralorthodoxy,hasheldessentiallybutone opinion on this subject.On the subject of thenature and objectivereference of the redemptive work of Christ there was no controversybetween theReformers and theChurchofRome.All the greatnationalchurches of both the Lutheran and Reformed families, and all theauthoritativeChurchcreeds,arehere,at theveryheartof thegospel,atone. Even all evangelical Arminians, such as Arminius himself, JohnWesley, and RichardWatson, by a happy sacrifice of logic, are on thisvitalquestionatonewithCalvinists,andopposedtothemoreconsistentPelagianizingArminians.

On the other hand, the lesson of history is none the less clear, thatRationalism,inallitsformsanddegrees,tendstopervertthetestimonyofScriptureastothenatureofRedemption,andthaterroneousviewsonthis subject are invariably connected, as causeor effect,witherroneousviewsoneveryothermainprincipleofthegospel.ThusSocinianviewsasto the Person of Christ have always been accompanied withcorresponding views as to the nature of his work. The same is truepreciselyofhighArianism,andagainofthesemi-pantheisticMonismofSchleiermacherandtheAmericanMercersbergtheology.Arminianismisdistinguishedby itspeculiarsoteriology,correspondingaccurately to itsanthropology. Calvinistic advocates of general redemption, whether oftheFrench,English,orAmericanschools,havealwaysbeenconstrainedto modify to a corresponding extent the common doctrine of all theReformersandofalltheChurchcreeds,astothenatureofRedemptionandofJustification.ThePelagianizingspeculationsof theNewEnglandtheologians—as to the nature of sin and of virtue, the extent of man'smoral ruin in the fall, thenecessity andnatureofEffectualCallingandRegeneration—have in all their varying phases been accompanied withcorresponding theories of the Atonement, so called. And every passingschool of German Rationalists, old or new, and the neoplatonizingRationalists of the Broad Church school in England and America, arecharacterized by the uniformity of purpose with which in various

methods they seek tomake void the teaching of Scripture on this vitaltheme.

Thushistoryputsitbeyondquestionthatatendencytodeny,oreventoabateortomodify,thefulltruthonthissubject,isalwayssymptomaticofatendencytowardatotaldisintegrationofthesystemofrevealedtruth.Andall the indicationsof thepresent timealsowarnus that thewholeChurch is just now, in a pre-eminent degree, exposed to this veryinfluence frommanydirections.Fromthe recentamazingadvancementof the physical sciences, and the corresponding development of thepractical arts, and the wide extension of the secular interests andactivities of the masses of mankind, and doubtless from many othercausesunknown,thespiritofmodernphilosophy,whetherintuitionalorsensational, is beyond precedent naturalistic—that is, disposed to denythesupernaturalasimpossible,ortoignoreitasunknowable.Thesubtlespiritofthismodeofthoughtpenetrateseverysphereofmentalactivity,isdiffusedthrougheveryspeciesofliterature,andisfarmoreinfluentialoverthespeculationsofeventrulyreligiousmindsthanmanyareawareof.It isconstantly,byanunfeltpressure,tendingto leadthetheologianawayfromthesimplicityofthegospel.Thisismanifestedinmanyessaysatarationalexplanationofthemysteriesofrevelationinconformitywiththeprinciplesofnaturalreasonandtheanalogiesofhumanexperiences.Doctrinesarefirstformedtosatisfyrationalviewsofwhattheyoughttobe, and then a reference is made to the Bible to elicit inspiredconfirmationoftruthsotherwisederived.

The two great doctrines just at present most generally brought intoquestion, and which have suffered most at the hands of Rationalisticcriticism, are those concerning the nature and extent of BiblicalInspiration, and the nature of the redemptive work of Christ. Thesenaturallystandorfalltogether.ForiftheinspirationoftheScripturesisplenary, then the Church doctrine as to the nature of Redemptionremains impregnable. But if the authority of the Scriptures may beabated, the way is open, of course, in due proportion, to theories ofRedemptionadjusted to the "finer feelings," the "moral intuitions,"andthe administrative experiences of mankind. Thus we have in BroadChurch literature—so widely circulated in the writings of Jowett,

Maurice, Stanley, Dr. John Young of Edinburgh, and the sermons ofRobertson, and the late elaborate treatise on "Vicarious Sacrifice," ofBushnell,andelsewhere—arepublicationinnewformsofthatwhichisinessencenothingelse than theoldSocinianheresyon theAtonement.Aprominent Methodist minister, the Rev. Dr. Steele, as quoted by theWatchman and Reflector, declares, concerning that great evangelicaldenomination, that theoldviewthatChristdiedtosatisfy the justiceofGod is undoubtedly disappearing among them, and that the "moralinfluence," or Socinian view, is generally taking its place. And it isnotoriousthatthehybridGovernmentalAtonementtheory—orthodoxinwhatever itaffirmsandSocinian inall itdenies—has foryearsbeentheaccepteddoctrineofwhat is called theNewEngland theology, andof alargeclassoftheologiansinEngland.

TherearethreepointstowhichIwishtodirecttheattentionofthereaderinthisintroductorychapter.

1.Thefirstisthefact,tooapttobeoverlookedbyeagercontroversialists,that all error, especially all effective and therefore dangerous error, ispartialtruth.Thehumanmindwasformedfortruth,andsoconstitutedthat only truth can exert permanent influence upon it. But the truthrevealedintheScripturesissomany-sidedinitsaspects,andsovastinits relations, and our habits of thought because of sin are so one-sidedandnarrow,thatasageneralfact,themindofanyChurchinanysingleagefailstotakeinpracticallyandsharplymorethanonesideofatruthatatime,whileotheraspectsandrelationsareeitherdeniedorneglected.Ahabitofundulyexaltinganysubordinateviewofthetruthattheexpenseof thatwhich ismore important, or of overlooking, on the other hand,somesecondaryaspectofitaltogether,iscertainafteratimetoleadtoareactionary tendency, in which that which has been too much exaltedshall be brought low, and thatwhich has been abased shall be exalted.Thisprinciple is abundantly illustrated throughout the entirehistoryoftheological speculation as in the ever-repeated oscillations between theextremesofSabellianismandTritheismastotheTrinity,ofEutychianismand Nestorianism as to the Person of Christ, and in the history ofspeculationsonthedoctrineofRedemption.Everyprominentheresyasto the nature of the Atonement, as the reader will find carefully

acknowledged and defined in the following work, embraces andemphasizesonitspositivesideanimportanttruth.Thepower,andhencethedanger,oftheheresyresidesinthatfact.Butontheotherhand,itisaheresy,andhenceaneviltoberesisteduntodeath,becauseiteitherputsa subordinate principle into the place of that which is central andfundamental, or because it puts one side of the truth for the whole,denyingorignoringallbesidesthefractionaltruthpresented.Itisplainlythepolicyaswellasthedutyofthedefendersofthewholetruth,notonlyto acknowledge the truth held on the side of their opponents, but tovindicate the rights of the perfect systemas awhole, by demonstratingthe truepositionandrelationof thepartial truthadmitted in the largersystem of truth denied. By these means we double the defences oforthodoxy,bybringingintocontributionallthatistrue,andthereforeallthatisofforce,intheapologiesoferror.

2. The second point is, that systems of divinity and definite views ofdoctrine are not a matter of choice, but of absolute necessity to theChurch, as long as the Bible is readwith interest. This unquestionablenecessityarisesfromthelogicalconstitutionofthehumanmindtowhichtheChristianrevelationhasbeenaddressed,andfromtheself-consistentreason of that infinite mind from which the revelation has originated.ThatalltruthisoneinGodandinmanisaninvincibleaxiom.Themanwhointelligentlydeniesthisisripeforatheism.Thehumanmind—thatofthe individual and that of every community—ever strives to introduceunity into the whole mass of its knowledge. God's plans, purposes,administrations—whetherthroughnatureorfromabovenature,andhisrevelations, whether history or prophecy, whether doctrine, precept orpromise—mustallconstituteonesystem,andhence,alltheirpartsmustsustainaconsistentrelationtooneanother.Theycannotbeconceivedoftruly unless they are conceived of as they are being accurately defined,andunderstoodintheirmutualrelations.

At present there are two absurdly inconsistent attacks, originating inrationalistic sources, directed against that system of truth which theChristianChurchhasdiscernedintheinspiredScriptures.Thefirstattackis made upon the plea that everything contained in a supernaturalrevelation—beingapartofagreat self-containedsystemof truth—must

beforthwithexplainedandsetforth,inallitsrelations,inthelightofthehumanreason.Some,arguingfromanalogy,andothersappealingtotheirownelementaryintuitionsandfeelings,determineàprioriwhatGodcando and say, and therefore what God does do and say, thus using thematerials of revelation in subordination to the law-giving power ofreason.Thewholeclassoferroristswithwhomwehavetodo,drawtheirdoctrineinthefirstinstancefromrationalprinciples,andtheyappealtoScripture only to show that it may be quoted in at least apparentconformity with what has been previously discovered and proved onothergrounds.Thesecondattackappearsintheformofaprotestagainstdefiniteviewsofdoctrine,andcovers its realdenialof the fundamentalarticlesof theChristian faithundervaguegeneralities.Coleridge, inhisAids to Reflection,* denies that the Scriptures reveal anything to us of"the efficient cause and condition of redemption," except the bare factthat Christ has achieved it, and affirms that all that is revealed to usconcernsthe"effectsofredemptioninandfortheredeemed"themselves.HencealargeclassoftheologiansinEngland,andasmallerbutgrowingoneinAmerica,arecontinuallypleadingforthebareimplicitrecognitionof the Atonement as a fact, and protesting against all theories of theAtonement whatsoever; that is, against all definite views upon thesubject.

This is at once very absurd and very dangerous, and none the lessdangerousbecauseof itsabsurdity.Thepresent,aboveallotherperiodsof humanhistory, is intolerant of all vague, undetermined and loosely-held views. Sharp, clearly-defined logic and earnest faith will hold thefield at the last. Besides, these very men necessarily violate their ownprinciple,showingthatpractically itservesonlyasacoverunderwhichtheirhostilitytothetruth isdisguised.It isplainenoughthatColeridgeheldandtaught,underallthecloudofhismysteriouslanguage,theold,meagreandoft-discardedMoralTheoryoftheAtonement.TheRev.Sub-deanGarden,intheTractsforPriestsandPeople,makesitveryplainthatwhilehisprofessedobjectistomaintaintheAtonementasafact,whileallhumantheoriesastoitsnaturearealikerejected,hisrealinterestinthematter is toreject theprinciplewhichhasbeenalwaysprofessedbytheChurchinallitsbranches,thatthedirectandcentraldesignandeffectofChrist's death was to propitiate the principle of justice in the divine

nature. The same is true in degree also in the advocates of theGovernmental theory. Its positions are possible onlywhen vaguely andgenerallystated.Whenastrictaccountisaskedastowhatismeantby"asubstituteforapenalty,"orastotheconnectionbetweenthenon-penalsufferingsofan innocentpersonand the forgivenessof theunpunishedsinsoftheguiltysubjectsofdivinegovernment,noanswerismade,andweventuretoassertthatupontheirtheorynoanswerispossible.

InanswertobothofthesepleasofRationalism,weaffirmthatChristiandoctrine has its ground in the inspired Scriptures alone. These containthesystemofdivinetruthasawhole,aswellasalltheseparateelementsof that system. The true system of Redemption is in the Scriptures,inseparablefromthefacts,justasthetruetheoryofastronomyhasbeenfromthecreationwiththestarsinthesky,whethermankindreadthemarightornot.Thetheologian,liketheastronomer,isnothingmorethantheinterpreter,whoobservesthefacts,whograduallyreadsthesysteminthe facts, andwho teaches to others precisely what he has read in thebook, neither more nor less. We believe that what is called theSatisfactiontheoryoftheAtonementisascertainlyandasdemonstrablytaughtintheScripturesasitisinanyorinallthecreedsoftheReformedChurches. The teachings of the Holy Scriptures, with respect to theprecisenatureoftheAtonement,whenbroughttogether,are,asIshowatthecloseofChapterXII.,asdefiniteasanystatementwhichcanpossiblybeconstructedintheuseofhumanspeech.Letusreverentlyrememberthe awful woe which the Holy Ghost denounces upon him who either"shalladdanythingunto"or"shalltakeaway"aughtfromthatwhichGodhasrevealedintheScriptures.Rev.22:18,19.It iscertainlyas impious,andperhapsmorefoolish,torefusetoseeclearlywhatGodhasrevealedclearly, as it is to attempt tounderstand indetail greatundefined factswhichGodhasseenfittoleaveuponthevergeofourhorizon.Wehearofsome dapper preacherswho claim that the age has outgrown doctrine.They have advanced around the circle to the place from which theystarted, andhope they are ready again to enter the kingdomof heavenlikelittlechildren,asfarasignoranceisconcerned.Letitberememberedthatsystematictheologyhasitsessencesimplyinclearthinkingandclearspeaking on the subject of that religion which is revealed in theScriptures.Amancanoutgrowsystematic theology, therefore,eitherby

ceasingtobeclear-headed,orbyceasingtobereligious,andinnootherway.Isupposesomeescapeintheirhastebybothwaysatonce.

3.Inthethirdplace,astotheconditionsoftheargument,Ihavetomakethreepreliminaryremarks.

(1.)Iinsistthat,astheGospeliswhollyamatterofdivinerevelation,theanswertothequestion,WhatdidChristdoonearthinordertoreconcileustoGod?besoughtexclusivelyinafullandfairinductionfromalltheScriptures teach upon the subject. From a survey of all the matterrevealedonthesubject,what,inthejudgmentofamindunprejudicedbytheories,didthesacredwritersintendustobelieve?Theresultofsuchanexamination,unmodifiedbyphilosophyorsecularanalogies,isalone,weinsist,thetruedoctrineoftheredemptiveworkofChrist.

(2.)Reasonable objections against the evidences bywhich a doctrine isestablished have force, and should be duly considered. But rationalobjectionstoanyprinciplefairlyestablishedbythelanguageofScripturehavenoforcewhatever,unlesstheyamounttoapalpablecontradictiontootherprinciples certainlyknown.Andwhenever this canbe shown, thereasonable inference is, not that the teachings of Scripture are to bemodifiedinconformitythereto,butthattheScripturesthemselvesaretoberejectedasfalse.Nothingismoresenselessthantheattempttomodifythe results of the inspiration of Jehovah in conformity with humanreason.

(3.)Theforceoftheargumentinbehalfofthisoranyotherdoctrinedoesnot lie in special words or passages, nor in the several argumentsregardedseparately.Thesearelikethesticksofthebundlewhichtheboyin the fable broke one by one with ease. The overwhelmingdemonstrationliesinthefactthatallScripture,bothoftheOldandNewTestaments,whennaturallyinterpreted,isasifthedoctrinewastrue.Thenumberandvarietyof converging linesareabsolutely inconsistentwithdoubt as to the meaning intended. Our opponents are in the habit ofdemandingthatweshouldshowthateachtextindetailnotonlymay,butabsolutely must, teach the doctrine we hold, and none other. In thesetacticstheyhavebeengreatlyexcelledbythemoreconsistentSocinians,who, by a like process, have satisfied themselves that Christ's proper

divinityisnottaughtinScripture.

Ipropose,then,

First.TostatetheChurchdoctrineonthissubject,definingallthepointsinvolved,andthetermsusedinthedefinitions.

Second. To present a summary of the several departments of thescripturalevidencebywhichthedoctrineisestablished.

Third. To prove that the true Church has always, from the days of theapostlestothepresent,inallitsbranches,beeninessentialagreementasto the essential elements of the doctrine, as taught at large in theconfessionsoftheReformedandLutheranChurches.

Fourth. To state and answer the principal objections made to thedoctrine.

Fifth.Tostate, compareandexpose the fallacyof theseveralerroneousviewsheldinoppositiontothetruth.

Sixth.TostateandprovethecommondoctrineoftheReformedChurchesastothedesignoftheAtonementwithrespecttoitsobjects.

CHAPTERII:STATEMENTOFDOCTRINE

ITmayelucidatethestatementofthepointinvolvedintheorthodoxastothenatureofChrist'sRedemptiveWork,whichIproposetogive inthischapter, ifwe first takea stepbackward,andattempt toestimate thoseconditionswhichmadethatworknecessary.Itisassumedthattheendtobe attained was to reconcile God and man. What, then, were thedifficulties to be surmounted? What parties are to be affected by theintroduction of such a provision into the administration of the divinegovernment?Andhowdotheyseverallystandinrelationtoit?

1.ThereisGod.ItisevidentthatwhateverthenatureofGoddemands,asthe conditionof this reconciliation,must beprovided.And it is no lessevident that the conditions, rendered necessary by God's nature, must

takeprecedenceofallothers;and, indeed,sinceallcreatednaturesandrelations are contingent upon God's nature, so all other conditions ofredemption whatsoever must be contingent upon the demands of hisnature.Nowweexpect toshow(1) that theScriptures teachthatoneoftheattributesof thedivine essence is abhorrenceof sin for its intrinsicsinfulness,bothinitsaspectaspollutionandinitsaspectasguilt.Itisofthe essence of hismoral perfection to forbid it andpunish it. (2.) ThatGod has, from the first enunciation of his law to Adam, pledged hisincorruptibletruththat"thesoulthatsinneth,itshalldie."

2.Thereisthesinnerhimselfinacertainlegalrelation,andwithacertainmoraldispositionasitrespectsGod.

(1.) As to his legal relations, the Scriptures clearly teach that, at hiscreation,hewasputundertheequitableCovenantofWorksforacertainprobationaryperiod.Thisjustconstitutionprovided(a)everlastingwell-beingonconditionofperfectobedience,and(b)everlasting ill-beingoncondition of disobedience. Now, although under that covenant manfailed, it is evident that, nevertheless, bothof these conditionsmust bemaintainedintheirintegrity.Torelaxthemwouldbetoviolatethewordof God, to dishonour his law, and to render his promises and histhreateningsalikeunworthyofrespect.Thepenalty,whenonceincurred,can be preserved inviolate only by being executed. The promise ofeverlastingwell-beingcanbetruthfullygrantedonlywhentheconditionof perfect obedience has been fulfilled. Suffering a righteous penaltyentitlesnocriminaltoareward;andtooffereternalblessednesstosuch,ontermsdeniedtounfallenAdamandtoallangels,wouldbeplacingapremiumonsin.

(2.)Astoman'smoraldispositiontowardGod,Scriptureandexperienceteachthatitisaconditionalikeofconsciousguiltandofalienation.(a)Itisaconditionofconsciousguilt.Conscienceisanindestructibleelementof human nature. It is God's incorruptible witness in the soul, in themidst of all itsmoral corruption, judging of sin as he judges of it. It isarmed with the vindicatory emotion of remorse, which demandsexpiation,andwhichnevercanbepacifiedbymerepardon.Pardonallaysfear;sanctificationallaysself-abhorrence;butonlyexpiationcanappeaseremorse. (b) Man's condition involves a disposition of fear, distrust,

sullen alienation as respects God. This might all be removed by anexertionofnewcreativepower.ButGodworksuponmaninconsistencywithhisnatureasarationalandfreeagent.SuchanexhibitionofGod'scharacteranddispositiontowardmanmustbemade,therefore,asshalltend, according to the laws of man's moral and emotional nature, tosubduehisalienationandtodissipatehisdistrust.

3.Thereisthemoraluniverse,embracedinonegeneralsystemofdivinegovernment. If sin is punished in one province, government isstrengthenedthroughouttheempire.Ontheotherhand,iflawisrelaxedandsinpardonedbymeresovereignprerogativeinanyoneprovince,thegovernmentisjustsofarforthdishonouredandweakenedthroughoutallprovinces and for all time. Sinful men, therefore, cannot properly bereconciledtoGoduntilafterprovisionhasbeenmadetodemonstratetoall the subjects of God's government his immutable determination topunishsininallcaseswithoutexception.

The orthodox doctrine provides exhaustively for satisfying all theseconditions of redemption at once, by the one act of the Lord Jesus, invicariouslysufferingthepenaltyofthebrokenlawastheSubstituteofhispeople. His motive was infinite love. The precise thing he did was tosuffer the penalty of the law as the substitute of his people.His directintentionwas tosatisfy justice in theirbehalf,and thussecure,on legalterms, their salvation. In doing this, he also necessarily satisfied thenaturaldemandofthesinner'sconscienceforexpiation,andsubduedhissullen alienation, and removed his distrust of God, by the supremeexhibitionofdivinelovemadeonthecross.Atthesametime,andbythesamemeans,hegavetothewholemoraluniversethehighestconceivabledemonstrationofGod's inexorabledetermination topunish all sin, justbecausehedidsopunishiteveninthepersonofhisSon.TheSocinian,orMoral Influence Theory, supposes that the sole design and effect ofChrist's sufferings was to subdue the wicked alienation of man by anexhibitionof self-sacrificing love. It is evident that thisview isnotonlypartialandinverted,makingthereconciliationofmantoGodeverything,andthereconciliationofGodtomannothing,butitisalsoabsurdwhendetachedfromthecentralideaofexpiation.Christ'ssufferingssubduethealienation ofman because they exhibit divine love. They exhibit divine

love, because they were endured as the means necessary to removeobstaclesotherwiseinsuperableevenbyGodtotheexerciseoffavourtosinfulmen.Atragedygottenupforthetransparentpurposeofaffectingour feelings, having no inherent principle or necessity in itself, woulddisgustratherthanconciliateenmity.

The Governmental Theory, however its principlesmay be disguised byvague and general statements, essentially involves the assumption (1)that justice isonlyamodeofbenevolence; (2) that thepenaltywasnotexecutedonChrist; thathis sufferingswerenotnecessary to satisfy therigourofdivinejustice;that,onthecontrary,hesufferedasubstituteforthe penalty, as an example of punishment to counteract in the moraluniverse,byexhibitingGod'sdeterminationtopunishsin,theevileffectsthatwouldotherwiseensueuponitspardon.Itisevenmoreevidentthanin thecaseof theSocinianTheory that thisview isnotonlypartialandinverted, putting the claims of themoral universe before those ofGod,butabsurd,also,whendetachedfromthecentralideaofexpiation,whichitwasinventedtosupersede.ForhowcanhissufferingsbeanexampleofpunishmentunlessChristreallysufferedthepenaltyofthelaw?Howcanthey demonstrate God's determination to punish sin unless sin was inverydeedpunishedtherein?

TheorthodoxdoctrineastoRedemptioninvolvesthefollowingpoints.

1.AstoitsMotive.ThiswastheamazingloveofGodtohisownpeople,determining him, in perfect consistency with his truth and justice, toassumehimself,inthepersonofhisSon,theresponsibilityofbearingthepenaltyandsatisfying justice.Thesameidenticalessenceandattributesare common to the Father and the Son. The justice demandingsatisfaction,andthelovepromptingtotheself-assumptionofthepenalty,areco-existentstatesofdivinefeelingandpurpose.

2.As to itsNature. (1.)Christ assumed the law-place of his people.Heowednopersonalobedience,andhehadsovereignrightoverhisownlifetodisposeofitashewilled.PromptedbytheinfinitelovecommontotheFather and himself, he voluntarily assumed all of our legalresponsibilities. (2.) He obeyed and suffered as our Substitute. Hissufferingswerevicarious.Byhisobedienceandsufferingshedischarged

all our obligations to the divine law, both in its federal and penalrelations. His sufferings cancelled the claims of penal justice, and hisobediencemeritedtherewardsoftheoriginalcovenantoflife.(3.)Whiletherewas,ofcourse,notransferofmoralcharacter,heassumedtheguilt(justobligationtopunishment)ofoursins.Alltheirshameandpollutionremainours,whilealltheirguilt(penalobligation)waswillinglyassumedby, and imputed to him—i. e., charged to his account. (4.) He did notrender a pecuniary satisfaction, and therefore did not suffer the samedegreenorduration,norinallrespectsthesamekindofsufferings,whichthelawwouldhaveinflictedonthesinnerinperson.Buthedidsuffertheverypenaltyofthelaw.Thatis,sinwaspunishedinhiminstrictrigourofjustice. His sufferings were no substitute for a penalty, but those verypenalevilswhichrigorous justicedemandedofhisexaltedpersonwhenhestoodinourplace,asafullequivalentforallthatwasdemandedofus.The substitution of a divine for a human victim necessarily involved achangeinthequality,thoughnonewhateverinthelegalrelations,ofthesuffering. (5.) He did not, of course, suffer in his divine nature. Butbecause of the infinite dignity of his person, his finite sufferingsconstituteanabsolutelyperfectsatisfaction,sufficienttoexpiatethesinsofallmen.

3.Asto itsEffect. (1.)ItproducednochangeinGod,anymorethandoacts of creation and providence. The efficient purpose existed in thedivinemindfrometernity.Heacteduponit,asifaccomplishedfromthefall of Adam. The infinite justice and the infinite love exercised in thesacrificeofChristwereinthedivinemindfromthebeginning.Theeffectof the satisfactionwas to renderpossible the concurrentexerciseof thejustice and the love in the treatment of the same sinful persons. (2.) Itexpiated the guilt of sin. It fulfilled the demands of law. It propitiatedjustice.ItreconciledustoGod.(3.)Itactuallysecuresoursalvation,anddoesnotsimplyputusinasalvablestate.AccordingtothetermsoftheCovenantofGrace, the impetrationofredemptionbyChrist is infalliblyconnected with its application by the Holy Ghost. (4.) Not being thepaymentofapecuniarydebt,which ipso facto liberates,butavicariouspenalsatisfaction, itremains,asfarasweareconcerned,asamatterofright,inthehandsofGodtograntitsbenefitstowhomhepleases,whenandonwhatsoevertermshepleases.Hisgrantingitinanycaseisanact

ofsovereigngrace.ButsinceChristactedbycovenant,hehasacquiredbyhis performance of the stipulated conditions a strictly legal title to thesalvationofallforwhomheacted.AsbetweenGodandtheMediator,theclaim in right is perfect. As between God and theMediator and sinfulman, it is all freeandamazinggrace. (5.)Being theactual execution instrictrigourofjusticeoftheunrelaxedpenaltyofthelawinthepersonoftheGod-man, it isthemost impressiveexhibitiontothemoraluniverseconceivable of God's inexorable determination to punish all sin. (6.)Being an exhibition of amazing love—of the costliest self-sacrifice,overcoming obstacles otherwise insuperable to the well-being of itsobjects—it effectswhat only such love can; itmelts thehearts, subduestherebellion,anddissipatesthefearsofsinfulmen.

CHAPTERIII:DEFINITIONOFTERMS,ANDSPECIFICATIONOFTHEPRINCIPAL

POINTSINVOLVEDINTHEORTHODOXDOCTRINEOFTHEATONEMENT

EVERY science has its technical terms, and much depends, of course,upon theirbeingaccuratelyunderstoodandconsistentlyused.There is,moreover,aconstanttendencyinthelanguageoftheology—asisthecasewithalllivinghumanspeech—tochange,toadmitnewterms,todropoldones,andtomodifythesenseofothers.Advocatesofdifferentschoolsoftheologicalopinionsusecommontermsindifferentsenses,andonemaincauseof thefutilityof theologicalcontroversy,andof the irritationwithwhich it is accompanied, is due to the fact that they so inadequatelyunderstand each other's speech. In order, therefore, to establish acommonunderstandingwithmyreaders,Ishallinthischapterdefinethesense inwhich certain termsareused in the theologicalwritingsof theReformedChurches, and thenenumerate severalpoints involved in thestatement of the orthodox doctrine of the Atonement before given, towhich I desire the attention of my readers directed throughout thesubsequent discussion of that scriptural evidence by which they areestablished.

I.ATONEMENT.Thiswordhasbeengenerallyusedinlateyears,bothinEngland and in this country, to express the specific thingwhichChristwroughtinordertooursalvation.TheoldterminuseeversincethedaysofAnselm,andhabituallyusedbyalltheReformersinallthecreedsandgreat classical theological writings of the seventeenth century, bothLutheranandReformed,wasSATISFACTION.Weprefertheoldtermtothenewoneforthefollowingreasons.

(1.)ThewordAtonementisambiguous.ItisusedmanytimesintheOldTestament to translate the Hebrew word to—כפר cover by makingexpiation.ItappearsbutonceinourEnglishNewTestament,andthere(Rom. 5:11) as the equivalent of the Greek word καταλλαγή,

reconciliation.Itsetymologyisnotknown,andisclaimedbymanytobeat-one-ment.ThistheSociniansregardasthefullforceoftheword,andas thus fully expressing the exact nature of Christ's work—that is, areconciliationofGodandman.Thusthewordissometimesunderstoodto mean reconciliation, and sometimes that sin-expiating, God-propitiatingworkbywhichreconciliationwaseffected.Whenwesaythatwehave"receivedtheatonement,"wemeanthatwehavebeenreconciledtoGod.Butwhen it is said thatChrist, after theanalogyof theancientsacrifices, has "made an atonement for us," itmeans that he has donethatwhichsecuresourreconciliation;i.e.,hassatisfiedallthedemandsoflawuponwhichthefavourandfellowshipofGodweresuspended.Ontheotherhand,thewordSatisfactionisnotambiguous.Italwaysmeansprecisely thatwhichChristdid inordertosavehispeople,as thatworkstandsrelatedtothenatureofGodandtohislaw.

(2.)ThewordAtonement,moreover,istoolimitedinitssignificationforthepurposeassignedtoit.ItdoesnotexpressallthatScripturedeclaresthatChristdidinordertosatisfyallthedemandsofGod'slaw.Itproperlysignifies the expiationof sin, andnothingmore. It represents only thatsatisfaction which Christ rendered to the justice of God in vicariouslybearing the penalty due to our sins, but it does not include thatsatisfactionwhichChristrenderedinhisvicariousobediencetothelawasa covenant of everlasting well-being. The word Satisfaction naturallyincludesbothof these,while theuseof thewordAtonement to expressthe whole of Christ's work has naturally led to confused and defectiveviewsastothenatureofthatwork.

The word SATISFACTION is neither ambiguous nor defective. TheReformedChurchesmeanbyitsuse(1)thatChristfullysatisfiedallthatthe justice and law of God required, on the part of mankind, as theconditionoftheirbeingadmittedtodivinefavourandeternalhappiness.(2.)Asthedemandsofthelawuponsinfulmenarebothpreceptiveandpenal—the condition of life being "do this and live," while the penaltydenouncedupondisobedience is, "the soul that sinneth it shall die"—itfollowsthatanyworkwhichshallfullysatisfythedemandsofthedivinelaw in behalf of men must include (1) that obedience which the lawdemandsastheconditionoflife,and(2)thatsufferingwhichitdemands

asthepenaltyofsin.*

II. TheDifference between a penal and a pecuniary satisfaction. Thesedifferpreciselyasdocrimeanddebt, thingsandpersons,andthereforethe distinction is both obvious and important. Many, who either areincapable of understanding the question, are ignorant of its history, orwho are unscrupulous as to the manner in which they conductcontroversy, are continually charging our doctrine with the folly ofrepresentingthesacrificeofChristasapurelycommercialtransaction,inwhichsomuchwasgivenforsomuch,and inwhichGodwas insuchasenserecompensedforhisfavourstousthathowevermuchgratitudewemay owe to Christ, we owe on this behalf none to God. Long ago thedoctrine of the Reformed Churches was unanswerably vindicated fromsuchpuerilechargesbyall itsmostauthoritativeexpounders."Herethetwofold solution, concerning which jurists treat, should be accuratelydistinguished.Theone,whichipsofactoliberatesthedebtororcriminalbecausethatverythingwhichwasowedispaid,whetheritwasdonebythedebtororbyanother inhisname.Theother,which ipso factodoesnot liberate, since not at all the very thing which was owed, but anequivalent,ispaid,which,althoughitdoesnotthoroughlyandipsofactodischarge the obligation, yet having been accepted—since it might berefused—is regarded as a satisfaction. This distinction holds between apecuniaryandapenalindebtedness.Forinapecuniarydebtthepaymentof the thing owed ipso facto liberates the debtor from all obligationswhatsoever, because here the point is not who pays, but what is paid.Hencethecreditor, thepaymentbeingaccepted, isneversaidtoextendtowardthedebtoranyindulgenceorremission,becausehehasreceivedall thatwasowedhim.But the case isdifferentwith respect to apenaldebt,becauseinthiscasetheobligationrespectsthepersonaswellasthething;thedemandisuponthepersonwhopaysaswellasthethingpaid;i.e.,thatthepenaltyshouldbesufferedbythepersonsinning;forasthelaw demands personal and proper obedience, so it exacts personalenduring of the penalty. Therefore, in order that a criminal should beabsolved—avicarioussatisfactionbeingrenderedbyanotherhand—it isnecessarythatthereshouldinterveneasovereignactofthesupremelaw-giver,which,withrespecttothelaw,iscalledrelaxation,andwithrespecttothedebtoriscalledremission,becausethepersonalenduranceofthe

penalty is remitted, and a vicarious endurance of it is accepted in itsstead. Hence it clearly appears that in this work (of Redemption)remission and satisfaction are perfectly consistent with each other,because there is satisfaction in the enduranceof thepunishmentwhichChristbore,andthereisremissionintheacceptanceofavicariousvictim.The satisfaction respects Christ, from whom God demanded the verysamepunishment,astokindofpunishment,thoughnotastothedegreenorastothenatureofthesufferingswhichthelawdenounceduponus.Theremissionrespectsbelievers,towhomGodremitsthepersonal,whilehe admits the vicarious, punishment. And thus appears the admirablereconciliationofjusticeandmercy—justicewhichexecutesitselfuponthesin, and mercy which is exercised towards the sinner. Satisfaction isrenderedtothejusticeofGodbytheSponsor,andremissionisgrantedtousbyGod."*

Hence pecuniary satisfaction differs from penal thus: (a.) In debt, thedemand terminatesupon the thingdue. In crime, the legaldemand forpunishmentisuponthepersonofthecriminal.(b.)Indebt,thedemandisfortheprecisethingdue—theexactquidproquo,andnothingelse.Incrime, the demand is for that kind, degree and duration of sufferingwhich the law—i. e., absolute and omniscient justice—demands in eachspecificcase, thepersonsufferingandthesintobeexpiatedbothbeingconsidered.(c.)Indebt,thepaymentofthethingdue,bywhomsoeveritmaybemade, ipsofacto liberatesthedebtor,andinstantlyextinguishesalltheclaimsofthecreditor,andhisreleaseofthedebtorisnomatterofgrace.Incrime,avicarioussufferingofthepenaltyisadmissibleonlyattheabsolutediscretionof the sovereign; remission is amatterof grace;therightsacquiredbythevicariousenduranceofpenaltyallaccruetothesponsor; and the claims of law upon the sinner are not ipso factodissolved by such a satisfaction, but remission accrues to the designedbeneficiaries only at such times and on such conditions as have beendetermined by the will of the sovereign, or agreed upon between thesovereignandthesponsor.

3. The significance of the term PENALTY, and the distinction betweenCALAMITIES, CHASTISEMENTS and PENAL EVILS. Calamities aresufferings viewedwithout any reference to adesignorpurpose in their

infliction—that is, suffering considered simply as suffering.Chastisementsaresufferingsviewedasdesignedfortheimprovementofthose who experience them. When viewed as designed to satisfy theclaims of justice and law, they arePenalEvils. The sufferings ofChristwerenotmere objectless, characterless calamities. They couldnot havebeen chastisements designed for his personal improvement. Theymustthereforehavebeenpenalinflictionsvicariouslyendured.*

Penalty is suffering exacted by the supreme law-making power of thebreakers of law. The penalty in case of any person and in view of anycrime isprecisely thatkind,degreeanddurationof sufferingwhich thesupreme law-making power demands of that person under thoseconditions for that crime. Human law is necessarily generalized in anaverage adaptation to classes. But divine law with infinite accuracyadaptsitselftotheabsoluterightsofeachindividualcaseofcrimeandofpunishment,thepenaltyineachcasefulfillingallrighteousness,bothasrespectsthepersonpunishedandthecrimeforwhichit is inflicted.Wesay that Christ suffered the very penalty of the law, not because hesuffered in the least the same kind, much less the same degree, ofsufferingaswaspenallyduethoseforwhomheacted,becausethatisnotatallnecessarytotheideaofpenalty.Butwesaythathesufferedtheverypenalty of the law, because he suffered in our stead; our sins werepunishedinstrictrigourofjusticeinhim;thepenaldemandsofthelawupon his people were extinguished, because his sufferings sustainedprecisely the same legal relations that our sufferings in person wouldhave done; and because he suffered precisely that kind, degree anddurationofsufferingthatabsolutejusticedemandedofhisdivineperson,whenfoundfederallyresponsiblefortheguiltofallthesinsoftheelect.Webelievethatwhile thesufferer issubstituted, thepenaltyaspenalty,though never as suffering, is identical. We are willing to call it inaccommodation a "substituted penalty," though we believe the phraseinaccurate. But the phrase insisted upon by the advocates of theGovernmentalAtonementTheory—viz., "a substitute for a penalty"—webelievetobeabsurd.Siniseitherpunishedornotpunished.Thepenaltyiseitherexecutedorremitted.Justiceiseitherexercisedorrelaxed.Therecan be no manifestation of penal righteousness without an exercise ofpenaljustice.

4. Themeaning of the words SUBSTITUTION and VICARIOUS. Thesetermsareadmitted ina loosesenseevenbySocinians,andareparadedby Young, Maurice and Jowett, and very much in the same loose,indifferent sense by Barnes and the advocates of the GovernmentalAtonement Theory generally. When these parties say that Christ wassubstituted for us and his sufferings are vicarious, they mean nothingmorethanthathesufferedinourbehalf,forourbenefit.Wehold,ontheotherhand,thatChristwasinastrictandexactsensethesubstituteofhispeople;i.e.,bydivineappointment,andofhisownfreewill,heassumedall our legal responsibilities and thus assumed our law-place, bindinghimself to do in our stead all that the law demanded of him when hesufferedthepenaltydueus,andrenderedtheobedienceuponwhichourwell-beingwasmade todepend.Vicarious sufferingsandobediencearepenalinflictions,andactsofobediencetolawwhicharerenderedinourplaceorstead(vice),aswellasinourbehalfbyoursubstitute.Analiengoestothearmyintheplaceofadraftedsubject.Heisthesubstituteofthemaninwhoseplacehegoes.Hislabours,hisdangers,hiswoundsandhisdeatharevicarious.

5.Thedistinctionbetween the termsEXPIATIONandPROPITIATION.Both these words represent the same Greek word, ἱλάσκεσθαι. Whenconstrued,asitisconstantlyintheclassics,withτὸνθεόν,orτοὺςθεούς,itmeanstopropitiatebysacrificialexpiation.IntheNewTestamentitisconstrued with τὰς ἁμαρτίας, Heb. 2:17, and is properly translated toexpiate. Expiation removes the reatus or guilt of sin. Reatus is thatobligation to suffer the penalty which is inherent in sin. Sanctificationalone removes the pollution of sin. Propitiation removes the judicialdispleasure of God. Expiation respects the bearing or effect whichSatisfactionhasuponsinoruponthesinner.Propitiationhasrespecttothe bearing or effect which Satisfaction has upon God. Sacrificialexpiationamongheathens,JewsandChristianshasalwaysbeenregardedasatruepœnavicaria;itisofthegenuspenalty;itsspecificdifferenceisvicariousness. Propitiation, as a theological term, means that peculiarmethodof renderingplacablewhichaffects theheartofaDeity,whoatthesametimehatesthesinandisdeterminedtopunishit,yetlovesthesinner; and which proceeds by means of expiation, or the vicarioussufferingofthepenaltybyasubstitutedvictim.

6. IMPETRATION and APPLICATION. Arminians and the Calvinisticadvocates of a general Atonement are constantly insisting upon thedistinction between the IMPETRATION and the APPLICATION ofsalvation by Christ. By Impetration they mean the purchase, ormeritoriousprocurementbysacrifice,ofallofthoseobjectiveconditionsofsalvationwhichareofferedtoallmeninthegospel;thatis,salvationmade available on the conditionof faith.ByApplication theymean theactual application of that salvation to individuals upon faith. TheImpetrationtheyholdtobegeneralandindefinite;theApplicationtheybelieve to be personal, definite and limited to believers. TheReformedChurches, on the other hand, teach that while the impetration ofsalvation is both logically and chronologically distinguishable from itsapplication,neverthelessintheeternalandimmutabledesignofGodtheimpetration is personal and definite, and includes certainly andmeritoriouslythesubsequentapplicationtothepersonsintended;for"toALLforwhomChristhathpurchasedredemptionhedothcertainlyandeffectuallyapplyandcommunicatethesame."

7.REDEMPTIONandATONEMENT.ThemodernadvocatesofageneralAtonement distinguish between the words REDEMPTION andATONEMENT after this manner: Atonement they confine to theimpetrationoftheobjectiveconditionsofsalvation,whichtheymaintainis general and indefinite. Redemption they use in a wider sense asincluding theactualpersonal application inaddition to thegeneral andall-sufficient impetration. Hence, while they speak of a generalAtonement, they deny of course that there is a general Redemption. Itmustbecarefullynoted,however,thatthisdistinctionwasnotmarkedbythis usage of the terms Atonement and Redemption by any of thecontroversialists, on either sideof thequestion,during the seventeenthcentury, when the authoritative standards of the Reformed Churcheswere written. Baxter used the word Redemption as equivalent toAtonement in his work entitled "Universal Redemption ofMankind bythe Lord Jesus Christ." So also the Arminian Dr. Isaac Barrow, in hissermons entitled "TheDoctrine of Universal Redemption Asserted andExplained." In the Westminster Confession, let it be remembered, theword Redemption is used in the sense of Atonement, or the sacrificialpurchaseofsalvationforthoseforwhomitwasintended.*

There is,however,unquestionablyadistinctiontobecarefullyobservedbetweenthesewordsintheirbiblicalusage.TheprecisebiblicalsenseofAtonement(כפרים—ἱλασμός) is theexpiationof sinbymeansofapœnavicariainordertothepropitiationofGod.Thebiblicalusagewithrespectto Redemption (ἀπολύτρωσις, &c.,) is more comprehensive and lessdefinite.Itsignifiesdeliverancefromlossorfromruinbythepaymentforus of a ransom by our Substitute. Hence it may signify the act of ourSubstitute in paying that ransom. Or it may be used to express thecompleted deliverance itself, the consummation of which is of coursefuture. To say that "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law,beingmadea curse forus" (Gal. 3:13), isprecisely equivalent to sayingthat he has made atonement for us. But when we speak of our"redemption drawing nigh" (Luke 21:28), of "the redemption of thepurchased possession" (Eph. 1:14), of "the redemption of our body"(Rom.8:23),orof"thedayofredemption"(Eph.4:30),itisplainthatthewordsignifiesthedeliveranceofoursoulsandbodies,andtheattainmentforusofaheavenlyinheritancebymeansofthepaymentofaransomforusbyourLord—adeliverancewhich,althoughcommencednow,willbeconsummatedatafutureday.Redemptionbeingdeliverancebymeansofthe substitution of a ransom, it follows that, although the ransom canonly be paid to God, and to him only as the moral Governor of theuniverse, we may still be said to be redeemed from all that we aredelivered from bymeans of the ransom paid in the sacrifice of Christ.Thus we are said to be redeemed from our "vain conversation" (1 Pet.1:18),"fromdeath"(Hosea13:14),"fromthedevil"(Col.2:15;Heb.2:14),from"alliniquity"(Titus2:14),and"fromthecurseofthelaw"(Gal.3:13,and4:5),while it isof coursenotmeant that the ransom ispaid to thedevil,ortosin,ortodeath,ortothelaw.Itissimplyabsurdtoclaimthatthesedifferentrepresentationsareinconsistent.Acaptiveisredeemedbyapricepaidonlytohimthatholdshiminbondage,butbythesameactmay be redeemed from labour, from disease, from death, from thepersecutionofhisfellow-captivesandfromaslavishdisposition.*

8.MERITUMandSATISFACTIO.ThomasAquinas(1274)firstsignalizedthe distinction between the terms MERITUM and SATISFACTIO. BySatisfactiohe intendedthebearingofChrist'sworkconsideredaspenalsuffering,whichsatisfiesthepenalclaimsoflawforthedemeritofsin.By

Meritumhe intended the bearing ofChrist'swork considered as a holyobedience, fulfilling all the conditions of the original covenant of lifeuponwhich theeternalwell-beingofhispeoplewere suspended.Theseare in modern times both embraced under the one term Satisfaction(which see above), and the distinction intended by Aquinas is nowexpressedby the termsactiveandpassiveobedience.Thewholeearthlycareer of Christ, including his death, was obedience in one aspect andsufferinginanother.Inasmuchasitwassuffering,itexpiatedthesinsofhis people; inasmuch as it was obedience, it merited for them thecovenantedrewardofeternallife.

PRINCIPAL POINTS INVOLVED. I will now enumerate several pointsinvolved in the orthodox doctrine of theAtonement as above stated. Itfollows, of course, that every argument which tends to establish eitherone of the principles involved in our view, tends just so far forth toestablishthetruthofthatviewasawhole.Ishallgiveabarestatementoftheseprinciples,inordertobringoutasfullyasImaythetruenatureofthequestionindebate,andalsoinordertoenablethereadertoseetheintendedbearingofallthescripturaltestimonyabouttobesubmitted.Itisnotproposedtoofferproofofeachoneofthesepointsseparately;butthereaderisrequestedtokeeptheminmind,andtoobservecontinuallywhether the unforced language of Scripture is in their favour or thereverse.

Thesepointsareasfollows.

(1.)Did the effect of the sacrifices offeredby the ancient typical prieststerminate upon the offerer, upon the spectators, or upon God? WerethosepriestsordainedtorepresentGodbeforemen,ormenbeforeGod?WasChristonlyaMediumthroughwhichdivineinfluencesreachedman,orwashealsoandfundamentallytheMediator,openingthewayformantoreturntoGodinpeace?

(2.) Are the actions of God determined by motives and principlesoriginatingwhollyinthedivinenature,ormaytheybeproperlyreferredto considerations originating in the creation?We maintain the formeralternative.God'simmutablenaturedemandsthepunishmentofsin,andthereforeChrist,whenmadetooccupytheplaceofsinners,sufferedthat

punishment. The advocates of every other view of the nature of theAtonementmustmaintainthelatteralternative,andreferthesacrificeofChristtomotivesoriginatinginthemoralconditionandnecessitieseitheroftheindividualsinnerorofthemoraluniverseingeneral.

(3.)Mayallvirtueberesolvedintodisinterestedbenevolence,andallsininto selfishness? In otherwords, is there nothing else that ought to beexcept benevolence, and nothing else that ought not to be exceptselfishness?Isjusticeonlyaformormodeofbenevolence—i.e.,doesGodpunishsinsimplytopreventitsrecurrenceortolimititsspread,andforthegoodoftheuniverseasasalutaryexample?Issinarelativeevilonlybecauseitistheinvariablecauseofsufferingtothesinnerandtoothers?Andis itpunishedsimplyto limit its influence?Onall thesepoints, theconsistent advocates of the Governmental Theory must take theaffirmative.Onthecontrary,weaffirmthattherearemanyvirtueswhichcannotbeincludedundertheheadofbenevolence,andmanysinswhichcannotbereducedtothecategoryofselfishness;thatvirtueisthatwhichought to be for its own sake, as an absolute end in itself, and for noreason beyond; that sin is intrinsically evil, and deserves punishmentbecauseofitsintrinsicevil,andfornoreasonbeyond;thatdivinejusticeisanexaltedperfection,determiningGodalwaystotreatmoralagentsasthey deserve, and that he punishes sin because this attribute of justicedemandsthatsinshallbetreatedappropriatelytoitsnature.

(4.) Supposing it to be the purpose of God to make provision for thesalvationofsinners,werethesufferingsofChristabsolutelynecessarytothatend,renderedsobytheconstitutionofthedivinenature;orwasthenecessityforthemonlycontingentupontheoptionalwillofGodorupontheconditionsofthecreature?

(5.)Whatisthenatureofthedivinelaw?Isitaproductofthedivinewill,or a transcript of the divine nature? Hence is the law relaxable orimmutable?Ispenaltyanessentialoranunessentialelementofthelawtowhichitisattached?

(6.)Asamatteroffact,isChristrepresentedinScriptureashavingcomeforthepurposeoffulfillingthelaw,orofrelaxingit?

(7.)HasGod,asamatteroffact,establishedsuchaunionbetweenChristandbelievers that theyare legallyonewithhim: thathisdeathandhislife,hisFatherandhisinheritance,hisstandingandhisrights,aretheirsasmattersoflaw?

(8.)DidChristdienotonlyforus,butinastrictsenseasourSubstitute,inourlaw-placeandstead?

(9.)Wastheguilt(legalobligationtopunishment)ofoursinimputedtoChrist(justlychargedtohisaccount),becauseofthatlegalonenesswhichthedivinewillhadconstitutedbetweenhimandus?

(10.) Thus bearing justly and legally the guilt of our sin, did he trulyexpiatethatguilt,andthussatisfyjustice?

(11.) Do the Scriptures teach that when the believer is justified, therighteousness or rewardableness of Christ's perfect obedience to thedivinelawinourplaceisjustlychargedtoouraccount;orisJustificationmerepardon?

(12.)DotheScripturesteachthatthedesignandeffectofChrist'sdeathisactuallytosavethoseforwhomhedied;orwasitonlytoputallmeninasalvable state? Did Redemption secure faith and repentance for thosewho are redeemed; or are all men redeemed, and then left to providetheirownfaithandrepentance?

Thecentralpointtobekeptalwaysinviewisrepresentedbythequestion,DidChristtrulyexpiatetheguiltofoursin?

AnexaminationofallthescripturalevidencesubstantiatingthisdoctrinewouldoccupyuswiththestudyofnearlyeverybookbothoftheOldandtheNewTestaments;withananalysisofthenatureandrelationsofeveryparticular doctrine in the entire system of revealed truth; and with adetailedexaminationofinnumerablewordsandpassages.Abareoutlineofthisargumentisallthatwillbehereattempted.TheimpressionIwishtoconvey,inconformitywithmyownclearconviction,is,notthatthisorthat text must mean what we suppose and nothing else, but that thewhole of what Scripture says on this subject, when brought together,

makesitimpossibletodoubtwhatthesacredwritersmeantustobelieve.

CHAPTERIV:THEULTIMATEMOTIVESOFALLGOD'SACTSAREINHIMSELF;ANDTHEIMMUTABLEPERFECTIONSOFTHE

DIVINENATUREDEMANDTHEPUNISHMENTOFSIN

AS our first argument, we will appeal to what the Scriptures teachconcerningthenatureofGodandhisprincipleofaction.Indoingthis,Ishallattempttoprove(a)thatthescripturaldoctrineisthattheultimatemotive and end of all God's actions are in himself; and (b) that theintrinsicandunchangeableperfectionsofthedivinenature,lyingbackofanddeterminingthedivinewill,determinehimcertainly,yetmostfreely,to punish all sin because of his essential holiness and its essentialdemerit.

I.ScriptureandreasonteachusthattheultimatereasonandmotiveofallGod's actions are within himself. Since God is infinite, eternal andunchangeable, that which was his first motive in creating the universemust ever continue to be his ultimatemotive or chief end in every actconcerned in its preservation and government. But God's first motivemusthavebeenjusttheexerciseofhisownessentialperfections,andintheirexercisethemanifestationoftheirexcellence.Thiswastheonlyendwhich could have been chosen by the divine mind in the beginning,before the existence of any other object. It is also infinitely the highestend in itself, and the one which will best secure the happiness andexaltationofthecreaturehimself.Itismanifestthatacreaturecannotbeabsolutelyanendinhimself,butonlyameanstoanend.Andhe is the

mostexaltedwhenheismadeabsolutelysubservienttothatend,whichisthehighestpossibleeventotheCreator.

TheScripturesareveryexplicitonthissubject.(1.)Theydirectlyassertit."All thingswerecreatedbyhimandforhim.""Forofhim,andthroughhim,andtohimareall things.""Whoisoverall,Godblessedforever.""TheLordhathmadeallthingsforhimself,yea,eventhewickedforthedayofevil."(2.)TheScripturesalwaysmakethegloryofGodtheproperultimate end of the creature's action. Peter says (1 Pet. 4:11), thatwhatsoevergiftamanhave,heshouldexerciseittotheendthatGodinallthingsmaybeglorifiedthroughJesusChrist.(3.)Theyshowthat,asamatter of fact, God always acts with reference to that end in all hisdealingswithhiscreatures.Eph.1:5,6:Wearepredestinated"accordingto thegoodpleasureofhiswill, to thepraiseof thegloryofhis grace."Rom.9:22,23:"WhatifGod,willingtoshowhiswrath,andtomakehispower known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrathfitted to destruction: and that he might make known the riches of hisgloryonthevesselsofmercy,whichhehadaforeprepareduntoglory."

Theultimatemotive,therefore,forthesacrificeofChristmusthavebeenthe divine glory, and not the effect intended to be produced in thecreature. But glory is manifested excellence. And moral excellence ismanifestedonlybybeingexercised.The infinite justiceand loveofGodbothfindtheirhighestconceivableexerciseinthesacrificeofhisownSonastheSubstituteofguiltymen.

II. The great fact concerning the nature of God and his principles ofaction,which ismostcertainlyandconspicuouslyset forth inScripture,is,thatheisHOLY.Whenlayingdownthelawofceremonialpurification,hesays(Lev.11:44),"Yeshallbeholy;forIamholy."TheseraphimwhichIsaiahsawaroundthethroneinthetemple,andwhichJohnsawinthesame relation in heaven (Isa. 6:3; Rev. 4:8), "rest not day and night,saying,Holy,holy,holy,LordGodAlmighty."Thisbestexpressesthesumoftheresultsoftheirinsightintohismoralnature.

This,beitobserved,ispredicatedoftheunchangeableconstitutionofthenature of God, and not merely of the divine will. (1.) When GodcommandedtheIsraelitestobepure,thereasonassignedisnot"because

Isowill it,"but, "for Iamholy." (2.) Ifmoraldistinctionsare themereproduct of the divinewill; if they exist only becauseGodwills them toexist,andiftheyarewhattheyaresimplybecausehewillsthemtobeso,then the proposition that God is holy conveys no meaning. It is onlyequivalenttosayingthatheisashewillstobe;andwouldbejustastruewhenassertedofawickedasofaholybeing.(3.)AlthoughGodismostwillinglyholy,yetholinessiswithhimnomoreoptionalthanisexistence.Hab.1:13:"Thouartofpurereyesthantobeholdevil,andcanstnotlookoniniquity."2Tim.2:13:"Hecannotdenyhimself."Heb.6:18:"InwhichitwasimpossibleforGodtolie."(4.)Ourownelementaryintuitionsgiveus moral distinctions which are seen to be absolute, eternal andnecessary. It is essentially repugnant to their character to conceive oftheminanysenseascontingent.TheyhavetheirnormintheeternalandnecessarynatureofGod.

Since God is eternal, his modes of feeling and states of mind are aseternal as his essence. There are in him none of those successions ofmodes or frames, and alternations of sentiment and impulse, whichcharacterizeourimperfectmoralcondition.Frometernitytoeternityheabides the same without change of state or affection. His holiness,therefore,isoneinfiniteperfectionofmoralexcellence,variedonlyinitsoutward exercises and manifestations, as it operates upon differentobjectsindifferentrelations.

Now the Scriptures teach us very plainly that this infinite moralperfection or holiness of God stands to sin as immutable and eternalhatredandvindicatoryjustice;andthisnotonlyinsomeinstancesandinsomerelations,butinvariablyandunderallpossibleconditions.(1.)Godhatessin.He issaid tohateall theworkersof iniquity,andtobeangrywith the wicked every day. (Ps. 5:5, and 7:11.) Both the ways and thethoughtsofthewickedaresaidtobeanabominationtotheLord.Thisismanifested with terrible energy. Although the heart of God remainseternally as calm as it is deep and strong, the egress of his wrath isterrible. Nah. 1:2: "God is jealous, and the Lord revengeth; the Lordrevengethandisfurious;theLordwilltakevengeanceonhisadversaries,andhereservethwrathforhisenemies."(2.)Godtreatssinasessentialill-desert,asintrinsicallymeritingpunishment.Deut.4:24:"FortheLord

thyGod is a consuming fire, even a jealousGod."Deut. 32:35: "Tomebelongeth vengeance and recompense." Isa. 59:18: "According to theirdeeds,accordinglyhewillrepay."Ex.23:7:"Iwillnotjustifythewicked."Ezek.18:4:"Thesoulthatsinneth,itshalldie."2Thess.1:6:"SeeingitisarighteousthingwithGodtorecompensetribulationtothemthattroubleyou." Paul (Heb. 2:2) says that under the old dispensation everytransgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward.Rom.1:32:"KnowingthejudgmentofGod,thattheywhichcommitsuchthingsareworthyofdeath."Overandoveragain,thereasonassignedforinflicting a penalty is that the transgression isworthy of it (Deut. 17:6,and21:22,&c.,&c.), andnoother reason is assigned.AsGodhates sinbecause of its intrinsic hatefulness, having in itself the reason of thehatreditexcites,sohepunishesitbecauseofitsintrinsicdemerit,havingthe reason of its punishment in itself. Sin can no more exist withoutpunishableness than it can exist without hatefulness. As it isinconceivable that God should in a single instance fail to hate sin aspollution,soitisinconceivablethatheshouldinasingleinstancefailtopunishitasdemerit.Therehasoftenbeenforgivenessforthesinner,butnot a single instance of forgiveness for the sin; and the sinner is neverforgivenexceptonconditionofthecondignpunishmentofthesin.Paul(Heb.9:22), in reviewing theold law,declaredas thesumof thewholethat without the shedding of blood there was no remission. It was theblood thatmadeatonement for thesoul.Lev. 17:11.And inorder to thesalvationofsinfulmen,itwasnecessarythatChristshouldexpiatesinbyhisdeath,totheendthatGodmightbejustandthejustifierofhimthatbelieveth in Jesus (Rom. 3:26); that is, to enable God to pardon thesinner without violating his own essential righteousness, whichnecessarilyantagonizessin.

To the question,WhyGod punishes sin, only four distinct answers arepossible.(1.)Thatallpunishment isdesignedforthereformationof theoffender. This confounds punishment with chastisement, and is asolutionobviouslyinadmissibleinthecaseoftheeternalperditionofthereprobateandof thevicarious sufferingsofChrist. (2.)That the reasonand necessity of punishment is to be resolved into the sovereign goodpleasureofGod.ThispositionhasbeenheldbyDr.Twisse,prolocutoroftheWestminsterAssembly,andothers,butisnotheldbyanyprominent

party in these days. (3.) That God punishes sin in order to deter thesubjects of his moral government from its commission. This is anecessary corollary of the theory that all virtue is comprehended indisinterested benevolence. In that view, justice is one mode ofbenevolence,promptingGodtopunishtheindividualsinnerforthesakeofthethegreatergoodofthemoraluniversetobesecuredthereby.(4.)Thetrueviewis,thatGodisdetermined,bytheimmutableholinessofhisnature,topunishallsinbecauseofitsintrinsicguiltordemerit;theeffectproduced on the moral universe being incidental as an end, anddependentasaconsequence,upontheessentialcharacterofpunishment,asthatwhichexpiatesguiltandvindicatesrighteousness.

This is the centre of the question in debate between ourselves and theadvocates of the Governmental and of the Moral Theory of theAtonement. Both parties estimate it as amoral question of the utmostimportance,andincapableofcompromise.Dr.N.W.Taylor*saysthattopunish sinonaccountof its intrinsicdemerit, or foranyotherpurposeexcept the promotion of happiness, "is beyond the capacity of infernalmalice."ArecentwriterintheNewEnglanderdeclaresthatourdoctrinerepresentsJehovahasactinguponprinciplesthatwoulddisgracetheJewShylock.SoalsoDr.J.Young:"Thatwildanddaringtranscendentalism,which,inagreaterorlessdegree,essentiallyaffectsevangelicaltheologyatthepresenthour,isnotbyanymeansthemostfatalevil.Thedoctrineof satisfaction to divine justice is immeasurably worse in its moraltendency.…This,beyondallcomparison,isthedeadliesterror."Thereisindeed not room for compromise. What these men blaspheme, theinspiredScripturesandtheChristianChurchrevereandvindicateasanessentialelementofthatholinesswhichisthecrowninggloryofourGod.

1. Disinterested benevolence is not the whole of virtue. (1.) Someexercisesofdisinterestedbenevolence,forexample,thenaturalparentalaffection, are purely instinctive, and have no positive moral character.(2.) Some exercises of disinterested benevolence, such as the weakyielding of a judge to sympathy with a guilty man or his friends, arepositively immoral. (3.)Therearevirtuousprinciples incapableofbeingresolved into disinterested benevolence, such as a proper prudentialregard for one's own highest good; aspiration and effort after personal

excellence,holyabhorrenceofsinforitsownsake,andjustpunishmentof sin in order to vindicate righteousness. Ps. 97:10: "Ye that love theLord, hate evil." (4.) The idea of oughtness is the essential constitutiveideaofvirtue.Nopossibleanalysisoftheideaofbenevolencewillgivetheideaofmoralobligation.Thisissimple,irresolvable,ultimate.Oughtnessisthegenus,andbenevolenceoneofthespeciescomprehendedinit.

These principles, we take pleasure in saying, are clearly stated by Mr.BarnesinhisworkontheAtonement.*Heargues(a)thatpunishmentisnot intended, anddoes not even tend, to secure the reformation of theoffender;(b)thatthesoleendofpunishmentisnottodeterothersfromarepetition of the offence, and so protect the community; (c) "thatpunishmentisintendedasaproperexpressionofwhatisduetocrime.""It is inflicted because it is right it should be inflicted. It is inflictedbecausetheoffencedeservessuchanexpression."

2.As theessentialand irresolvablecharacteristicofvirtue isoughtness,andofsinitsoppositeoughtnotness,soit isanintrinsicandimmutableattribute of sin that it ought to be punished. This obligation topunishment is an ultimate fact of moral consciousness; it cannot beresolvedintoanyotherprinciplewhatsoever;itisintrinsicinsinwithoutreferencetoanyotherprinciple. (1.)This is involved ineveryawakenedsinner'sconsciousnessofhisowndemerit.Ps.51:4:"Ihavedonethisevilin thy sight: that thoumightest be just when thou speakest, and clearwhenthoujudgest."Initshigherdegreesthisfeelingrisesintoremorse,andcanbeallayedonlybyexpiation.Thusmanymurderershavehadnorest until they have given themselves up to the law, when they haveexperiencedinstantrelief.Andmillionsofsoulshavefoundpeaceintheapplicationof thebloodof Jesus to theirwounded consciences. (2.)Allmenjudgethusofthesinsofothers.Theconsciencesofallgoodmenaregratifiedwhenthejustpenaltyofthelawisexecutedupontheoffender,andoutragedwhenheescapes. (3.)Thisprinciple iswitnessed tobyallthe sacrificial rites common to all ancient religions, by the penances insomeformuniversaleveninmoderntimes,byallpenallaws,andbythesynonyms for guilt, punishment, justice,&c., common to all languages.(4.)Itisself-evident,thattoinflictanunjustpunishmentisitselfacrime,nomatterhowbenevolentthemotivewhichpromptsit,norhowgoodthe

effectwhichfollowsit.Itisnolessself-evidentthatitisthejusticeofthepunishmentsodeservedwhichrendersitseffectonthecommunitygood,andnotitseffectonthecommunitywhichrendersitjust.Tohangamanforthegoodofthecommunityisbothacrimeandablunder,unlessthehangingisjustifiedbytheill-desertoftheman.Inthatcasehisill-desertis seen by all the community to be the real reason of the hanging. (5.)ThattheBibleteachesthesamedoctrinehasbeenshownabove.

Inanswertotheforegoing, it isclaimedthatbenevolenceisasessentialanelementof thedivinenatureas isholyabhorrenceofsin. It isaskedwhythesentimentofjusticemust,inthecaseoftheelect,begratifiedbypunishing their sins in Christ, whereas in the case of the lost thesentimentofbenevolenceremainsungratified?Whymustonesentimenttakeprecedenceoftheother?

Nothing can be gained here by refinements of the speculative intellect.TheScriptures,themoralsense,andthecommonjudgmentsofmankindareouronlycourtsofappeal.Accesstothemissimple,andtheiranswercertain. The infinite moral perfection of God stands affected asbenevolence to all his creatures, considered simply as sentient beings.Withoutanychangeinitself,itsrelationsonlybeingchanged,itismercyinrespect toallmiserablecreatures.Justso, itselfunchanged, it standsaffectedtoallguiltycreaturesasGRACE.Nowitisself-evidentthateveryexerciseofgracemustbeoptional.Itisamatteroffreewill.But,ontheother hand, holy hatred of sin, and the treatment of sin as that whichoughttobepunished,isnotoptionalwithGod.Hecannotdootherwisethan right, and he cannot exercise grace otherwise than as amatter ofsovereigndiscretion.This isself-evident.There isnothingcontradictoryhere.Inthecaseofthereprobate,Godpunishessininthesinner,andhedeclinestoexercisethatgracewhichnevercanbeamatterofright,butmusteverbeamatterofchoice.Andtowardtheguilty,benevolencehasnoexistenceexcept intheformofgrace.Inthecaseof theelect,ontheotherhand,Godexercisedboth thegraceand the justice.Thegrace, infreelysaving thesinner inspiteofhiswantofmerit;and the justice, intheself-assumptionofthepenaltyanditssatisfactioninthepersonofhisSon.

CHAPTERV:THECHURCHDOCTRINEOFTHEATONEMENTPROVEDFROMTHE

FACTTHATTHEDIVINELAWISABSOLUTELYIMMUTABLE

THEsecondtestimonyastothenatureoftheredemptiveworkofChristwhich I will adduce is derived from the absolute immutability of thedivinelaw.Iproposetoshow(a)thatGod'slawisabsolutelyimmutable;(b)thatthepenaltyisanessentialpartofthelaw;(c)thatasamatteroffact, Christ came to fulfil the law in our place, and not to relax itsdemandsinaccommodationtoourloweredcapacity.

1. The law of God is absolutely immutable. Grotius, the eminentjurisconsultandtheologianofHolland,inthefirsthalfoftheseventeenthcentury,was the first to give a systematic exposition towhat has sincebeenknownastheGovernmentalTheoryoftheAtonement.Inhisgreatwork—"DefensioFideiCatholicæDeSatisfactioneChristi"—hemaintainsthat the law of God is a product of his will, and not a transcript ofanythinginherentinhisimmutablenature.Ithencefollowsthatthelawbeing a simple creation of the optional will of the lawgiver, he mustinalienably possess the power at all times either to execute, or toabrogate,ortorelaxitbysovereignprerogative,asfarashisownnatureisconcerned.

Itistrue,indeed,thatinrespecttotheconscienceofthecreature,everypreceptisbindingbecauseitisthewillofGod;but,ontheotherhand,inrespecttothewillofGoditself,itisevident,sincehiswillisholy,andhis"commandment holy and just and good," that he wills the preceptbecause it is intrinsically right. If this were not so, there could be nomeaning in predicating holiness, either of his will or of his law. Theremustbeanabsolutestandardofrighteousness.Thisabsolutestandardisthe divine nature. The infallible judge of righteousness is the divineintelligence.Andtheall-perfectexecutorandruleofrighteousnessisthe

divinewill.

It is true,also, thatalldutiesspringoutof relations,andeveryrelationwhich a creature can sustain must be determined by the will of theCreator. For instance, there could have been no law of chastity unlessGod had sovereignly constituted man with a sexual nature. Nor couldthere have been a law forbidding murder unless man had been mademortal.But the instant therelation isconstitutedbythedivinewill, thedutynecessarilyspringsupoutoftherelationfromaprinciple inherentinthedivinenature.Allmoralagentsare,bytheveryconstitutionoftheirnature, immutablyboundbyall that ismorallygood.Theessenceofallthat ismoral is, that it ought to be.Every—even the least—discrepancyfromall thatought tobe, even to theuttermost, isof thenatureof sin.This of course applies to every part of themoral law as well as to thewhole; "Forwhosoever shall keep thewhole law, and yet offend in onepoint,heisguiltyofall."James2:10.Allinvolvedinthepreceptivepartiscommanded because it is intrinsically right and obligatory, and thepenaltyisattachedbecauseallthatisforbiddenisintrinsicallyworthyofpunishment. The law of God, therefore, as to its essential principle ofabsolute moral perfection, which is embodied in all positive statuteswhatsoever, isnotrelaxable.Christ'sdeclaration is that, "It iseasier forheavenandearthtopassthanonetittleofthelawtofail."Luke16:17.Ifitbeclaimedthat thisapplies to theceremonial law,maywenotargue,àfortiori,thatitmustholdallthemoretrueofthemorallaw?

TheRev.DanielT.Fiske,D.D.,ofNewburyport,Mass.,inhisabledefenceof the Governmental Theory of the Atonement, admits* (a) that theultimateendofallGod'sactionsiswithinhimself;and(b)thatthedivinelawcommandsthatwhichisintrinsicallygood,andbecauseitisso,andforbids thatwhich is intrinsicallyevil,andbecause it is so.At thesametimehemaintains,asthefundamentalprincipleofhisdoctrine,that"lawas to itsoriginandendemanates fromadivinepurpose topromotebymeans of it the highest good of the universe." But this is a manifestcontradiction.For(a)iftheultimateendofGod'sactionsisinhimself—thatis,themanifestationofhisexcellencebytheexerciseofhisattributes—therealendandoriginofthelawcanonlybethesame.Thegoodoftheuniverse,thoughatrueend,canonlybesubordinatetotheformer.And

(b)ifthethingcommandedisintrinsicallyright,thenthetruereasonforthecommandmentisinthenatureofthethingitself,andnotinitseffectsupontheuniverse.Butiftherealendandoriginofthecommandmentisthegoodtobeeffectedintheuniverse,thennotthegoodnessintrinsicinthethingcommanded,but thegoodnessof itsconsequences, is thetruereasonofitsbeingcommanded.

The essential principles of righteousness, which are embodied in alldivine laws, consequently have their ground in the eternal andunchangeable nature of God; but of course the forms in which theprinciples are embodied, varying endlessly with different times,circumstancesandconditionsofmoralcreatures,aredeterminedbytheinfinitely wise, and righteous, and absolutely sovereign will of God.Hencethereisnoroomforanypuzzlingdistinctions,asfarasconcernsthis discussion, between the ceremonial and the moral law. To thecreaturetherevealedwillofGodisalwaysanultimateandabsoluteruleofright.Obedienceisalwaysamoralobligation.Disobediencetopositiveprecepts, the reason of which is withheld, is no less a sin thandisobedience to so-calledmoral precepts, someof the reasonsofwhichareknown.TheMosaicInstitutemaybeviewedinthreedifferentaspects.

(a.)As a national andpolitical covenant,whereby, underhis theocraticgovernment,theIsraelitesbecamethepeopleofJehovahandhebecametheirGod,andinwhichChurchandStatewereidentical.

(b.)AsasystemofpropheticsymbolsortypesofChristandhisgloriouswork of sacrifice and intercession, setting forth more clearly than waspreviouslydonetheprovisionsoftheCovenantofGrace.

(c.) In another aspect it was a legal covenant, because the moral law,obediencetowhichwastheconditionoflifeintheAdamiccovenant,wasnowprominentlysetforthinthetencommandments,andmadethebasisofthenewcovenantofGodwithhispeople.Eventheceremonialsystem,initsmerelyliteralaspect,andapartfromitssymbolical,wasalsoaruleofworks;for"cursedwashethatconfirmednotallthewordsofthelawtodothem."Deut.27:26.

Henceitis,thatconsideredascommandments,theso-calledceremonial

lawwasasmuchmoralasanyother,and justasabsolutely immutable.Not one jot or tittle of it could pass away until the entire righteouspurposeofGodinitwasfulfilled.TheJews,atthetimeofChrist,didnotmake the distinction between the ordinances of God as moral orceremonial,asbindingfortheirownsakes,orasbindingonlyforGod'ssake.ThewordlawinPaul'sepistlesstandsfortheentiregenus"divinelaw."ThelawofGod,asawhole,condemnsthesinner.Salvationbythelaw,asawhole,isimpossible.Bythewholelawistheknowledgeofsin.Thewhole lawisaschoolmaster to leadustoChrist,andhe is theend,thecompletefulfilmentofthewhole law,forrighteousnesstoeveryonethatbelieveth.Andthelaw(ceremonialaswellasmoral)isinitsessentialprinciples,andinrespecttothedivinepurposeintheappointmentofitsvariableforms,absolutelyimmutable.

2.Thepenaltyisanessentialelementofthelaw.Therecanexistnolaw,or authoritative rule of conduct, for voluntary andmorally accountableagents towhichapenal sanction isnot attached; and the reasonof thepenaltyisjustasintrinsicandimmutableasthereasonoftheprecept.Aswehaveseen that the reasonof theprecept is the intrinsic rightnessofthe thing commanded, so the reason of the penalty is the intrinsicdemeritofthethingforbidden.AsthechiefendofthepreceptisthegloryofGod,thatis,themanifestationofhisexcellencethroughtheexerciseofhisattributesastheyareconcernedincommanding,sothechiefendofthepenaltyishisglorythroughtheexerciseofhisattributesastheyareconcernedinpunishing.Asthemoralprincipleinvolvedineverypreceptcannot be compromised, so the divine judgment of the ill-desert of sininvolved in all penalty cannot be relaxed. The precept and the penaltyalike express the infallible judgment of the divine intelligence, on aquestionofmoralobligationfoundedonthedivinenature.

Fiske admits that the penalty is an essential part of the law, and hedefines it as "suffering to be inflicted by the lawgiver upon the sinner,proportionate to the degree of his sinfulness, and to express thelawgiver's hatred of sin and estimate of its intrinsic ill-desert." At thesametimehemaintainsthattheultimateendofGodinordainingor inexecutingthepenalty,isthegoodoftheuniverse,andthatits"solevalueis its efficacy to enforce the law and maintain its authority, and so

ultimatelyhelppromotethegreatbenevolentendofmoralgovernment."This also is plainly self-contradictory. If the penalty expresses God'sjudgmentoftheintrinsicill-desertofsin,thenthereasonofpunishmentisthepenaltyitself,asanexpressionofimmutablemoralobligation.Butif the sole value of the penalty is to enforce law, and thus benefit theuniverse,itisplainthattheill-desertofsinisnotintrinsicormoral,butthat it simply is a matter of policy resulting from the character of itsconsequences.

The advocates of theGovernmental Theory of theAtonementmaintainthatChristdidnotsufferthepenaltyofthelaw,butasubstituteforthepenalty. That his sufferings, in some way or other, avail to secure thesameendsthattheactualinflictionofthepenaltyonthetransgressorsinperson would have done. These parties agree in maintaining that it isessential to thepenalty (a) that it should, in each case, consist in someprecise, definite kind anddegree of suffering; and (b) that it shouldbeinflictedonthewrong-doerinperson.

Ontheotherhand,someorthodoxdivines—as,forinstance,Owen,inhisreply to Baxter's strictures against parts of his work on Redemption—havemaintainedthatChristsufferedtheverysamepenaltylegallyduehispeopleforwhomhewassubstituted,andnotmerelyafullequivalentforit;thatis,anidemandnotatantundem.Themotiveforthisapparentlyexcessive precision of expression was commendable. Those who makesuchdifficulty inadmittingthatChristreallysufferedthepenaltyof thelaw are no more ready to admit that what he suffered was a fullequivalent,inanystrictlylegalsense,forthepunishmentofhispeopleinperson.Theymean thathedidnot suffer thepenalty inany sense, andtheir views as to the connectionbetweenhisdeath andourdeliverancefromcondemnationaremostvagueandunsatisfactory.

Turretin,L.14,Q.10,§10,says,"Buthereagainthepenaltyitself,whichthe judge exacts, is to be accurately distinguished from the mode andcircumstancesof thepenalty, for theyhavenot thesamereason.Forasrespects the penalty itself, in genere, the right ofGod is in this respectindispensable,becauseitisfoundedontherighteousnessofGod.Butastothemodeandcircumstancesofthispenalty,thatitshouldbeexecutedonsuchapersonorinsuchamanner,isnotequallyadictateofnatural

law, but rather of positive and free law; and therefore a certaindispensation from the most wise goodness of God may be admitted,eitherwithrespecttotimebydelayofthepenalty,orastodegreebyitsmitigation, or as to person by substitution. For although the personsinningalwaysdeservespunishment,andmaybejustlypunished,thisisnot so necessary and indispensable but that for sufficient reasons thepenaltymaybetransferredtoasubstitute.Andinthissenseitissaidbytheologians that the penalty is necessarily to be inflicted on every sinimpersonaliter,butnotthereforeasamatterofcourseuponeverysinnerpersonaliter."

The following points, however, appear to be sufficiently certain. (1.)Christdidnotsufferthesamedegreeordurationofpainthathispeoplewouldhavesufferedinperson,norinallrespectssufferingsofthesamekind.Theirswouldhavebeeneternal,hisweretemporary.Theirswouldhave involved ever-increasing depravity of soul and self-accusingremorse,while,onthecontrary,hiswereconsistentwith(a)thedivinityofhisperson,(b)theperfectionofhishumanity,and(c)thefactthathewas always thewell-belovedSon inwhom theFatherwaswell pleased.(2.)Ontheotherhand,itisnolesscertainthattheidentityofthepenaltydoesnotconsisteither intheprecisekind,ordegree,ordurationofthesuffering,norinthepersonalidentityofthesuffererwiththesinner;butintherelationofthesufferingtotheguiltofsomeparticularsinorsins,and to the demands of divine justice in the case. Duty in any case iswhatever themoral law says ought to be done. Penalty, in any case ofdisobedience, is precisely that kind, degree and duration off sufferingwhich the same law decides ought to be suffered. Of this obligation tosufferinginallcaseswhatsoeverthenatureofGodistheground,andthereasonofGodisthejudge.Theexecutionofpreciselythesamesufferings,if it had beenpossible, in the person of theGod-man, thatwouldhavebeen the proper penalty of the law if executed in the persons of thetransgressors themselves, would have been an outrageous injustice. Itwouldnotconsequentlyhavebeen thepenaltyof the law,butan illegalviolationof thatabsoluterighteousnesswhich is theprincipiumessendiofthelaw.Thesubstitutionofadivineandall-perfectpersoninthesteadof sinners necessarily involves, as a matter of justice, the substitutionwithin the penalty of different kinds and degrees of suffering. Christ

suffered precisely that kind, degree and duration of suffering that theinfinitelywise justice or the absolutely justwisdomofGod determinedwasafullequivalentforallthatwasdemandedofelectsinnersinperson—equivalent,wemean, in respect to sin-expiatingand justice-satisfyingefficacy—andafullequivalentinbeingofequalefficacyintheserespectsin strict rigour of justice, according to the judgment of God.Consequently,whatChrist suffered is bynomeans the samewithwhathis people would have suffered, when considered as suffering, but ispreciselytheverysamewhenconsideredaspenalty.

3.TheScripturesclearlyteachthat,asamatteroffact,Christcamenottorelax the law,but to fulfil it.Hesaysofhimself (Matt.5:17,18):"ThinknotthatIamcometodestroythelaw,ortheprophets:Iamnotcometodestroy,buttofulfil.ForverilyIsayuntoyou,tillheavenandearthpass,onejotoronetittleshallinnowisepassfromthelaw,tillallbefulfilled."Theapostledeclared (Rom. 10:4), that "Christ is the endof the law forrighteousness to every one that believeth." When discussing the greatdoctrine of justification by faith, Paul anticipates the objection (Rom.3:31):"Dowethenmakevoidthelawthroughfaith?"andanswers,"Godforbid;yea,weestablishthelaw."Thelawpronouncedacurseuponthesinner, and "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law," not bywaivingthatcurse,butby"beingmadeacurseforus."

If the penalty is an essential part of the law; if the whole law isimmutable; if Christ actually came to fulfil the law and not to relax itsdemands; then it follows,withoutdoubt, thathesufferedthepenaltyofthelawasourSubstitute.

JohnYoung,LL.D.,ofEdinburgh, in twochaptersofhis latework(Lifeand Light of Men), entitled severally "Spiritual Laws" and "EternalJustice,"essaystooverturntheentireconceptionoflawandpenaltyuponwhich the faith of the whole Church, Greek and Roman, Lutheran,ReformedandArminian,hasalways reposed.Hispointsareas follows:(1.)Thespiritual lawsof theuniversehave theirground independentofGodintheessentialandeternalnatureofthings.(2.)Theyarenecessarilyandinstantlyself-acting.Thepenaltyofeverysinissoconnectedwiththesin itself, in thenatureof things, that"it is impreventable. It lies in theessentialnatureofthingsthatitmustcomedown.Everandeverjustice

inflictsaninevitablepenalty,andexactsthecompletestsatisfaction."(3.)These laws are self-acting and independent of God; "the God of purityand love has no part in the punishment of sin." Sin punishes itselfinstantlyandadequately."Thedoomofthelost,beitwhateveritmay,issimply andwholly their ownwork. It is all, from first to last, not onlytheir own doing, but their own doing in despite of God." (4.) Sincontinuestopunishitselfaslongasitexists.Itcanceasetobepunishedonlybybeingannihilated.Andtheinstantsinceasestoexistinasinner'ssoul, that is,assoonashe issanctified,heceasestobepunishable. (5.)Godisnotjustintherectilinealhumansenseatall.Heisneverlessthanjust.Heisneverunjust.Butheisalwaysmorethanjust,thatis,bettertomenthantheirdeserts.Goodnessishisgranddistinguishingattribute.

Thisappearstousaverylowandmaterialviewofthecase.ItisincipientPositivism,andPositivismisinfalliblygrossmaterialism.Itconceivesofthe lawsofaspiritual societyofpersons,personal subjects livingundertherighteousadministrationofapersonalGod,actinguponthembythelightof truthand the influenceofmotives,bycommands,benefactions,authority, promises, threatenings, as nothing more nor less than thenecessarily self-acting physical laws of the material world or of thehuman organism. It grounds these laws in the "nature of things,"independentofGod.Butwhatentityinthewholeuniverseexists,exceptas the product of the divine will, but the uncreated essence of Godhimself? This uncreated essence is, as we have insisted above, theabsolutenormofallspirituallaws.Butthisdivinenatureneverexpressesitselfoutwardlyexceptthroughtheactsofthedivinewill.Thiswill,andnot the "nature of things," makes and executes the moral law of theuniverse.ThatGodrewardsandpunishes,andthatheholdsforthbeforementheprospectoffuturerewardsandpunishmentforpresentconduct,istaughttooclearlyanduniversallyinScripturetoneedproofhere."Theideathatthepunishmentofsinisonlyitsnaturalconsequences,andthatremissionismerelydeliverancefromthenaturaloperationsofmoralevilin the soul, as freedom from the pain of a burn can be allayed only byallaying the inflammation, is so repugnant toScriptureand tocommonsense as to needno refutation. The expulsion of our first parents fromParadise; the deluge; raining fire and brimstone upon Sodom andGomorrah; the death of the first-born of theEgyptians; all the plagues

brought on Pharaoh; drought, famine, pestilence threatened as thepunishment of theHebrews,were not the natural consequences of sin,but positive punitive inflictions. Indeed, almost all the judgmentsthreatenedintheBibleareofthatcharacter."*"Takingvengeance"forsinis everywhere set forth as the personal, deliberate, volitional act of arighteousmoralgovernor.Deut.32:35;Ps.149:7;Rom.3:5,and12:19.Athissecondcoming,Christistobe"revealedfromheaveninflamingfire,taking vengeance upon them that knownotGod and that obey not thegospel."2Thess.1:8.Thistakingvengeanceisapersonalactexecutedforapurpose,atsuchtimes,andundersuchconditions,andinsuchmodesasbestservethepurposeintended.

Thatthisworldisnotasceneofrewardsandpunishments;thatsinmaybe forgiven entirely previous to, and as the condition of, the work ofsanctification;andthatasin,longpastandrepentedof, ifnotpunishedinthepast,willcontinuetodemandpunishmentthroughall thefuture,are facts established by the teaching of Scripture as clearly as by theuniversal experience of the race. "It is not true that sanctification andremissionareeverconfounded;noraretheyrelatedascauseandeffect.Thetwothingsaredistinctintheirnature,andarealwaysdistinguishedintheBibleandthecommonsenseofmen.Thereneither isnorcanbeany sanctification or destruction of the power of sin in the soul, untiltherehasbeenantecedentremissionofthepenalty.Paulteachesclearly,in the sixth and seventh chapters of hisEpistle to theRomans, that solong as the sinner is under condemnation he brings forth fruit untodeath;thatitisnotuntilheisdeliveredfromcondemnation,bythebodyorsacrificeofChrist,thathebringsforthfruituntoGod."*

ThatGoddoesnotdoallhecantoremedysinwhenithasonceenteredupon his domain, is a fact as prominent in the history of the differentracesandfamiliesofmenasthegreatstarsareonthefaceofthesky.Theblessed Saviour said, "I thank thee, O Father, that thou hast hid thesethings fromthewiseandprudent,andhast revealed themuntobabes."That God, over and above being just, is also abundantly merciful, theChristianChurchhasalwaysrecognizedasgratefullyasDr.Young.Tous,certainly,hehasbeenalwaysgoodaswellasjust.Butitisimpossiblethathe should be unjust, and, as I showed above, justice is as essentially

involved in the inflictionof thepenalty as it is in the impositionof theprecept.Godcannotbeunjust,anditwouldbeunjustnottopunishsin.Sin can be expurgated as a subjective condition of the soul only bysanctification; but its penalty, which is always eternal death, can beremoved only by expiation, that is, by punishment endured eitherpersonally or vicariously. For the proof of these positions, andconsequently for the refutation of those assumed by Young, I refer thereadertotheentireargumentofthisbook.

CHAPTERVI:THETHREE-FOLDRELATIONWHICHMORALAGENTSSUSTAINTOTHE

DIVINELAW

BUTifthelawisimmutable,andifitsdemandsarepersonal,howcanthelegalrelationsofonepersonbeassumedbyanother,andallofhis legalobligations be vicariously discharged by the substitute instead of theprincipal? In order to throw light upon this question, I propose thefollowingconsiderations.Turretin*wellnotedthefactthattherelationswhichmensustaintothelawmaybediscriminatedunderthreeheads—thenatural,federal,andpenalrelations.

1.Toeverycreatedmoralagentintheuniversethelawofabsolutemoralperfectionsustainsauniformandconstantnaturalrelationasastandardof character and rule of action. In this relation the law is absolutelyperfect and absolutely changeless. All that is moral is eternally andintrinsicallyobligatoryonallmoralagents.Allthatisnotobligatoryisnotmoral.Andeveryparticularandeverydegree inwhichanymoralagentcomesshortofthestandardofperfectmoralexcellenceinbeingoractionisofthenatureofsin.Thedemandsofthelawthereforeareeverywhereand always the same; they are inherently, and therefore changelessly,obligatory and incapable of being either intermitted, relaxed, ortransferred.Inrespecttothisnaturalrelationtothelawtherefore,Christ

didnot,andfromthenatureofthecasecouldnot,takeourlaw-place.Inrespect to the inherent and inalienable claims of right, it is purelyimpossible that theobligationsof lawcanbe removed fromonepersonandvicariously assumedby another.The law in this relationmaintainsforeverinviolableallitsclaimsoverallmoralcreatureswhatever;equallyoverangelsanddevils,menunfallen,fallen,regenerate,inperdition,andinglory.ThehideousheresyoftheAntinomiansconsistsintheclaimthatChristhasinsuchasensefulfilledall theclaimsof lawuponhispeoplethat theyareno longer required to live in conformity to it in theirownpersons. This abominable heresy the entire Church has alwaysconsistentlyrejectedwithabhorrence,maintainingthattheimmutabilityofthelawandthechangelessperpetuityofitsclaimsisaprinciplelyingatthefoundationofallreligion,whethernaturalorrevealed.

2. The federal relation to the law, on the other hand, has respect to aperiod of probation, into which man was introduced in a condition ofmoralexcellence,yetfallible;andhisconfirmationinanimmutablyholycharacter, and his subsequent eternal blessedness is made to dependupon his obedience during that period. It appears to be a generalprincipleof thedivinegovernment(1) thateverymoralagent iscreatedholy,yet(2) inastateof instablemoralequilibrium,andhence(3)thatconfirmation inanestateof stableholiness is adivinegift, above thoseincluded in the natural endowments of any creature, and always (4)suspended upon the condition of perfect obedience during a period ofprobation.Asamatteroffact,thisispreciselytherelatiortothelawasacovenantof life, intowhichAdam(andallhisdescendants inhim)wasbroughtathiscreation.Hewascreatedholy,yetfallible,andforaperiodof probation put under the law as a test of obedience. Upon thisobediencehischaracterandconditionforeternityweremadetodepend.If he had obeyed for the period prescribed hewould have attained thereward. The granting of that reward would have confirmed him inholiness, andby thus renderinghim impeccable,wouldhave closedhisprobationand removedhim fromunder the law in this federal relationfor ever, while his subjection to the same law, in its natural relation,wouldhavebeencontinuedandconfirmed.Weknowthattheangelshavepassed throughaprobationnot essentiallydifferent.Theywere createdholy,yetfallible,forsomedidfall.Andallwhostoodatthefirstappearto

have been consequently confirmed in character and the enjoyment ofdivinefavour;sincethereisnointimationthatanyhavesincefallenintosin,andsincewecannotbelievethatitisGod'splanthatanyofhissinlesscreaturesshouldcontinuepermanentlyorevenindefinitely inthatstateof instable equilibrium in which they were created. We may thereforeassume it tobea generalprincipleof thedivinegovernment that everynew createdmoral agent is introduced intobeingholy, yet fallible, andsubjectedtothelawasacovenantforaperiodofprobation,conditioningupon perfect obedience ultimate confirmation in holiness and divinefavourforever.

It is evident that this federal relation to the law is in its very naturetemporary in any event, being inevitably closed, ipso facto, either bygivingtherewardincaseofobedience,orbyinflictingthepenaltyincaseofdisobedience.Itisevidentalsothatthisrelationtothelawhasaspecialend: not the demanding of perpetual obedience because of its intrinsicrightfulness,butdemandingitasatestforadefiniteperiod,totheendofan ultimate confirmation of a holy character, which confirmation willterminate the relation itself by securing the end for which it wasdesigned. Hence this federal relation to the law, unlike the naturalrelation, concerns not at all the unchangeable demands of personalholiness,butsimplythoseconditionsuponwhichGod'sfavoursaretobeshown. And hence, unlike the natural relation, the federal is neitherintrinsic, perpetual, nor inseparable from the person concerned.Although, of course, it is ultimately founded upon the essentialrighteousnessof thedivinenature,yetall thevariableconditionsof theprobationary period and test are evidently largely dependent upon thedivine sovereignty, and the relation itself ceases as soon as the trial isclosed,eitherbythegrantof therewardorthe inflictionof thepenalty;and,ifGodpleases,thewholerelationmaybesustainedbyasubstitute,anditsobligationsdischargedvicariously,aswasthecaseintheinstancesofAdamandofChrist.

3.Thepenalrelationtothelawisthatwhichinstantlysuperveneswhenthelawisviolated.Asshownabove,thepenaltyisanessentialelementofthelaw,expressingtheessentialattitudeinwhichabsoluterighteousnessstands to transgression, just as the preceptive element of the law

expresses the attitude in which that righteousness stands to themoralcondition and action of the subject. Whenever, therefore the law isviolatedbydisobedience,thepenaltyinstantlysupervenes,andcontinuesforeveruntilitisfullyexhaustedinstrictrigourofabsolutejustice.

Itisconsequentlyobviousthatthepenalandfederalrelationstothelaware naturally mutually exclusive. The instant a moral agent incurs thepenaltyhisfederalrelationtothelawnecessarilyterminates,becausetheend of that relation—that is, his confirmation in a holy character—hasdefinitely failed. Adam was created under the natural and the federalrelation to law. When he sinned he continued under the natural, andpassed from the federal to the penal, where his non-elect descendantsremainforalleternity.Anditisjustherethatwithrespecttotheelecttheinfinitely graciousmediation ofChrist intervenes. If itwerenot for thesovereignsuperventionofagraciousuponapurely legaleconomy, theywouldofcoursebeleft,withtherestofmankind,tothejustconsequencesof their sin. Their probation having been abused, the promisedconfirmation in holy character having been forfeited, nothing but thepenalty remains. But in behalf of the elect Christ comes as the secondAdam,assumesandgraciouslycontinuestheirfederalrelationtothelawjustatthepointatwhichAdamfailed.Ifheundertakestheircase,thereisaneedthatheassumeboththeirobligationstoobedience,whichwastheoriginal conditionof theirbeing raised toa stable equilibriumofmoralcharacter and receiving the adoption of sons, and their obligations topenal sufferings incurred by their disobedience. The law in its naturalrelationofcourseremainsbindingonthemasbefore,whiletheyareforeverreleasedfromallobligationtoobeyitasaconditionoflife,andareconfirmed in an immutable stability both of character and happinessthroughthevicariousdischargeofalloftheiroriginalobligationsbytheirSubstitute.

Whenwe say that Christ as our Substitute assumed our law-place, thespecific thing that wemean is, that he became the federal head of theelect under the Covenant of Redemption, which provided for hisassuminginrelationtothemalltheconditionsoftheviolatedCovenantof Works. The federal headship of Christ presupposes the federalheadshipofAdam.The latter is thenecessarybasis for the former,and

thework andposition of the former canbeunderstoodonlywhen it isbrought in mental perspective into its true relation to the latter. Thesolutionof thequestionas to the truenatureof the federalheadshipofAdam becomes, therefore, an essential element as to the nature of theAtonement.TheapostledeclaresthattheprinciplesuponwhichsinandmiserycameupontheracethroughAdamareidenticalwiththoseuponwhichrighteousnessandblessednesscomeupontheelectthroughChrist.Nomancanentertainfalseviewsastotheformerwithoutpervertinghisfaith as to the latter.Hence I venture to ask the patience of the readerwhile I enter upon a digression from the strict line of scriptural proofbearing directly upon the nature of the Atonement, to consider thequestion whether the Scriptures really teach that in the Covenant ofWorksAdaminastrictsenserepresentedallhisdescendants,andhencethatthesinandmiseryof thatestate intowhichtheywerebornarethepenalconsequencesofAdam'spublicsin?

CHAPTERVII:ADAMWAS,INTHESTRICTSENSEOFTHEWORDS,THEFEDERAL

REPRESENTATIVEOFTHERACE;ANDTHEANTENATALFORFEITURE,OFWHICH

EACHOFHISDESCENDANTSISSUBJECT,ISTHEPENALCONSEQUENCEOFHIS

PUBLICSIN

OURdoctrineis,thatGodasthelegitimateGuardianofthehumanrace,and acting for its advantage, ordered its probation under the law as acovenantoflifeintherepresentativeagencyorfederalheadshipofAdam,

the first root and natural head of the race, in circumstances and onconditionsasfavourablefortheraceaspossible.Adam,althoughaswellendowedandcircumstancedasanyindividualofhisnaturalorder,whileyet in a state of instable moral equilibrium, could possibly be,nevertheless fell; and his sin, according to the favourable conditions oftheir probation, is the judicial ground of the antenatal forfeiture of hischildren,ofthepenalwithdrawingfromthemoftheinfluencesofGod'sSpirit; and hence their innate corruption is the penal consequence ofAdam'ssin.WemaythereforediscussthissubjectbytracingdownwardfromcausetoeffecttheheadshipofAdam,theimputationoftheguiltofhissin,andthepenalconsequencesthereof inthesinandmiseryofhisdescendants.Or,ontheotherhand,wemaytracefromeffectstocausestheexperiencedfactsastoman'snaturalconditionuptotheimputationofAdam'spublicsin.Ipreferthelattermethodforthefollowingreasons:(a.)Because the facts of the case are indubitably provedby thenaturalreason and universal experience of mankind, as well as by divinerevelation. Ithence follows that theweightof the factsbearsasheavilyuponevery systemof thoughtwhichadmits the existenceof an infinitemoral Governor as it does upon any school of Christian theology. (b.)Because this method will afford us the best possible opportunity ofcontrastingthesolutionwhichtheScripturesgiveusoftheterriblefactsofthecase,byreferringthemtotheirlegalgroundinthejudicialchargingtohisdescendantsoftheguiltofthepublicsinofourrepresentative,witheveryothersolutioneversuggestedbyhumangenius.Thiswillbringoutintoclearreliefthefactthatthescripturaldoctrineoftheimmediateandantecedent imputation of the guilt of Adam's sin to his descendants,instead of being a repulsive and unnecessarily aggravated feature ofCalvinism, is the most honouring to God and gratifying to the moralsenseofmen,ofallthesolutionsoftheawfulbutundeniablefactsofthecasewhichhaseverbeenattempted.Nonearemore ready to recognizethe real difficulties inherent in the doctrine of the federal headship ofAdamthanitsstaunchestadvocates.Butitiscertainthatthesedifficultiesarethesame,bothinkindanddegree,withthosewhichareinseparablefromthosebroadfactsofthecasewhichareuniversallyrecognizedbyallexcepttheoreticalorpracticalatheists.

Thesepatentfactsastoman'smoralandspiritualconditionfrombirth,

whichIwillheresimplystateandassumeasuniversallyconceded,areasfollows. 1. Every individual human being is from birth and by naturetotallydepraved.Thisgeneraltruthinvolvesthreesubordinateones.(1.)Everyhumanbeinghabituallysinsassoonasheentersastateofmoralagency. (2.) Each human being is born with an antecedent effectualtendencyinhisnaturetosin.And(3)thisinnatetendencyinhisnaturetosin,withwhicheverymanenterstheworld,isitselfofthenatureofsinandworthyofpunishment.*

2.Everyhumanbeingisbornintoandlivesunderthepowerofasocialorganizationcalledtheworld,allthemoralforcesofwhichopposevirtueandsecuretheprevalenceofvice.

3.Allmenareintroducedintoexistenceunderthedominionofanunseenspiritualempireofapostateangels,ofwhichSatanisprince.

These, then, are the portentous facts concerning the universal moralcondition of mankind by nature. Each individual comes into existencewith a nature itselfworthy of punishment, and effectually predisposinghimtosin.Theyaremoreoverbornintoacorruptandcorruptingsocialorganization,andsubjecttothemysteriousandprevalentinfluenceofanapostate spiritual empire. Yet, notwithstanding this disability underwhichmenareborn, theyarestillheldbound,under furtherpenaltyofeternaldamnation, to fulfil indispositionandacttheentireunmodifiedlawofabsoluteperfection.Thesestatements,moreover,donotrepresentthepeculiarresultsofanyschooleitherofphilosophyortheology,butthenaked and undeniable facts of the case, authenticated as certain byreason,conscienceandexperience,aswellasbyrevelation.ThedenialofChristianityaffordsnoescapefromthem,muchless,ofcourse,thedenialof thetruthofAugustiniantheology.Wehavenoalternativebut to facethem in their full significance, and to adapt our speculations to theunquestionablefacts.

It is here that the agonizing but unavoidable question arises as to thereconciliationof thisstateof factswiththecharacterofa just,holyandmercifulCreator.IfGodhadseenfittoshednolightwhateveruponthisdark subject, it would still undoubtedly be our duty to exercise anunquestioning faith in him, and to appease our reason by the plea of

mystery. But men must demand, and ought to demand, the fulldevelopment of every element of relief from this great moral enigmawhichGodhasgraciouslyvouchsafedtogiveusinhisword.TheultimateintuitionsofrightarethemselvesadirectrevelationfromGod,andwhenlegitimatelyinterpretedandapplied,theyareofashighauthorityasanydogmaoftheology.Itisabsolutelyimpossibleforadevoutmindtoadmitthat God can be the immediate author of sin, or that he can treat acreature whose natural claims upon him, as a creature, have notpreviously been justly forfeited, as worthy of punishment. The mostorthodoxtheologiansagreewiththeRationalistsonthefollowingpoints.

1.Godcannotbetheauthorofsin.

2. God cannot originally create agentswith an inherent corrupt natureeffectually predisposing them to sin, for that would constitute him theauthor of sin. And as a matter of fact he did create mankind and theangels holy; that is, with a positive, pre-existent disposition incliningthemtovirtue.

3.Godwillnotinflicteithermoralorphysicaleviluponanymoralagentwhosenatural claimsasadependentcreaturehavenotpreviouslybeenjustlyforfeited.

4.Henceeverymoralagentoughtinjusticetoenjoyafairprobation;thatis, a trial so conditioned as to afford at least as much opportunity ofsuccess as liability to failure.Hence arise two distinct and unavoidablequestions,whichhavebeenanxiouslydiscussedbythephilosophersandtheologiansofalltimes.

1.WHY,that is,onwhatgroundof justice,doesGodinflict this terribleevil, therootandsumofallotherevils,uponeveryhumanbeingat theinstanthisexistencecommences?Whatfairprobationhaveinfantsbornin sin enjoyed?AndWHENandWHYwere their rights asnew-createdmoralagentsforfeited?

2.HOW—sincewemustbelieve thatGodoriginallycreateseverymoralagentwithanaturepredisposedtovirtue;andsinceasamatteroffacthedidsocreatethefirstman—HOW,sothattheauthorofthenatureisnot

the author of the sin, is a sinful disposition originated in every humanbeingassoonashebeginstoexist?

Itisself-evidentthatwhilethesetwoquestionsrelatetothesamesubject,they are themselves essentially distinct, and they must be treated asdistinct,unlessweshouldleavetheentiresubjectinconfusion.Itisonething to inquire how it is possible that sin shall originate as a connatepredisposingcauseofsinineverynew-borninfant,andyettheMakeroftheinfantnotbethecauseofthesin;andaverydifferentthingtoinquireWHY, onwhat ground of justice, this direful calamity is brought uponthosewhohavenotpreviouslyoffendedintheirownpersons.Theformerquestion may possibly be solved by reference to some ascertainablephysiological lawofnaturalgeneration; itmayhave itsground in somegeneralrelationwhichall individualssustaintothegenustowhichtheybelong.Butthelatterquestionessentiallyrelatestotheadministrationofthe divine government, and to the character of those ultimate moralprinciples upon which it proceeds. If this important distinction hadalwaysbeenkeptclearlyinview,muchoftheobscurity,andoftheerrortoo,which havemarred speculations and controversies on this subject,would have been avoided. Endeavoring therefore, to keep it steadily inview, I proceed to give a summary statement of all the importantsolutionsofboththesequestionswhichhavebeenoffered.

All opinions upon this subject may be classified upon two distinctprinciples.

1.Wemay classify them as they are, on the one hand, excogitated onpurelyrationalisticprinciples, independentlyofrevelation,oras,ontheotherhand,theyaredevelopedbyamoreorlessfaithfulinterpretationofScripture.

Or,2.Wemay classify themeitheras theyaffirmordeny theprinciplethatallmenhavejustlyforfeitedtheirrightsasnew-createdmoralagentsbefore their birth into this world. I shall adopt the latter principle ofclassification, remarking that the two principles come to the samepractical result in this respect, that nearly all the purely rationalisticsolutions of the problem deny that men are born subject to antenatalforfeiture; while, on the contrary, nearly all those solutions which are

professedlyderivedfromtheinterpretationofScriptureaffirmit.

I. I propose under this head to state briefly those solutions of thequestionsabovestatedwhichagreeinrejectingtheprinciplethatmanisborn subject to a just antenatal forfeiture, and liable to the righteouspenaltyofaviolatedlaw.

1. The first attempted solution is afforded by theManichæan dualism,whichpostulatestheindependentself-existenceoftwoprinciples.Ontheonehand,God,aneternal, self-existent, absolutelyperfectSpirit, is theFatherof all spirits, and the centre andgovernorof thewhole spiritualkingdomoflightandpurity.Ontheotherhand,matter,orthatultimateessence of which matter is one of the forms, is an independent, self-existingprinciple, inherentlycorrupt in itself,andcorrupting toall thatcomesincontactwithit.AllspiritsbeingpureintheiroriginfromGod,becomevitiated throughentanglementwith thematter composing theirbodies.*Although themagnificent speculations inwhich theseopinionswere first embodied have long since been forgotten, except by a fewstudentsofChristianantiquities,theradicalideaoftheself-existenceandinherent viciousness of matter has not yet lost place among men'sthoughts. Against the false view of sin embodied in this theory all theearly Fathers of the Christian Church protested. Manichæism virtuallyamounts toadenialof theexistenceofmoralevilaltogether,because itresolves it intoaphysicalground,making it anattributeofmatter, likeattraction,orinertia,orthelike.Theessenceofsinliesinthefactthatitisaspontaneousstateoractofa freemoralagent,not inconformitytothe law of absolute moral perfection. Sin is necessarily immaterial,spiritual, an attribute of moral agency, inseparable from persons.Manichæism limits Jehovah by the eternal and necessary co-existencewith him of a hostile and independent principle. It wrongs him byattempting to vindicate his freedom from all complication with sin byexhibiting him as helpless to prevent it. And it destroys all moraldistinctions by resolving sin into a physical accident, exterior to thepersonalsoul,andmoralresponsibilityforcrimeintomisfortune.

2.Asecondmethodofansweringboththequestions,howandwhymenalwayscommencetheirconsciousexistencehabitualsinnersasfarasthatfactrelatestotheagencyofGodinthematter,cutstheknotbyaffirming

the absolute self-determining power of the human will, and theconsequent absolute "impreventability of sin." While in many otherrespects they differ, yet at this point, touching the agency of Godwithrespect to this estate of sin and misery into which man has fallen,Pelagians, Socinians, and the class of Trinitarians represented byBushnell and Young, are perfectly agreed.* Everyman creates his owncharacter,beingfreetosinornotashepleases.Goddidallhecouldtopreventtheentranceofsinatthefirst,andeversincehehasbeendoingall that is consistentwith the necessary limitations ofmoral agency, toputeachmaninthebestpossibleposition,andtobringtobearuponhimthebestpossiblemoralandspiritualinfluences.

Nowitisevidentthatthisanswergetsridofthedifficultybydenyingtheplain fact of the totaldepravityof each child frombirth andbynature,antecedent to all moral action, which is proved as well by anunexceptionalexperienceasbyrevelation.Theself-determiningpowerofthehumanwillmayprovethatsinisimpreventable,andmayaccountfortheexistenceofsininafewcases.Asitisabsolutelyimpossibleforamantobelieve,whenthedicearethrownsixessuccessivelyathousandtimes,thatthedicearenotloaded;soisitathousandtimesmoreimpossibletobelieve,wheneveryhumanbeingofallnationsandgenerations,withoutasingleexception,beginstosintheinstantheentersmoralagency,thathiswillisnotbiassedbyapreviouseffectualtendencyinhisnaturetosin.NowtheBible,truepsychologyanduniformChristianexperienceuniteinteachingthatthisinnateprevioustendencytosinisitselfsinandworthyof punishment. The preventability of sin or the opposite is not thequestion.Thefacttobeaccountedforisthatallmensinassoonastheybegintoactasmoralagents.Thisuniversalconstitutionofthings,whichproducessuchuniformlydireeffects,isGod'sordering,andheisbringingnewsoulsintoiteveryday.Itdoesnothelpthemattertosay,thatthesinof the parent is propagated to the child by generation, or by educationand example. For God is the author of the whole system of humangenerationandsocialrelations.Thequestionsremainunanswered,why?andhow?Godeitherpermitsoreffectssuchresults,andyetremainsjustandholy.

3. The third solution is the one incident to pantheistic speculations in

general, and developed prominently by theGerman philosopherHegel,adoptedbyEmerson,and, inamodifiedform,heldbyTheodoreParkerandmanyof the advancedUnitariansofAmerica;namely, that sin is anaturalandnecessary incidentofa finitenatureconditionedasman is,and the appointedmeans of development and ultimate perfection. Sin,accordingtothisview,islimitation,thenecessaryaccidentofaprocessofgrowth. Even Bushnell regards sin as a favourable incident of spiritualeducation, which, training the soul for stable and intelligent virtuehereafter,involvesnecessarilyanexperimentofevil,andconsequentlyapreviousfall,andtemporarysubjectiontoitspower.

This theory at oncedestroys all proper ideas alikeofGodand sin. It isabsolutely inconsistent with the infinite power, wisdom, goodness andholinessofGod.Sinisessentiallyἀνομία,andthedivinelawhasitsnorminthedivinenature.Sin,therefore,isintrinsicallyoppositiontoGod.Itisnotalimitationincidenttofiniteexistence,noraconditionincidenttoastage in the development of a creature's life, for then it would beaccording to law. It is the spontaneous reprehensible attitude of acreature's will in opposition to God. God must hate and resist it andpunish it, and no natural constitution of things which he ordains caninvolveitasanecessaryincident.Sincanoriginatenootherwisethaninthe free, self-determined act of a personal spirit, acting in violation of,andnotinaccordancewith,thelawofitsbeing.

4. The common view characteristic of the New England Theology wasgeneratedbyanattempttoreadjustthepositionsofoldCalvinisminviewoftherationalisticattacksmadeuponitbyJohnTaylor,ofNorwich,andthe Socinians of America. This view was introduced by Dr. SamuelHopkins, and developed by Edwards, Dwight, Emmons, &c., and hashencepassedintogeneralcurrencyamongalltheadherentsofthatformof modified Calvinism called New England Theology. They found itnecessary toprotest in the interest ofRationalismagainst theprinciplethat the descendants ofAdam should have been judicially held to havejustly forfeited all their rights as new-created moral agents, simplybecauseofthesinfulactoftheirprogenitor,performedagesbeforetheirown existence. They therefore deny that human beings come into theworld subject to any antenatal forfeiture, or with any positive moral

corruption of nature. In the place of these discarded positions of oldorthodoxy, they explain the facts by saying that the human race existsunderasovereignconstitutionofGod,whichhasprovided,thatupontheconditionofAdam'ssininthegarden,everyoneofhisdescendantsshallinfalliblysinassoonasheentersuponmoralagency.ThustheygroundthewholeprocedureultimatelyuponthesovereigntyinsteadofuponthejusticeofGod.InanswertothequestionWHYthisgreatevilisinflicteduponcreatures justcommencing theirexistence, theyreferussimply tothesovereigngoodpleasureofGod.InanswertothequestionHOWtheuniformoriginationofsinisdeterminedinthefirstresponsibleactoftherecent creatures of a holy God, some of them content themselves withreferringtoaninscrutabledivineconstitutionwhichsecuresthatresult;while others resolve the matter into the natural physiological laws ofgeneration, whereby the parent begets an offspringmorally, as well asintellectuallyandphysically,likehimself;andothersagain,aseminentlyDr. Emmons, refer the result to a "stated mode of divine efficiency,"wherebyGod,upontheantecedentconditionofAdam'ssin,proceedstocreate a series of sinful acts through the agency of each of hisdescendants. This last view, which refers all human action to a directdivineefficientprecursus,isvirtualpantheism,andevidentlymakesGodtheauthorofallsin.OnthissideofdivineefficiencyEmmonsdevelopedtheNewEnglandTheology todeath.Sincehis timeall theadvocatesofthat systemrefer theoriginof sin inmen to theirnaturaldescent fromAdam,theorganicrootandnaturalheadofallmankind;sothatinheritedcorruption,insteadofbeingviewedasapenalconsequentofAdam'ssin,is regarded simply as a natural consequent of it, transmitted, like thenose upon the face, by the natural and universal laws of animalreproduction.

This so-called "improvement" of New England Theology is in principleidenticalwiththedoctrinebroachedbyJoshuaPlacæus,ProfessorintheTheologicalSeminaryofSaumur,France (circum1640).HemaintainedthatAdam'sfirstsinwherebyheapostatized,beinghisownpersonalact,couldnotbeimputedtoanyofhisdescendants,because,sinceitwasnottheiract,theywerenotresponsibleforit,andthereforecouldnotjustlybepunished for it.But sinceAdam's apostasynecessarily corruptedhisown nature, and since, by ordinary generation, the corruption of his

naturedeterminedthecorruptionofallthosewhoweredescendedfromhim, it follows hence (1) that all descended from him by ordinarygenerationbegintosinassoonastheybegintoactasmoralagents,and(2)thattheyarejustlycondemnedandpunishedfortheirownsinfulactswhichthenceresult.

After this doctrine, which is obviously identical with that of the NewEngland view above stated, hadbeen ventilated a number of years, theFrenchNational Synod,meeting at Charenton (Dec. 26, 1644; Jan. 26,1645), passed with reference to it the following decree: "There was areportmadeinSynodofacertainwriting,bothprintedandmanuscript,holdingforththisdoctrine,thatthewholenatureoforiginalsinconsistedonly in that corruptionwhich is hereditary to allAdam'sposterity, andresidingoriginallyinallmen,anddenyingtheimputationofhisfirstsin.This Synod condemneth the said doctrine as far as it restraineth thedoctrine of original sin to the sole hereditary corruption of Adam'sposterity,totheexcludingoftheimputationofthatfirstsinbywhichhefell;andinterdicteth,onpainofallchurchcensure,allpastors,professorsandothers,whoshalltreatofthisquestion,todepartfromthecommonreceivedopinionoftheProtestantChurches,who(overandbesidesthatcorruption)haveallacknowledgedthe imputationofAdam's firstsin tohisposterity."*

After this, in order to reconcile his doctrine in appearance with therequirements of the Synod, Placæus invented the distinction betweenimmediateandantecedentimputationontheonehand,andmediateandconsequent imputation on the other. By the immediate and antecedentimputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, he meant to express theestablisheddoctrineoftheReformedChurches,towit:thatAdamwasinsuch a sense the covenant head and representative of his descendants,that theirprobationwasmerged intohis,and thathisactionwasmadetheconditionuponwhichtheirconfirmationinholinessorrejectionandpunishment was made to depend; and hence that the guilt orpunishablenessofhissinwaschargedtotheiraccountimmediatelyupontheirbirth,andantecedently to theirownaction;andthatconsequentlythe entire corruption of nature with which they are born is the firstconsequenceandmostawfulpartofthepunishmentofthatsincharged

to them and punished in them. By the mediate and consequentimputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, Placæus meant to deny theabove doctrine of antenatal forfeiture altogether, and to teach that thedescendants of Adam, deriving from him corrupt natures by ordinarygeneration,begintosinafterhisexampleassoonastheybecomemoralagents,andareconsequently,likehim,punishedfortheirownsin.Itisasplainasnoon-daythatthereisnorealimputationhereatall,nochargingofthepunishablenessofAdam'sfirstapostatizingacttohisdescendantsinanyhonestsense.TheapplicationofthetermimputationtothistheorybyPlacæuswasuncandidandsophistical.Hiscavilwasthathealsoheldthat Adam's sin was imputed and punished in his posterity mediatelythrough and consequently to their own sin in compliance with hisexample.ThusAdamsinned,andwaspunishedforhisownsin.Forhissin his posterity are in no way responsible, nor are they punished onaccountofit,butonlycursed,bymeansofthenaturallawofgeneration,with corrupt natures. They consequently sin, and are all severallypunished for their own sins. Hence, Adam's sin is charged to themmediatelyandconsequently.ThisisnothingeithermoreorlessthantheNewEnglandRoottheoryabovestated,withthisdifference,thattheNewEnglandtheoryhonourablydiscards thesophisticalanddeludinguseofthe theological term imputation in a sense not only modified, but soperverted as to signalize the express denial of that which from timeimmemorialallmenhadusedittoaffirm.

Theobjectionstothistheoryarefatal.

1.ItfailsentirelyandobviouslytoquadratewiththeplainsenseofthoseScriptures(Rom.5:12–19)ofwhich,asIshallshowbelow,theorthodoxdoctrineisthedogmaticexpression.TheevidenceofthisallegationIwillpresentwhenIcometoexhibittheevidenceestablishingthetruthoftheolddoctrine.

2.Whilethisimprovementwasexcogitated,astheyoungerEdwardssaid,withthedesignofreconcilingthedoctrineofthefallwiththedemandsofrational justice, it sets justice at defiance far more directly anduncompromisinglythandoesthatorthodoxdoctrineagainsttheinjusticeofwhichitprotests.TheorthodoxdoctrineaffirmsthatGod,therightfulGuardianofthehumanrace,gavethemthemostfavourabletrialpossible

for a race so propagated—a trial, moreover, in which great andundeservedblessingsweremadepossible,aswellasagreatloss.Ithencefollows that theywere justly responsible for the penal consequences ofAdam's failure, andhence that their natural rightswere justly forfeitedbeforetheirbirth.This"improved"doctrine,ontheotherhand,refersthewhole result to thearbitrary sovereigntyofGod.TheorthodoxdoctrinedemonstratesthateverymanhadafairprobationinthepersonofAdam.The"improved"doctrineassertsthatGodcreateseverymanintoastateofvirtualreprobation,withoutanyprobationatall.

3.This theoryabsurdlyattemptstoaccount for theoriginationofsin inthe children of men severally, as soon as they begin to act, by aphysiological theory of generation, instead of on a moral principle ofrighteouslegalresponsibility.

4. The whole peculiarity of this view is grounded on an assumptionsubversiveoftheentirefoundation-principlesofthegospel;namely,thatit is inconsistentwith justicethat,underanycircumstances,onepersonshouldbeheldjudiciallypunishableforasinperformedbyanother;whileitisamatteroffactthatChrist,inconsequenceofhisfederalunionwithhis people, was justly punished for their sin, and they are justlypronouncedrighteousonthegroundofhisobedience.

5.ThistheoryisconspicuouslyinconsistentwiththefactofthatparallelwhichtheScripturesaffirmtoexistbetweentheprincipleuponwhichwearecondemnedforthesinofAdamandthatuponwhichwearejustifiedonthegroundoftherighteousnessofChrist.Theessenceofredemptionlies in the fact that Christwas justly punished for our sins as federallyresponsibleforthem,andthatwearejustlyjustifiedonthegroundofhisobedience, because by the terms of his covenant with the Father therewardablenessofhisobediencerevertstous.Ifthisbeso,itfollowsthattheguiltorobligationtopunishment,accruingfromAdam'ssintous,isbythetermsofthecovenantjustlyours,andhencethatnativedepravityandallothernaturalevilsarejustlyinflicteduponusasthepunishmentof that sin.While, on the other hand, if it be held that we first derivecorruptnaturesfromAdamaspurelynaturalandphysicalconsequentsofgeneration, and thenarepunished for that innate corruptionor for thesinfulactionstowhichitgivesbirth,itwouldnecessarilyfollow,astothe

method of salvation, that we first derive by regeneration holy naturesfromChrist, and are then justified on the ground of inherent holiness,whichispreciselythatMoralInfluenceTheoryofRedemptionadvocatedby Bushnell and Young. If the ultimate ground of our forfeiture is ourinherentpersonalcorruptionofnaturederivedbygeneration,thenPaul'swordsare,EVENSO,theultimategroundofourjustificationmustbeourinherent personal holiness of nature derived by regeneration.Dr. JohnW. Nevin says: "Our participation in the actual unrighteousness ofAdam'slifeformsthegroundofourparticipationinhisguiltandliabilitytopunishment.Andinnootherway,Iaffirm,cantheideaofimputationbe satisfactorily explained in the caseof the secondAdam."That is,wepartake by ordinary generation of the fallen nature of Adam, and arethereforecondemned.Inlikemannerwepartakeofthedivine-humanlifeoftheincarnateWordthroughunionwiththeChurchandtheefficacyofthe sacraments, and are therefore justified. Thus wonderfully do thelatest "improvements" of old Puritan orthodoxy develop into thatMercersburgtheologywhichhasitsrootsinapantheisticphilosophyandaRomishreligion.

II. We come now to consider that class of opinions which agree inmaintainingthatthemembersof thehumanfamilycomeintoexistenceunder a forfeiture justly incurred before their birth.With one singularexception, all the theories, as far as I know,whichmaintain the fact ofthisantenatalforfeiture,agreeinreferringittothefirstsinofAdamasitsjudicialground.

1.Thesingularexceptionreferredto is theeccentrictheorythattheevilnature with which all men are born into this world has been self-originatedbyafree,personalself-determinationtoevilinapre-existentstate.As thus generally stated, this theorywas first introduced into theChristian Church byOrigen, and revived in themodern Church byDr.Edward Beecher in his "Conflict of Ages," and by Julius Müller in hisgreatworkonthe"ChristianDoctrineofSin."BeecherandMülleragreeinholdingthat(a)everychildisbornwithanaturemorallycorrupt;(b)that this innate corruption is guilt; that is, that every new-born soul isfrom the first morally responsible and justly punishable for thatcorruption;(c)butsinceamoralagentcanbemorallyresponsible fora

moral character only when it has been self-originated by a previousunbiassedactofwill,itfollowsthateachhumanpersonmusthavehadanexistence inwhichresponsibleself-determinationwaspossibleprevioustohisbirthinthislife.

Beecher's conception of the matter is as follows. In the beginning allhumansoulswerecreatedliketheangels,free,responsible,moralagentsfullydeveloped.Eachstoodaloneandenjoyedafairprobationinhisownperson. Someof the angels stood the trial, andwere confirmed in holycharacter for ever. Some of the angels, and all of those spiritssubsequently born into this world as men, fell and became morallydepraved, and righteously condemned because of their own personalapostasy.Forthepurposeofbringingthislastclassoflostsoulsunderaremedial system of grace, God created the physical universe for theirhabitation, and caused them to be born into material bodies andpropagated by generation. They all come into the world, consequently,with their natures depraved and their natural rights forfeited by theirownpersonalactionintheirpre-existentstate.

TheconceptionofMüller,thoughphilosophicallyverydifferentfromtheabove, in a theological point of view amounts to the same. He adoptsfromtheIdealismofSchellingtheprincipleofatranscendentalfreedomas an attribute of all personal spirits. "Man in his origin is a morallyundetermined not yet decided essence, and by virtue of his personalitycanonlybesuchanone."*"Onlypersonalessenceshaveagroundintheirownact; it is thepossessionof freedomin this theirnowtemporal rootwhichdistinguishesthespiritabsolutelyfromnature.""Inthekingdomoftheintelligible,thissilent,timeless,shadowykingdomis,as itwere,thematernal womb in which the embryos of all personal essences lieenclosed.Herewefindthesimple,undeterminedbeginningsofourbeingwhichprecedeitsconcretecontents;therefore,oneisnotinthiskingdomtolookforthefulnessoftheGodlikelife,butonlythepowerofdecidingeitherinfavourofvoluntaryunionwithGodbysubordinationtohiswill,orforthepersistencyofselfhoodinitself.Whicheverwaythisprimitivedecision may take place, it forms for these intelligible existences thetransitionintospaceandtime,intocorporietyanddevelopment,&c."*

Thistheory, inall its forms, is inadmissible,because(1.)It isabsolutely

destitute of any assignable evidence, either in Scripture or in the sumtotalofhumanexperience.Itisconfessedlyapurecreationofthehumanbrain to reconcile the fact that all men are born responsible, guiltysinners with the speculative assumption that a moral agent cannot beresponsible for itsmoral character, unless thatmoral character be self-determined by a previous unbiassed self-decision of the moral agenthimself. (2.)Thisdoctrine isplainly inconsistentwithall theScripturesteach us, either as to the origin and original state ofman, or as to theoriginofsin.Astotheoriginofman,itissaid,"AndtheLordGodformedmanofthedustoftheground,andbreathedintohisnostrilsthebreathoflife;andmanbecamealivingsoul."Gen.2:7.Astohisoriginalstate,itissaid,"SoGodcreatedmaninhisownimage,intheimageofGodcreatedhe him," Gen. 1:27; 5:1; 9:6; which image Paul declares consists in"knowledge, righteousnessand trueholiness."Eph.4:24,andCol.3:10.AtthecloseofhissixdaysofworkGodsaweverythinghehadmade,manincluded,"andbeholditwasverygood."Gen.1:31."Lo,thisonlyhaveIfound,thatGodhathmademanupright;buttheyhavesoughtoutmanyinventions."Eccles.7:29.Astotheoriginofsinitissaid,"BYONEMANsinenteredintotheworld,anddeathbysin.""Byoneman'soffencedeathreignedbyone.""Bytheoffenceofone,judgmentcameuponallmentocondemnation." "Byoneman'sdisobediencemanyweremade sinners."Rom.5:12–21."InAdamalldie."1Cor.15:22.(3.)Thistheoryisasmuchinconsistentwithalltheexperienceandphenomenaofhumanlifeasitiswith the words of revelation. It is impossible to see or rationally toimagine anything in a young child and its early growth, except theoriginaldevelopmentofthegermofanewexistence.Thisviewrepresentsthe unconscious infant, with its slowly unfolding capacities, to be theveteran agent in a high act of conscious and responsible apostasy,accomplishedamidthescenesofaformerlife.

(4.)Thistheoryobviouslyfails,evenuponthehypothesisof itstruth,toaccountfortheenigmawhichitwasinventedtoexplain.Thereappearstothe reason of man no propriety, nomoral significancy, in punishing amoral agent for a personal sin of which he is utterly and necessarilyunconscious.WhattheScripturesandourownconsciencescondemnusforisourpresentmorallydepravedstateandactions.Thisistheburdenofhumanguilt,anditisimpossiblethatwecanberationallyorrightfully

punishedonpersonal grounds for that ofwhichweareuniversally andinvinciblypersonallyunconscious.*

Itremainsforus,hence,toconsideronlythoseremainingsolutionsofthequestions inhandwhichagree inmaintainingthesetwopoints:(a)thatall human souls are born into this world subject to a forfeiture justlyincurredbeforetheirbirth;and(b)thatthisforfeiturewasincurredintheguiltofthefirstsinofAdam.

Allpossibleopinions,embracingboththeseelementsincommon,maybeclassedunderoneofthethreefollowingheads:(a)thatallhumansoulswerecreatedsimultaneouslywithAdam,andinsomewayconsentedwithhim in his sin; (b) that all human souls were actually in Adam(physically),and,asguiltyco-agents,actedwithhiminhisapostasy;(c)the doctrine of the Reformed Churches that all human souls were inAdam (representatively) as our Federal Head, and are therefore justlyliable,withhim,forallofthepenalconsequencesofhisact.

1.Thefirstview,whichrepresentsallsoulsbeingcreatedwithAdamandconsentingwithhim,neednotbeconsideredhere,sinceitisheldbynoone,andsinceitisobviouslyopentoalltheobjectionsallegedagainstthepre-existencetheoryofBeecher,whileitisdestituteofallitsadvantages.

2.Thesecondviewis,thatsinceAdamwastheentiregenushomo,aswellas the first individualof the series intowhich,byhisagency, thegenushasbeensubsequentlyexplicated,itfollowsthateveryindividualmemberofthatserieswasphysicallynumericallyonewithhim,andintheentiretyofthegenusaguiltyco-agentwithhiminhisactofapostasy;andhencethatthewholegenusisguiltyofthatsin,andhenceeachindividualintowhich the genus is severally propagated is really, essentially andinherentlyasguiltyofthatsinasAdamwas.ThisistheRealisticviewofthe nature of our connection with Adam, recently advocated by Dr.SamuelJ.Baird,inhisElohimRevealed,andbyDr.WilliamG.T.Shedd,bothinhisvolumeofEssaysandinhis"HistoryofChristianDoctrine."

Sheddmaintainsthatsincanbepredicatedonlyofthewill,itsstatesandacts,andonlyof suchstatesof thewillasareconsequentupon itsownpreviousunbiassedself-determination.Hedoesnot,however,limitthese

responsible self-determinations to single volitions, in which the soulconsciouslychoosesorrefusesparticularobjects,whichisthesuperficialtheoryof"theself-determiningpowerofthewill"heldbytheArminians;but he includes the profound original self-determination of the wholeinward being to evil instead of good, which antedates consciousness,which corrupted our moral nature, and which, by thus producing acorrupt nature, determined the character of all subsequent responsiblemoral action.Will, in this sense, by an act of self-determination to evilbefore consciousness, is the responsible guilty author of its owndepravity.Andthisactwasperformednotbyeachoneofuspersonally,but by our commonnature, the entire genus homo,which existed as awhole in Adam. Adam he regards not as amere receptacle, containingmillions of individuals, but as the entire genus, as well as the firstindividualoftheseriesintowhichithasbeenexplicated.Thisgenushassince, throughAdam's agency, become varied andmanifold through itsdevelopment by propagation into a series of individuals. Theresponsibility and guilt incured by his apostasy, therefore, inheresnecessarilyintheentirenature,andisconsequentlypropagatedintoandmadethepersonalattributeofeachindividualoftheserieswhohavepartwiththecommonnature.

AlthoughIobject,formanyseriousreasons,totheRealisticphilosophyofShedd, I believe it covers a doctrine of original sin perfectly orthodox.Any doctrine, to be orthodox in the sense of the Reformed Churches,must include the two positions (a) that the entire moral corruption ofnaturewhichcharacterizeseveryhumansoulfrombirthisaconsequenceofAdam'sactofapostasy;and(b)thatitisamostjustpenalconsequenceofthatsin.ThisSheddandalltheadvocatesofhisdoctrinecanaffirminthemostliteralsense,andwiththeirwholeheart.TothequestionWHYthisgreatevilisbroughtuponallnew-bornsouls,theanswertheygiveisthat we, in virtue of our share in the common nature, were really andnumericallyonewithAdam,activeco-agentswithhiminhisgreatactofapostasy,andhencethedepravityofnatureinwhichtheyarebornisthejustpunishmentofourcommonsin.TothequestionHOWoriginalsinisoriginated inthenew-bornsoul, theanswer is that it followsbynaturallawfromthedevelopmentofthegenusthroughgenerationintoaseriesofindividuals.

IthasinthelastfewyearsbeenaffirmedthatthisRealistictheoryofournumerical physical oneness with Adam is an essential element of thedoctrineoftheReformedChurchesastotheimputationoftheguiltofhisfirst sin to his descendants. We believe this to be utterly andtransparentlygroundless.

(1.) The Realistic philosophy did not prevail in the schools during thesixteenthandseventeenthcenturies;andhencethismodeofthoughtwasasforeigntothegeneralmentalhabitsofmeninthatageasitisinthis.IthencecertainlyfollowsthatifthishadbeenthedoctrineoftheReformersand their great successors, they would have explicitly stated andillustratedthispointintheirwritings,whichitisnotorioustheyhavenotdone.

(2.) The Church from the beginning has been divided on the questionhowtheindividualsoulsofmenareproduced.NowthebeliefthatsoulsaswellasbodiesareproducedextraducefromtheirparentsisconsistentwitheithertheRealisticviewofourunionwithAdamorthefederalandrepresentativeview.PresidentEdwards*andSamuelHopkins†bothheldthe Traduce theory, yet both held the doctrine of Placæus or the RootTheory, which excludes that idea of antenatal forfeiturewhich it is theendandboastoftheRealistictheorytovindicate.But,ontheotherhand,thedoctrinethateachsoulisseverallyandimmediatelycreatedbyGodattheinstantofconceptionisobviouslyandabsolutelyinconsistentwiththeRealisticviewofhumannature.NoCreationistcanbeaRealist,andnoman who doubts between Creationism and Traducianism can be aconscious and intelligent Realist. Now, let it be observed (a) thatAugustine,who is sooften claimedas aRealist, neverdecidedbetweenTraducianism and Creationism. Tertullian was the advocate ofTraducianism, Jerome of Creationism.Augustine doubted.Hewrote toJerome,"Teachmenow,Ibegofyou,whatIshallteach;teachmewhatIshallhold,andtellmeifsoulsareeveryday,onebyone,calledintobeingfrom nonenity in those who are daily being born … I desire that thatopinion may be mine, but I am not yet certain." It is simply andabsolutely impossible that a man talking so should be a Realist.Augustineoftensaysthatthewholerace,beingmany,wereoneinAdam.Turretin, quoting such an expression, explains it thus: "A unity not

specificnornumerical,butpartlyaunityoforigin,becauseallare fromoneblood,andpartlyunityofrepresentation,becausebytheordinanceofGod one represented the persons of all."* (b) The doctrine of theReformedChurchescouldnothavebeenRealistic,becauseCalvinandtheReformed theologians, almost to aman, were Creationists. This Sheddconfesses.Hagenbach‡says:"Bellarmine,Calvin,andthetheologiansoftheReformedChurch ingeneral, advocated the theoryofCreationism."Hequotesinillustrationofthis,Calvin,Beza,PeterMartyr,Bucanus,andPolanus;andhecertainlymighthavequotedmanymore,asHeidegger,Turretin, De Moor, Witsius, Goodwin, Owen, &c. Turretin says withrespect to Creationism, "Priorem (creationem) Orthodoxi fere omnessequuntur."Realism isnot thedoctrineof theReformedChurches.Thetruthis,itwassimplynotdreamedofbythemenwhowroteourcreeds.

(3.)NotoneofthecreedsinquestionusesanytermsorformspeculiartoRealism. Calvin, Beza, Turretin, Heidegger, &c., all of whom explicitlyrepudiate Traducianism, an essential element of Realism, unite inaffirmingthatwewereinAdamrepresentatively;thatwereallyandtrulysinnedinhimbecausehissinisoursin,reallyandtrulyoursinastoitsfederal responsibility. Really and truly, though not physically, butmorally;notefficientlywithrespecttopersonalagency,butvirtuallywithrespecttorepresentativeagencyandjustlegalaccountability,hisactwasouract,andwetrulysinnedinhim.This ispreciselywhatTurretinandHeideggersayintheFormulaConsensusHelvetica,canons10–12:"Godentered into the COVENANT OF WORKS not only with Adam forhimself, but also in him, as the head and root, with the whole humanrace.""ThereappearsnowayinwhichhereditarycorruptioncouldfallasaspiritualdeathuponthewholehumanracebythejustjudgmentofGodunlesssomesinofthatracepreceded,incurringthepenaltyofthatdeath.ForGod,thesupremelyjustJudgeofalltheearth,punishesnonebuttheguilty." "For a double reason, therefore, first on account of thetransgression and disobedience which he committed in the loins ofAdam; and secondly, on account of the consequent hereditarycorruption,"&c.YetitiscertainthatthesemenwerenotRealists.Intheirpersonal writings they specifically explain theirmeaning to be that wewere in Adam representatively. Our Confession and Catechism use thesamelanguageinthesamesense."ThefirstCOVENANTmadewithman

wasaCovenantofWorks,whereinlifewaspromisedtoAdam,andinhimtohisposterity,uponconditionofperfectandpersonalobedience,"(theRealistsdonotclaimthatwewereinAdampersonally).*"Theybeingtherootofallmankind,theguiltofthissinwasimputed,andthesamedeathinsinandcorruptednatureconveyedtotheirposterity,descendingfromthembyordinarygeneration."†"TheCOVENANTbeingmadewithAdamasapublicperson,(herethereisadistinctdefinitionoftherepresentativetheory of Adam's oneness with the race, and not directly nor byimplicationahintofhisbeingthegenushomo,orofourgenericnatureactingasanimpersonalco-agentwithhiminhisapostasy,)notonlyforhimself but for his posterity, all mankind descending from him byordinary generation sinned in him, and fell with him in that firsttransgression."

TheobjectionstothisRealistictheoryaremanyandveryserious.(1.)NologicaldividinglinecaneverbedrawnbetweenRealismandPantheism.For(a)ifallmen,ofallvarieties,allgenerationsandlocalhabitations,arenumericallyonesubstance,whymaynotahighergenusuniteallanimalsorallentitiesinonenumericalsubstance,oneinessence,multitudinousinitstransientmodes.And(b)ifwillbenotpersonal,ifmanythousandyearsbeforeweexistedaspersonswewereguiltyco-agentsinacrimeinvirtueoftheancientexistenceofthetotalgenusofwhichwearepersonalmodes, what evidence have we left that the personal mode we callourselvesmaynotrelapseintotheessencefromwhichitsprang,andthatall things phenomenal may not be passing moments in succesivemodifications(personalorotherwise)ofoneunderlyingsubstance?

(2.)ThistheoryhasnoshadowofgroundintheScriptures.Itispurelyacreationofhumanspeculationintheefforttoreconcile,speculatively,thefacts of human experience with our abstract notions of what justicerequires on the part of God. It therefore, even if legitimate as aphilosophicaltheory,canneverbeadmittedforonemomenttotheplaceofadoctrine.

(3.)Butevenasanattemptedreconciliationbetweenthefactofinnatesinandour ideas of divine justice, it breaksdownutterly.All the ideaswehaveorpossiblycanhaveconcerningsin,moralobligation,guilt,justiceorthelike,arederivedfromourownmoralsenseandfromScripture.But

themoralsenseofeverymanandScriptureteachusnothingaboutmoralagency or responsibility which is not personal. An impersonal will, animpersonalobligation,animpersonalsin,areallasutterlyinconceivableasasquarecircleoraredsound.Noman'sconscienceisbound,howevermuch hismindmay be confused by suchwords. The idea of a genericnature,actingasaguiltyco-agentwithapersoninacrime,evenifitweretrue, throws no light upon the justice of subjecting persons not thenexistingtoaterriblepersonalpenalty.

(4.)HencethisfigmentofthenumericalunionofeverypersonoftheraceinAdampractically collapses into thepoorRoot theoryofPlacæusandthe New England divines, which denies that antenatal forfeiture thisRealistictheorywasexcogitatedtodefend,andmaintainsthattheguiltofhissinisnotours,andthatthedepravityofhisnature,consequentuponhissin,ismadeoursbyanordinaryphysiologicallawofgeneration.Theefforttoprovemanasinneronthisschemeendsbyreducingsintothecategory of transmissible physiological accidents, such as red hair or aprognathousskull.

(5.)IftheentiregenuswasinAdam,theentirepost-diluvianracewas,inthesamesense,inNoah.Ifwewereguiltyco-agentsinthefirstsinoftheone,becauseofnumericalandphysicalidentity,wemustbe,forthesamereason and to the same extent, guilty of every one of the sins ofNoah.And every existing personmust literally, and by direct consequence ofidentityofnature,beasguiltyofallthesinsofallhisancestorsasheisofhisownpersonaltransgressions.

(6.) If the guilt aswell as themoral corruptionof the genericnature isinherentinthatnature,andpassesintoeveryindividualwhosharesinit,theawfulconsequencewould follow that theguilt forwhich thehumanraceiscursedattachesasmuchtothehumansoulandbodyoftheLordJesus as to any other. Corruption of naturemay be removed by divinepower,butguiltnever,otherwisetherewouldhavebeennoneedforanatonement,fortheabsolutenecessityofwhichSheddarguessoearnestlyandsoadmirably.

(7.) InRomans 5:12–21, Paul asserts that the principle uponwhichweshareintherighteousnessofChristisidenticalwiththatuponwhichwe

share in theguiltofAdam. If, therefore,weshare in theguiltofAdam,becausewewereas toessencenumericallyonewithhim,andhence, inthetotalityofthegenericnature,guiltyco-agentswithhimintheactofapostasy, it necessarily follows that we share in the righteousness ofChrist,because theeternalWord took intopersonalunionwithhimselfthetotalgenuselectorum;andbecause,hence,wewerenumericallyonewith him on the cross, and meritorious co-agents with him in hisobedience and expiatory death. But the Scriptures teach us of thesovereignelectionofpersonstoeternallife.Thereisnointimationoftheelectionofacertainsliceofthegenushumanum.Butifthegenusbeonespiritualsubstance,howcanitbedivided?Afteritsdivision,doesitceasetobeone?It istoohorribletothinkof,thatheshouldbeinunionwiththe entire genus including the lost. If generation does not separate thegenusintoparts,thenChristmustbeinunionwiththewholegenus.Butifgenerationdoesseparate thegenus intoparts, then it follows(a) thatChrist'shumansoulandbodyareonlyindividualpartsofthegenus,andChrist,therefore,cansustainnogenericrelationtous;(b)thattheelectwho were born before Christ were already parts separated from thegenus, and therefore his perfect humanity could not be propagatedthroughtheonenessofthegenustothem;(c)thatallinfants,beingborninto the world corrupt, and being regenerated subsequently to theirseparationfromthecommonnature,cannotreceive,byanyconceivableformofpropagationwithinthegenusorfromthegenusfromwhichtheyare separated, that perfect humanity which, as second Adam, hecommunicatestohisseed.

PresidentEdwardsholdsapositiononthissubjectwhichitisdifficulttoclassify, because it is inconsistent with itself. His doctrine of identity,which, inhisworkonOriginalSin,*heappliestoourrelationtoAdam,allieshim, as far as thequestionof antenatal forfeiturewas concerned,withthehighRealisticviewjustexamined.Accordingtohim,thereisnorealcausalconnectionbetweenthebeing,modeoractionofanycreatedthing inanyonemomentwith itsbeingor condition thenextmoment.Everythingwhichexists is in every successivemoment the result of theperpetual efflux of the vis creatrix of God. There is no real identity,therefore,norealconnectionofanykind,betweenthemanandhisstateand acts any one moment of his life and the same man any other

moment.ItisadirectandpurelysovereignactofGodwhichconstitutesthesamenessthatwecall identitybetweencreatedmomentsofbeinginthemselvesreallydifferent.ItisGod'sbarewillthatmakesanyoneofusidenticalwith,andthereforeresponsiblefor,hisyouthfulself.Byamerevolition, he might make the age of one man identical with, andresponsiblefor,theyouthofanother.Asamatteroffact,hehaspleasedtomakeeachoneofusidenticalwith(literally),andresponsiblefor,theprobationarylifeofAdam.Henceweareliterally,andtothesamedegree,andon the sameground, and through the samemethod, identicalwithAdamandresponsibleforhissin,ashewashimself,andaswearewithrespect to our own acts of disobedience. This is the doctrine of theantecedentandimmediateimputationofAdam'ssintohisposterityputuponthehighestgroundpossible.Theyarepunishedforitfortheprecisereasonthatheispunishedforit—becausetheydiditasmuchastheyeverdoanything,andbecausetheywereheasmuchastheyeverareanything.

Ontheotherhand,Edwardsinconsistentlyteaches,andevidentlymakeshis own thoroughly the doctrine of Placæus and Stapfer, that we arecondemnedwithAdamonlymediately through, and in consequenceof,ourhaving,bynaturalgeneration, corruptnatures likehis.Thecorruptnature is a natural result of his corruption, and the condemnation isconsequent to the corruption.Thecorruption isnot regardedas itself apunishment, andhence, on this side of his doctrine, Edwards does notteach the existence of any judicial ground of forfeiture previous to andconditioningthebirthofmankind.

Havingthus,byaprocessofexhaustion,shownthatalloftheprominentalternatives of the orthodox doctrine on this subject are alikeunsatisfactory and unauthenticated, we have raised a powerfulpresumption in its favour, in spite of the large residuum of difficultywhichconfessedlyremains inthequestionafterall issaid.ThedoctrineoftheReformedChurchisthateveryhumansoulisbornintotheworldunder forfeiture resulting from our just legal responsibility for Adam'saction as our federal head and representative. The several elementsinvolvedinthisdoctrineareasfollows.

1.ByasovereigncreativeactAdamwasconstitutedthenaturalheadandrootofallmankind.

2. According to a principle observed in the case of the angels, and webelieve universal, God created Adamwith a nature positively holy andinclinedtogood,yetfallible,andmadehisfuturecharacteranddestinytodepend upon his obedience for a definite period, called a probation,duringwhichheremained inaconditionof instablemoralequilibrium.Thealternativesplacedbeforehimwere, that ifheobeyed for the termappointed he should be confirmed in moral excellence and renderedinfallibleandblessedforever;and,ontheotherhand,ifhedisobeyed,histrial should be, ipso facto, closed, and he himself morally degraded incharacter andmade an heir of misery for ever. This most natural andreasonabledivineconstitutioniscommonlycalledtheCovenantofWorksortheCovenantofLife.

3. Inmaking thisCovenantwithAdam,andassigninghima favourablestateanddefiniteperiodofprobation,God,actingastheguardianofthewhole human race, and for their benefit, provided for all Adam'sdescendantsthebestconceivableconditionsofmoralprobationforaraceofmoralagentspropagatedthroughananimalnaturesuchasmankind,by appointingAdam their federal head and representative, andmakingtheir permanent character and destiny to depend upon his conductduringhisperiodofpersonaltrial.ThegroundinreasonandrightofthisdivineappointmentofAdamasthefederalheadandrepresentativeofhisdescendants,asfarasmadeknowntous, is(a)theindefeasiblerightofGod sovereignly to order the probation of the subjects of his moralgovernment according to the pleasure of his infinitely wise, righteous,and benevolent will. (b) The evident fact that in the arrangement inquestion,GodasthefaithfulGuardianofhiscreatures,hasorderedtheirprobationundertheverybestconditions—theholyandadultAdaminthevirgin earth being in a condition for passing the trials of a moralprobation farmore favourable than any single infant or anynumber ofinfants developing into childhood could ever be. (c) Adam's naturalrelation to his descendants made him the proper person to representthem.WithoutgoingthelengthofRealism,itappearsprobablethatthedivinelyordainedrepresentativeandsubstitutionaryconstitution,alikeoftheprobationinAdamandtheredemptioninChrist,isconditioneduponthegenericunityofmenasconstitutingaracepropagatedbygeneration.

(d)TheheadshipofthefirstAdamisaninseparablepartofthatinfinitelyglorioussystemwhichculminatesintheheadshipofthesecondAdam.

4. It is involved in this covenant headship that all Adam's descendantswerefederallyembracedinhimandrepresentedbyhim,sothat incaseeither of obedience or of disobedience the corresponding reward orpenaltyisbytheconditionsofthecovenantasjustlyandasreallytheirsasitishis.

5. It plainly follows that Adam's first sin, which, ipso facto, closed hisprobationand theirs, although it be as respectsus apeccatumalienumwhen it is regarded simply as an action, is, notwithstanding, whenconsidered in respect to its guilt or legal responsibility or obligation topunishment,asjustlyandasreallyoursasitishis,sincebythelawofthecovenantheactedasouragent,andweareboundbyhisaction.Inonesense the sin is very plainly his, and not ours. It is ours only as thecovenant makes our moral standing to depend upon his action. Thepersonalcharacterofonemannevercanbetransferredtoanother.But,ontheotherhand,itisplainonemanmaybe,undercertainconditions,justlyandmorally responsible for theactionofanotherman.Now, it isprecisely the reatus, the legal responsibility the federal obligation topunishmentincurredbyAdam'ssin,thatisjustlychargedtoeachofhisdescendants.Inthissenseonlyishissintheirsin.Andinthissenseitisjustasmuchandasreallytheirsashis.

6. Consequently God, by a strictly judicial, not sovereign, act, justlyimputesAdam'sapostatizingacttous:thatis,Godsimplyactsuponthefacts of the case, treating us as legally responsible for Adam's sin, andjustlyobnoxioustoitspenalty.Thisimputationproceedsuponnofiction,makes no confusion betweenAdam's personality and our personalities,betweenAdam'sagencyandouragency,presumesnoabsurdtransferofAdam's personal subjectivemoral character to us, nor confusion of hissubjectivestateswithours;butitsimply(a)recognizesourlegalonenesswithAdam,andconsequentcommonresponsibilitywithhimfortheguiltof his public sin; (b) consequently charges the guilt of his sin to ouraccount; and (c)most righteously treats us according to the demerit ofthatsin.

WhenwesaythatAdam'ssinwasimputedtous,theReformedChurcheshavealwaysunderstoodbyitthattheguiltorlegalobligationtosufferthepenalty of Adam's sin is judicially charged to our account as the legalground of penal treatment. That this is the true sense of the scripturalphrase to impute sin will be found sufficiently proved in the eleventhchapterofthisbook.

7. Hence we are all born into the world under an antecedent justforfeiture of all natural rights, and righteously subject to all the penalconsequencesofapostasyunderthetermsoftheCovenantofWorks;thatis,totheimmediatepenalwithdrawalofthatcommunionandsupportoftheSpiritofGodwhichistheconditionofspirituallifeandblessedness.Connatespiritualdeath,therefore,befalsusasthejustpunishmentofthepublicsinofAdam,thepenalresponsibilityforwhichisoursastrulyasitishis.This imputationof theguiltofAdam's sin tous,or thispracticalregarding and treating us as responsible for it, is (a) judicial, notsovereign, and (b) immediate and antecedent to the corruption of ournature, and to personal sinful actions, notmediately through themnorconsequent upon them. It is to be remembered, however, that theantenatal forfeiture, involving theprivationof thosespiritual influencesuponwhichspiritualandphysicallifedepends,istheonlypenaltywhichcomesuponus,consequenttoAdam'ssin,immediatelyandantecedentlytoourownaction.Othertemporalandeternalpunishmentsaredoubtlessnecessary consequents (unless God mercifully intervenes) of thatwithdrawmentofGod'sSpiritwhichistheimmediatepenaltyofAdam'ssin;nevertheless,theScripturesalwaysrepresenttheseasbeingproperlyandimmediatelythepunishmentofourownpersonalsinsofdispositionand action. This matter is clearly and fully stated, in the sense I haveabove given, by Turretin.* The doctrine of the Reformed Churches hesumsup in the followingunmistakablewords: "Thequestion returns tothese terms, whether the sin of Adam, not any one, but the first sin(apostatizing act), nothis sinful habit (that is, subjective state), buthisact, is imputed to all his posterity proceeding from him by ordinarygeneration, by an imputation not mediate and consequent, butimmediate and antecedent? They with whom we are now holdingcontroversy either deny imputation absolutely or only admit amediateimputation;we,ontheotherhand,withtheorthodox,affirmalikethatan

imputationistobeconceded,andthatitisimmediateandantecedent."

If, then,thequestionbeaskedWHY?onwhatbasisof justicedoesGodbringnew-borncreaturesintoexistenceundersuchpenalconditionsthattotalcorruptionofnature,thesumandrootofallotherevilsineverycaseaccrues? the answer is, that their natural rights were forfeited by thepublicactoftheirfederalrepresentativebeforetheywereborn,andthattheyareinfactastruly,penallyresponsibleforhissinashewashimself.

If, on the other hand, the question be asked HOW inherent moralcorruptionoriginates inanewly-createdsoulandyet theCreatorof thesoulbenottheauthorofthesin,itmustbeconfessed,inreply,thattheScripturesgiveusnodirectsolution,andthatvariousanswershavebeengivenbymenequallyorthodox.

1. Some havemaintained that, according to the great physiological lawthatlikebegetslike,thedepravednatureofAdamhasbeenpropagatedtohisdescendants through their bodies, and that each soulnewly createdpure is morally corrupted the instant it is brought into union with itsbody,inwhichthevitiatingvirusresides.

Thefatalobjectiontothisviewisthatitisinconsistentwiththeessentialnatureofsin.Sinisaqualityoraccidentneitherofelementarymatternorofmaterialorganization.Itcanexistonlyasamoralqualityofarationalspirit.Adisorderedconditionofbodymay,asweallexperience,occasioninanalreadyapostatesoulinordinateanimalpassions,butitcouldnevercause in aholy soul aversion fromGod, pride,malice andotherpurelyspiritualsins.

2.Anotherandbyfarmoreprevalentformoftheextraducetheoryisthatthe souls, as well as the bodies, of children are propagated from theirparents,andthatthusthedepravednatureofAdamhas,byanaturallaw,beenreproducedinhisoffspringinsuccessivegenerations.Jeromeheldto the immediate creation of each soul at the time of conception.Tertullianheldtothisdoctrineofthegenerationofsouls.Augustinewasunwillingtodecidethequestioneitherway.TheLutheranshavegenerallyheld the doctrine of traduction, and the Reformed almost universallyhavemaintainedcreationism.

3.The greatmajority of theReformed theologians, since theymaintainthat each soul is a new and immediate product of creation haveconsequentlyheld(a)thattheonlypenaltyinflictedbyGodonthenew-created soul, as the immediate punishment of Adam's public sin, isprivative,thepenalwithholdingofthosespiritualinfluencesuponwhichthemoralandspirituallifeofthecreaturedepends.(b.)That(ashasbeenalwaysheldfromAugustinetoEdwards)sininitsorigin*isnotapositiveentity concreated in the soul, but a privative vice, resulting necessarilyfrom the creation of the soul into a condition of justly incurredcondemnationandalienation fromGod.Theircommondeclarationwasthat innatecorruptionofnature ispropagatednequepercorpus,nequeper animam, sedper culpam—not through thegeneration, eitherof thebodyorofthemind,butasarighteouspunishmentforcrime.Ursinus,inhis Explication of the Heidelberg Catechism, of which he was theprincipal author, says, "Original sin is communicated, neither throughthe body, nor through the soul, but through the guilt of parents, onaccountofwhichGod,whilehecreatessouls,atthesametimedeprivesthem of that original righteousness and of those gifts which he hadconferredupontheparentsuponthiscondition,thattheyshouldconferthemorforfeitthemfortheirposterityjustastheyretainedorlostthemfor themselves."TheReformeddoctrine therefore is, that corruptionofnature is thepenalconsequentofAdam'ssin,andthat it ispropagated,not on the physiological principles upon which it is the glory of thedisciplesofPlacæusandoftheNewEnglandTheologytorely,butbythepenal deprivation of the new-born soul of those influences of theHolySpirituponwhichitsmorallifedepends.

Webelievethatthedoctrinethusstatedissubstantiatedbythefollowingconsiderations.

1.ThisdoctrineoftheFederalRepresentationofAdam,insteadofaddinganythingeitherofmysteryorofapparentseveritytotheundeniablefactsofGod'sprovidentialdealingwiththehumanrace,is,asIhaveshownbycomparison,morerationalthananyotherexplanationofthesefactseversuggestedbytheingenuityofman.Onthehypothesisthataraceofmoralagents, united to an animal organization and propagated through it insuccessive generations, as man is, was to be created, the conceivable

alternatives are—either (a) that a probationary trial, such as it appearsGod imposes upon all moral agents as the condition of their beingconfirmedinindefeasibleholinessandblessedness,should,intheircase,be absolutely forborne, and they be endowed with the highest graceswithout passing through the conditions required of all other holycreatures;or(b) thateach infantshouldstandhisowntrialseverallyashe struggles through twilight development of his corporeal andmentalnature;or(c)theprobationoftheentireracemustbeheldinthepersonof itsholyadultprogenitor, in the freshvigourofhisperfectmanhood,surroundedwiththepurityofthenew-bornearth.Oftheproprietyofthefirst alternative we are utterly unable to judge. The execution of thesecondalternativewouldhavecertainlyinvolvedthewholeraceinruin.Itis certain, on the other hand, that the third alternative was the oneactually chosenbyGodas the infinitelywiseandbenevolent,aswell asrighteous,Guardianof the interests of all rational spirits created inhislikeness, for thebenefitof therace in thiscaseconcerned. IfAdamhadsucceeded,andwehadreceivedtheexcellentgracesconditionedonthatsuccess, no human being would have ever doubted the surpassingwisdomandjusticeoftheentireconstitution.

2. The biblical record unquestionably represents Adam as sustaining apublic and representative position (a.) He was named ADAM, that is,man,theman,thegenericman.(b.)Everythingthatwascommanded,orthreatened, or promised him related to his descendants asmuch as tohimpersonally. Thus "obedience," "a cursed earth," "liability to death,""painful child-bearing," concern us and our families as much as theyconcerned him. The Protevangelion, or promise of redemption throughtheSeedofthewoman,whichwasgiventoourfirstparentsinimmediateconnectionwith their fall,of course isagospel forusaswellas for theoriginalparties.

3. It is an undeniable matter of fact that the very penalty which GoddenounceduponAdamhasinallitsparticularscomeuponeveryoneofhisdescendants, fromtheirbirthupward.Death,physicalandspiritual,was the penalty denounced and executed on Adam the very day hetransgressed;andinthesamesenseithasbeenexecuteduponeachofhisdescendantsatbirth.IfthesewerepenalinflictionsinthecaseofAdam,

theymustbepenalinflictionsinthecaseofeachoneofhischildren.

4.ThetruthwecontendforisexpresslytaughtinScripture,Rom.5:12–21.Inthispassage,soplaininspiteofallthatmenhavedonetoconfuseit, Paul says that death,which is the penalty of the law, cameupon allmenthroughthesinofoneman.Thisgreatevilcouldnotbeinflictedasapenalty forviolationsof the lawofMoses,because ithadbeen inflictedforagesbeforethelawofMoseswasgiven.Itcouldnotbeinflicteduponindividuals as a penalty incurred by their personal sins, because it isinflicted upon infants, who have never been guilty of personaltransgression.Itfollows,soPaulargues,thatbyoneman'soffencedeathhath reigned, and that by the offence of oneman judgment hath comeupon all men to condemnation. Thus Paul in this passage affirms inprecisetermsthefulldoctrineoftheReformedChurches,towit:(a)thatthe law of death, spiritual and physical, underwhichwe are born, is aconsequent of Adam's public disobedience, and (b) that it is a"judgment,"a"condemnation"—thatis,apenalconsequentofAdam'ssin—seealso1Cor.15:21,22.

5. The apostle proves in the above passage that there is a preciseparallelismbetweentheway inwhichour"condemnation" follows fromthe disobedience of Adam, and in which our "justification" or "beingmade righteous" follows from the obedience of Christ. Rom. 5:18."Therefore, as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men tocondemnation;EVENSObytherighteousnessofonethe freegiftcameupon allmen unto justification of life." If it be, then, the great centralprinciple of the gospel that the merit or rewardableness of Christ'sobedience,graciouslyimputedorsettotheaccountofthebeliever,isthelegalgroundofhisjustification,itfollowsofnecessaryconsequence,iftheapostle's assertion of the parallelism of the two is correct, that thedemerit or rightful obligation to punishment inherent in Adam's sin,imputedorchargedtotheaccountofeachofhisnaturaldescendants,isthe legalgroundoftheirantenatal forfeiture.Thesetwocomplementarydoctrines,thusboundtogetherintheScriptures,standorfalltogether.Itis anhistorical fact thatwhenever theonehasbeendeniedor radicallymisconceived,theotherhassoonfallenwithit,andthusthewholegospelbeensubverted.

6. The federal or representative principle upon which this doctrine isgrounded is conformed to the entire analogy of allGod's dispensationswithmankind.WitnessGod'scovenantswithAdam,Noah,Abraham,andDavid. Witness the constitutions of both the Jewish and ChristianChurches,inwhichtherightsofinfantsarepredeterminedbythestatusof their parents. Hugh Miller draws the following deduction from ascientificreviewoftheworldandofthehistoryofthevariousracesandnationsofitshumaninhabitants."Itisafact,broadandpalpableastheeconomy of nature, that parents do occupy a federal position, and thatthe lapsed progenitors, when cut off from civilization and all externalinterferenceofamissionarycharacter,becomethe foundersofa lapsedrace.The iniquitiesof theparentsarevisitedupon theirchildren. Inallsuch instances it isman left to the freedom of his ownwill that is thedeteriorator of man. The doctrine of the fall, in its purely theologicaspects,isadoctrinethatmustbeapprehendedbyfaith;butitisatleastsomething to find that the analogies of science, instead of runningcounter to it, run in precisely the same line. It is one of the inevitableconsequencesofthatnatureofmanwhichtheCreator'boundfastinfate,'whileheleftfreehiswill,thatthefree-willoftheparentshouldbecomethedestinyofthechild."*

7.Itisaverystrongpresumptioninfavourofthetruthofthisdoctrineinthe form inwhich Ihave stated it above, thatbeyondquestion it is thecommondoctrineoftheRomish,Lutheran,andReformedChurches.Itisaccurately stated in the writings of Bellarmine and Pascal. As to theReformedChurch, thequotationsIhavegivenabove, fromtheFormulaConsensusHelvetica, from theWestminsterConfession andCatechism,and from Ursinus and Turretin, must suffice, in connection with thefollowingfromTheodoreBeza, thegreatpupilandfriendandsuccessorof John Calvin.Writing on Rom. 5:12, he says: "Two things should beconsideredinoriginalsin,namely,guiltandcorruption;which,althoughtheycannotbeseparated,yetoughttobedistinguishedaccurately.ForasAdambythecommissionofsinfirstwasmadeguiltyofthewrathofGod,then, as being guilty, he underwent as the punishment of sin thecorruptionofsoulandbody;soalsohetransmittedtoposterityanaturein the first place guilty, next corrupted. Concerning the propagation ofguilt, the apostle is properly teaching in this passage, in contrast with

which the imputation of the obedience of Christ is set forth. Hence itfollowsthatthatguiltwhichprecedescorruptionisbytheimputationofAdam'sdisobedience,astheremissionofsinsandtheabolitionofguiltisbytheimputationoftheobedienceofChrist.Nothingcanbeplainer."

CHAPTERVIII:CHRISTWAS,INTHESTRICTJEWISHSENSE,ASACRIFICE.THEJEWISHSACRIFICESWERESTRICTLY

PIACULAR,ANDTHEYWERETYPICALOFTHESACRIFICEOFOURLORD

OUR third argument is derived from the fact that the Scripturesconstantly representChrist asdying, and thuseffecting the salvationofhispeopleasaSACRIFICE.Thepointsinvolvedinthisargumentarethefollowing. 1. From the dawn of sacred history the first and everywhereprevailingmode inwhich the true people ofGodworshipped himwithacceptancewasintheuseofbloodysacrifices.FromthefamilyofAdamthis usage prevailed among the inhabitants of all countries and thevotariesofallreligionsuptothetimeofChrist.Andthesesacrificeswereuniversally regarded by those offering them as vicarious sufferings,expiatingsinandpropitiatingGod.2.ThesacrificeswhichGodordainedunder the Mosaic economy were certainly expiatory. 3. They were,moreover, certainly typical of the sacrifice of Christ; that is, Christ, indying, expiated the sins of his own people on precisely the sameprinciplesthattheJewishsacrificesexpiatedtheofferer'sviolationoftheceremoniallaw.

I.ThatsacrificesoriginatedinthefamilyofAdam,thatdowntothetime

ofChristtheycontinuedtheinseparableaccompanimentofallacceptableworship,andthattheywerediffusedamongthepeopleofalllandsandallreligions,aresimplemattersoffactadmittedbyall.Ithas,however,beenmuch disputed whether they originated in an immediate divinerevelation,andwhether theirobservancewasat first imposedbydivineauthority. The early Christian Fathers generally, the learned andorthodox Outram, the great body of Socinian, rationalistic, and BroadChurchwriters,asMauriceandBushnell,haveansweredthisquestioninthe negative; while the Unitarians, Priestly, Dr. John Young, and thegreatbodyoforthodoxdivines,havedecidedaffirmatively.Thisisjustaswe should have expected to find it. The question as to the origin andcharacteroftheprimitivesacrificesisnotnecessarilyboundupwiththefarmore important questions which concern theMosaic sacrifices andthe sacrifice of Christ. Men may take orthodox views as to the divineorigin of sacrifice, while they utterly misconceive its true nature anddesign.Yettruthissoself-consistent inall itsparts, that it iseminentlynaturalforallthosewhobelievethattheMosaicsacrificeswerepiacular,andthattheyweretypicaloftheworkofChrist,tobelievethatthewholesystemofprimitive sacrificeswasordainedbyGod tobe typicalof thatgreatevent.

Atany rate, theirdivineoriginappears tobeestablishedwithsufficientcertainty by the following considerations. (1.) It is inconceivable thateithertheproprietyorprobableutilityofpresentingmaterialgiftstotheinvisible God, and especially of attempting to propitiate God by theslaughter of his irrational creatures, should ever have occurred to thehumanmind as a spontaneous suggestion. Every instinctive sentimentand every presumption of reason must, in the first instance, haveappeared to exclude them. (2.)On thehypothesis thatGod intended tosave men, it is inconceivable that he should have left them withoutinstruction upon a question so vital as that concerned in the meanswherebytheymightapproachintohispresenceandconciliatehisfavour.(3.) It is characteristic of all God's self-revelations, under everydispensation, thathediscovershimself as jealousof anyusebymanofunauthorizedmethodsofworshipor service.Heuniformly insistsuponthisverypointofhissovereignrightofdictatingmethodsofworshipandservice, as well as terms of acceptance. The religion of unfallen men

might,wellenough,proceedonabasisofnaturalreasonandconscienceactingspontaneously.Butsincethesalvationofthesinnermustbeonlyofgrace,thereligionofthesinner,intheprinciplesonwhichitrests,themethodsbywhich it is realized, and the very formswhereby it is to beexpressed,mustoriginatewithGod,andbedictatedbyhimtous.Thus,all manner of "will-worship" and "teaching for doctrines thecommandmentsofmen,"areforbiddenwithequalemphasisinboththeOldandNewTestaments.Matt.15:9;Mark7:7;Isa.29:13;Col.2:23.(4.)Asamatteroffact,theveryfirstrecordedinstanceofacceptableworshipinthefamilyofAdambringsbeforeusbleedingsacrifices,andsealsthememphatically with the divine approbation. They appear in the firstrecordedactofworship.Gen.4:3,4.TheyareemphaticallyapprovedbyGod as soon as they appear. From that time down to the era ofMosesthey continued to be universally the characteristic mode in which thepeopleofGodworshiphimacceptably.Gen.8:20–22;15:9,10;22:2–13;Job.1:5;42:8.

Thattheseprimitivesacrificeswerestrictlypiacularappearstobecertain—(1.) From themanner in which the sacred record presents the directeffect of the sacrifice ofNoah. Immediately after he left the ark "NoahbuildedanaltaruntotheLord,andtookofeverycleanbeast,andofeverycleanfowl,andofferedburnt-offeringsonthealtar.AndtheLordsmelledasavourofrest;*andtheLordsaidinhisheart,Iwillnotagaincursethegroundanymoreforman'ssake,"&c.Gen.8:20–22.(2.)AlsofromwhatissaidoftheoccasionanddesignofthesacrificesofJob:"Hissonswentandfeastedintheirhouses,everyonehisday…Anditwasso,whenthedaysoftheirfeastingweregoneabout,thatJobsentandsanctifiedthem,androseupearly inthemorning,andofferedburnt-offeringsaccordingto the number of them all: for Job said, It may be thatmy sons havesinned,andcursedGod in theirhearts.ThusdidJoball thedays."Job1:4, 5.* (3.) The bleeding sacrifices which prevailed among all races ofmankind, and the votaries of all the ethnic religions from the agespreceding all written history, were certainly regarded as piacular. Thisfact is freely admitted by Bähr and by all the advocates of the MoralTheoryofthesacrificeofChrist.

SuchwritersasJowettandMaurice,YoungandBushnell,rejecttheplain

teachingof theBibleon the subjectof vicariousandpiacular sacrifices,because it outrages their instinctive moral judgments and sentiments.Maurice,Young,andBushnellmaintainthatthesacrificesoftheMosaicinstitute were not piacular—that they were designed to express therepentanceandspiritualaspirationsoftheworshipper,andnottoeffectthe propitiation of God. Jowett, more consistent than they in hisRationalism,ashefarsurpassestheminlearningandgenius,appearstoadmitthatthesacrificesof theOldTestamentwerepiacular,butdeniesthat they are so far forth true types of the sacrifice ofChrist. "HeathenandJewishsacrificesrathershowuswhatthesacrificeofChristwasnotthan what it was."* Again, he affirms that "to state this view of thedoctrineatlength(thatis,theorthodoxview)isbuttotranslatetheNewTestamentintothelanguageoftheOld."†Wepointthemtothefactthatsacrifices,undeniablyvicariousandpiacular,haveprevailedeverywhereamongallnationsfrombeforethedawnofhistorydown,atleast,totheChristian era. They respond by admitting the fact alleged to its utmostextent, but maintain that it is the result and expression of crudecivilization and gross superstition. Michaëlis attributes the universalprevalenceofpiacularsacrificestoasensuscommunis,havingitsgroundinhumannature.Thompsonargues the sameprinciple at length in thesecond of his Bampton Lectures. Bishop Butler says: "By the generalprevalenceofpropitiatorysacrificesover theheathenworld, thisnotionof repentance alone being sufficient to expiate guilt appears to becontrarytothegeneralsenseofmankind."Thisreducesthequestiontoadirect issue between the cultivated moral consciousness of a few"advanced thinkers," self-styled, of the nineteenth century, on the onehand, and on the other, the natural moral instincts of all races andnations. This issue is made not by us, but by the "advanced thinkers"themselves. It appears to be a reductio ad absurdum, and a finishedspecimenofitskind.

II.ThatthesacrificesinstitutedbyGod,undertheMosaiceconomy,werevicariousandexpiatoryissusceptibleofabundantproof.Thedeathofthebleedingsacrificewasapœnavicaria,avicariouspunishment,thelifeofthevictimbeingsubstitutedinthesteadofthelifeoftheofferer.

This is the traditional and orthodox view of both the Jewish and the

ChristianChurches,heldincommonbyallwritersofauthority,fromtheRabbins and the early Fathers down to very recent times. Even amongmodern German writers it is supported by many rationalists, such asGesenius, De Wette, Bruno Bauer, &c., who have no interest in anyrelation the Jewish sacrificesmay have to the Christian atonement, aswellasorthodoxexpositorsofthefirsteminenceforlearningandgenius,asHengstenberg,Tholuck,Lange,Ebrard,Thomasius,KahnisandKurtz.AsIshallshowbelow,thisviewisplainlytaughtbytheinspiredrecordoftheinstitution,observanceandhistoryoftheMosaicsacrifices,andalsobytheentiremassofwhatsoevertraditionsrelatedtothesubjectremainintheworld.

The old Socinian view of sacrifice taught in the last century by theLatitudinarianSykesandtheUnitarianJohnTaylor,ofNorwich,has inthis generation been revived and advocated with great ability by Bähr,and through him disseminated among classes of men not confessedlySocinian,yetunwilling toaccept thehereditary faithof theChurch.Hisopinion was, that the death of the victim, instead of being a vicariouspunishment, was no essential part of the transaction, but merelyincidental as ameans of affording the blood. The essence of thewholesacrificialservice,accordingtoBähr,wasthesprinklingoftheblood,asthebearerofthelife,uponGod'saltar,thussymbolizingthegivingawayof theofferer's life toGod; "inotherwords,his returningbackagain toGod, by repentance and faith and self-dedication, after being separatedfromhimbysin."JowettappearstogiveuptheJewishsacrificesasbeingasentirelyunjustifiableas thoseof theheathen.Hesays, "HeathenandJewish sacrifices rather showuswhat thedeath ofChristwasnot thanwhatitwas.Theyarethedim,vague,rude,almostbarbarousexpressionof that want in human nature which has received satisfaction in himonly.""ThedeathofChristisnotasacrificeintheLeviticalsense.""Notthesacrifice,northesatisfaction,northeransom,butthegreatestmoralact ever done in the world—the act, too, of one in our likeness—is theassurancetousthatGodinChristisreconciledtotheworld."*

Maurice, not being sufficiently advanced to reject with Jowett the OldTestamentsacrificesasbarbarous,mustneedsagreewithBährinmakingthemmere symbolical expressionsof the subjective stateof theofferer,

who presented his victim in place of himself as an expression of "hissense of gratitude, of obligation, of dependence." He admits that theinspired apostle applied the Greek words ἱλασμὸς and ἱλαστήριον toChrist, as sacrificed for us, in the sensewhich thosewords had alwaysborn inclassicalGreek.Yethesays that in itsChristianuse itsuniform"heathensensemustbe,notmodified,butinverted."*Thatis,Paulchosea word which always had meant, and which could only signify to hisreaders, the very opposite of what he intended to say. An admirablecanon of interpretation, to be applied whenever the apostle says theoppositeofwhatMauriceiswillingtobelieve!

Bushnell is essentially in agreementwithMaurice and Bähr.With himthe Jewish sacrifices were the liturgy of the Jewish religion, atransactionalliturgy,expressingtheconfessionofguiltandrepentancebytheworshipperbeforeGodasareconcilingGod.Heholdsthat theonlyeffectofthesacrificeswaslustral."Here,then,isthegrandterminalofallsacrifice; taken as a liturgy, it issues inmaking clean; purges, washes,sprinkles, purifies, sanctifies, carries away pollution; in that senseabsolvestheguilty."

Dr. John Young, of Edinburgh, holds precisely the same view of theMosaic sacrifices. "When a Jew brought his sacrifice to the altar, twodistinct ideaswerepresented tohismind.Ontheonehand,herewasamercifuldivineprovisionforhisanimallife;ontheotherhand,theGodwhohadmadethisprovisionwasherelayingclaimtothereverenceandlove of his heart, and demanding hiswilling return and self-surrender.Everyfreshofferingwasmeanttobeanewreturnandself-surrendertohisGod."

ThistheoryhasbeenfullysiftedandrefutedbyKurtzandFairbairn.Itsonlygroundisamoral(so-called)sentimentwhichrefusestoacceptthedoctrineofexpiationsoplainlyreadbythewholeChurchinthewordsofScripture.Itisutterlywithoutsupport,eitherinthenaturalsenseofthePentateuch,intheNewTestamentapplicationofthelawtothegospel,orin theopinionsofancientJewsorChristians,who livedwhensacrificeswereinhabitualuse.

ThebleedingsacrificesundertheMosaiclawwereofthreekinds;thesin

and trespass-offering, the burnt-offering and the peace-offering. Thepresentation, the imposition of hands and confession of sins, and theslaughtering,were the same inall. "But in the remaining functions, thesprinkling of the blood, the burning, and the sacrificial meal, we findcharacteristicdifferences,inasmuchaseachoneofthesethreestandsoutbyitselfasapeculiarlyemphasizedandprominentfeatureinoneofthethreekindsofsacrifice.Thesprinklingofthebloodwastheculminatingpoint in the sin-offering. In the others, it evidently fell into thebackground,thebloodbeingmerelypouredarounduponthealtar;butinthe sin-offerings the horns of the altar of burnt-offering, in which thewholeworthof thealtarculminated,wereappointedas theobjectuponwhich thebloodwas tobe sprinkled. In somecases even this appearedinsufficient, and the bloodwas taken into theHolyPlace,where itwassprinkled upon the horns of the altar of incense, towards the curtainbeforetheCapporeth,andsometimesevenupontheCapporethitself,intheMostHolyPlace.Intheburnt-offering,עלה,anascensionorgoingup,and ,כליל the whole, on the other hand, the act of burning was theculminatingpoint.Lastly,thesacrificialmealwasthemainpointandrealcharacteristicofthepeace-offering."*Fromthisweobtainabynomeansunimportant insight into thenatureanddistinguishing characteristicofthesacrifices.Therewasconfessionofsinandtheinflictionofdeath,thevicarious penalty, in all alike; but in the case of the sin and trespass-offering, expiation of some special sin, the removal of some specialpenaltyinvolvingexclusionfromthecovenantofgrace,isthegreatthingintended.Inthecaseoftheburnt-offering,atonementwasmadeforsinasaconstanthabitandconditioninamoregeneralsense,andtogetherwiththistherewasanexpressionmadeoftheentireconsecrationofthelifeandsubstanceoftheworshippertohisGod.Inthecaseofthepeace-offering, the characteristic feature was, that after the sin had beenconfessed,imposedandatoned,thefatandricherportionsofthesacrificewereburntupon thealtar,and thusgiven toJehovah,while theoffererand his friends feasted upon the remaining portions. "This was thesymbolofestablishedfriendshipwithGodandnearcommunionwithhimin theblessingsofhiskingdom,andwasassociated in themindsof theworshipperswithfeelingsofpeculiarjoyandgladness."

As it is undeniable that it was the sin and trespass-offering that were

mostspeciallytypicaloftheworkofChrist,andsinceitwasinthesethatthe idea of expiation was most explicitly set forth, it will abundantlysufficeourpurposeifweestablishthetruthofourgeneralpositionwithregard to them. It is,moreover, altogether unnecessary that we shouldcomplicate our investigation by discussing the long-debated and reallyobscure question as to the distinction between the sin-offering and thetrespass-offering.Whateverthatdifferencemayhavebeen,itcansustainno relation to our present discussion. As far as expiating sin andpropitiatingGodbyapœnavicariaisconcerned,"asthesin-offeringis,soisthetrespass-offering;thereisonelawforthem."Lev.7:7.

Ishallattempttomakegoodmyposition, thatthesin-offeringexpiatedsin and propitiated God on the principle of vicarious punishment, bynoticing (a) their occasions; (b) the qualifications and sacrificialdesignations of the victims; (c) the ritual of the sacrifice; (d) theirdeclared effects; (e) the testimony of the inspired prophets, and ofancientheathens,JewsandChristians.

1.Thelawofthesin-offeringisrecordedLev.4–6:13.Fromthisrecorditisplain,(a)thattheoccasionofthesin-offeringwassomespecialsin;(b)that this included moral as well as ceremonial transgressions, lying,stealing, false swearing, licentiousness, &c.; (c) that sins were in thisrespectdividedintotwoclasses—thosewhichadmittedofexpiationandthosewhichdidnot.Sinsofignoranceandinfirmityfell intotheformerclass,andsinscommitted"presumptuously"or"withahighhand"wereembracedinthelatterclass.Thepointtobeobservedis,thatwheneverapriest, or the whole congregation, or a ruler, or one of the commonpeople, became conscious of a sin, the punishment of which, ifunexpiated, would have involved exclusion from the fellowship of thecovenant people, he, or in the case of the whole congregation, theirrepresentativesthepriests,weredirectedtobringthebullockorthegoatandofferitinhisstead.*

2.Thebleedingsacrifices,whichweretosufferdeathintheplaceofmen,were tobeexclusivelyeithersheeporbullocksorgoats,orpigeons inafew cases. These last, in the economy of Jewish life, took the placeoccupied by the domestic fowl among us, and all classes were chosenfrom the highest classes of clean animals, those most immediately

associatedwithman, and therefore of all possible living substitutes forman's life the most nearly human. These were to be selected, eachindividual the most perfect of its kind as to age, health and physicalexcellence.Lev.22:20–27;Ex.22:30;29:28,&c.Thisphysicalperfectionof the animal was symbolical of spiritual perfection in the man, andindicated that only an innocent and pure life could be accepted as asacrificial substitute in the stead of a polluted one; thus typicallyforeshadowing the characteristics of him who was offered as "a lambwithout blemish and without spot." And yet, notwithstanding theceremonial perfection of the selected victim, considered in itself, thecommonname for them, considered as vicarious sacrifices bearing andexpiating another's sins,wereחטאת, sin (Lev. 4:3; 8:20–28), andאשם,guilt(Lev.5:6,16,19,&c.,&c.)Thevictimiscalledsinorguilt,obviouslybecauseitsentirecharacterasasacrificeissummedupinthis,thatitisasubstitute for a sinner, and that its death is the punishment of sin. Inperfect consistency with the type it is declared of the ever-immaculateJesus that he who, considered in himself, knew no sin, was, as ourvicarioussacrifice"madeSINforus."2Cor.5:21.

3. The truth we contend for is made very plain by the ritual of thesacrifice,ortheprescribedceremonies,whichprecededandaccompaniedtheslaughterofthevictims.Thesewere—

(1.)Thelayingonofhands.Thisisprescribedinthecaseofallkindsofbleedingsacrifices,includingtheburntandpeace-offering.Lev.1:4;3:2;4:4–15;16:21;2Chron.29:23.Thisisanaturalandexpressivesymboloftransferfromthepersonimposingtothepersonorthinguponwhichtheyare imposed. Thus it is used to designate a personal substitute orrepresentative. Compare Num. 8:10 and 8:16. Also to communicateofficialcharacterandauthority.Deut.34:9;Acts6:6;1Tim.4:14.Andtocommunicate the virtue which went out from Christ and his apostleswhentheywroughtmiraculouscures.Matt.9:18;Mark6:5;Acts9:12,17.Now the sacrifice had its reason only in the sin of the offerer, and thedispleasure of God with him in consequence. He appeared before Godwithhissacrificeinhishandasasinner.Heuniformlyaccompaniedthelayingonofhandswith theconfessionofsins.Outramquotes fromtherabbinicalwritings the following"Formofdeprecationusedbyasinner

offering a piacular sacrifice, who said with his own mouth, while hishandswere laidupon theheadof thevictim: 'Ibeseech thee,OLord; Ihavesinned,Ihavetrespassed,Ihaverebelled;Ihavedonethisorthat…but now I repent, and let THIS bemy expiation.' " Aaron Ben Chajimsays, "Where there is no confession of sins, there is no imposition ofhands, because imposition of hands belongs to confession of sins."*When the sacrifice had reference to the sin of an individual, the manplacedhisownhandsontheheadof thevictimandconfessed.When ithad reference to the sins of the whole congregation, the elders of thecongregation (Lev. 4:15) laid their hands upon the head of the bullockandconfessedastherepresentativesofthewholebody.Hence,ineithercase,heor theycouldhavetransferredto thevictimnothingmorethantheguiltorobligation topunishment incidental tohisor theirsin.Thistransference is expressly declared to be effected in the case of the sin-offeringforthepeopleonthegreatdayofatonement.Lev.16:7–22.Thetwogoatspresentedatthedoorofthetabernacleareexpresslysaidtobeonevictim;"twokidsofthegoatsforasin-offering,""sothatthesacrificeconsisted of two, merely from the natural impossibility of otherwisegiving a full representation of what was to be done; the one beingdesignedmoreespeciallytoexhibitthemeans,theothertheeffectoftheatonement." That the two kids formbut one sacrifice is plain from theentirereadingof thepassage.Theyarecalledso inverse fifth.TheyarebroughtandpresentedtogethertotheLord.TheLorddecidesbythelotwhichshalldieandwhichshallgointothewilderness.Theonestandsbyandisatonedforbythedyingvictim(seeHebrewofverse10),andthenbearsawaythesinsthusexpiatedintothelandofforgetfulnessforever."AndAaronshall laybothhishandsupontheheadofthelivegoat,andconfessoverhimall the iniquitiesof thechildrenofIsrael,andall theirtransgressionsinalltheirsins,PUTTINGTHEMUPONTHEHEADOFTHEGOAT;…andthegoatshallbearuponhimalltheiriniquitiesuntoalandnotinhabited."*

(2.)Theslayingofthevictim.TheoriginalsentencepronouncedbyGoduponallsin,fromthecommencement,wasdeath.Gen.2:17;3:3,17,19.Theapostledeclaresthattheprincipleabidesforeverthat"thewagesofsin isdeath."Rom.6:23.To this thewholeMosaic lawwasconformed;for "without shedding of blood is no remission."Heb. 9:22.The sinner

having presented his victim, and laying his hands upon its head,confessedandtransferredhissinuponitshead;"itwasacceptedforhim,tomake atonement for him," Lev. 4; and he executed upon it with hisownhandsthepenaltyincurredbythesinshehadtransferred."Forthelifeofthefleshisintheblood;andIhavegivenittoyouuponthealtar,tomake atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh anatonement for thesoul,"Lev.17:11; that is, the lifeorsoulof thevictimatonesforthelifeorsouloftheofferer,havingbeenjudiciallyexecutedasitssubstitute.Hencethealtarofsacrifice,whichwasinaneminentsensethe place where Jehovah met and held intercourse with his guiltychildren,wascalledbyaname(מזבח)whichetymologicallysignifies"theplaceofslaughter;""forthewaytofellowshipwithGodforguiltybeingscouldonlybefoundthroughanavenueofdeath."

(3.) The sprinkling of the blood. All that precedes, the imposition ofhands,theconfessionofsins,andtheinflictionofthevicariouspenaltyofdeath,werecommontoallthebleedingsacrifices.Inthecaseofsinandtrespass-offering,inadditiontothesetheresupervenedthesprinklingoftheblooduponthealtar,andespeciallyuponthehornsormoreexaltedandsacredpartsofthealtar.Lev.4:7,18,25,30,34.Inthecaseofasin-offering in behalf of the highpriest and of thewhole congregation, thebloodwas carriedwithin theHoly Place, and sprinkled before the veil,and smearedupon the altar of incense. Lev. 4:5, and following.On thegreatdayofatonement,whenthemostexactrepresentationtheancientworshipcouldaffordoftheall-perfectatonementofChristwasgiven,thebloodwas taken into theHoly ofHolies itself, and sprinkled upon theCapporeth. This brought the blood, which had thus vicariouslydischarged the penalty incurred by the worshipper, into immediatecontactwithGod.Itsignifiedthatthevicarioussatisfactionwasaccepted,andthatineachcasethesoul-bearingbloodofthevictimavailstocoverfromthejudicialsightofGodthesinsattachedtothesouloftheofferer.

4.TheScripturesdeclarethattheeffectofthesesacrificeswasuniformlyand actually to expiate the guilt of the offender and to propitiate God.NeithertheMoralInfluencenortheGovernmentaltheoryofthesacrificeofChristfindstheleastsupportintheanalogiesofthesacrificeofthelaw.There isnot theslightest indication that thedesignofanysacrificewas

evertoproduceamoralinfluenceuponthetransgressor,ortoplacehiminapositioninwhichtheremissionofthepenaltywasapossibility,ortoexhibitGod'sdeterminationtopunishsin.Thesinandtrespass-offeringwere always offeredwith the single and definite design of securing theactual remission of the penalty. The effect is said to be "to makeatonement for sin." "to reconcile," and the promise always attached is,"AND IT SHALL BE FORGIVEN HIM." Lev. 4:20, 26, 31; 6:30; 8:15;16:10.Forgiveness is the immediateendsoughtandpromised;and thisnecessarily issued in that ceremonial purification which Bushnellmistakenly describes as "the grand terminal of all sacrifices."* But theforgiveness obviously was the condition of the purification, not thepurificationoftheforgiveness.Sin,unexpiated,excludedamanfromthesocietyof thecovenantpeople.Whenexpiatedand forgiven, thepersonwas, ipso facto, cleansed and returned to the full enjoyment of allecclesiasticalprivileges.Aswehaveseenabove, thesesacrifices securedtheremissionofthepenaltiesdenouncedbytheJewishTheocraticState-Church law upon all sins, whethermoral or simply ceremonial, exceptsuch as were committed "with a high hand." As far as this ceremonialState-Church penalty was concerned, these sacrifices effected a realexpiation.Butasfarasthepenaltyattachingtothemorallaw,absolutelyconsidered, was concerned, they were of course only symbolical of theprinciples upon which alone remission could be obtained, and hencetypicaloftheoneall-perfectsacrificeofChrist."Itisnotpossiblethatthebloodofbullsandofgoatsshouldtakeawaysins,"Heb.10:4;thatis,sinviewedabsolutely.But theydidavail to "sanctify to thepurifyingof theflesh."Heb.9:13.Amemberofthetheocraticcommunitybrokethelaw,andincurredthepenaltyatonceoftheceremonialandofthemorallaw.Hepresentsafaultlessvictim,layshishandsuponitshead,confesseshissins,slaysit,givinglifeforlife,andthenthepenaltyisremitted.Thatis,theceremonialpenalty isremitted, ipsofacto,uponthecompletionofaregular sacrifice, and the penalty of the moral law is remitted if theofferer, spiritually discerning the evangelical principles of which thesesacrifices were the symbols, acted faith, however darkly, upon thepromiseofGodrelatingtothatsacrificeofwhichtheywerethetypes.Thesacrificeofadumbanimalwasfullysufficient,whendivinelyappointed,tosatisfy forthe infringementof the law,whenconsideredsimply in itscharacter as a ceremonial; while the law, viewed as an expression of

absoluterighteousness,canevidentlybesatisfiedwithnothingelsethaneitherthefullexecutionofthepenaltyinthepersonofthesinner,orafullequivalentthereforinthepersonofanadequatesubstitute.*

The word habitually used to define the exact nature of the processthrough which the Mosaic sacrifices attained to their constant effect,forgiveness, isכפר, to cover, tomakeexpiation, toatone.Lev.4:20,26,30, 31, 35; 5:6, 10, 13, 18, &c., &c. All admit that the Greek wordἱλάσκεσθαι, and its cognates ἱλασμὸς and ἱλαστήριον, have universallyand from time immemorial, the sense, when construed with God, ofpropitiation,andwhenconstruedwithsinofexpiationinthestrictsense.AndyetitisafactthattheauthorsoftheSeptuagint,threehundredyearsbeforeChrist,whiletheJewishandethnicsacrificeswerestillinconstantuse,habituallytranslatedtheHebrewכפרby theGreek ἱλάσκεσθαι,andtheכפרת (mercy-seat) they translate ἱλαστήριον,propitiatorium,or seatofexpiationandpropitiation.TheSeptuagintwastheversionoftheOldTestamenthabituallyquotedbyChrist andhis apostles. Insteadof everhinting that the inspiredHebrew textwasmisrepresentedby theGreekwordsused as equivalent, they adopt the samewords themselveswhenspeaking of the sacrifice of Christ. Christ is said to have beenmade afaithfulhighpriest"tomakeexpiationfor thesinsof thepeople,"εἰςτὸἱλάσκεσθαιτὰςἁμαρτίαςτοῦλαοῦ,Heb.2:17.SeealsoRom.3:25;1John2:2,and4:10.Seebelow,chaptertwelve.

5. In confirmation of the truth of this interpretation of the Jewishsacrifices, we can cite the unanimous testimony of (a) the inspiredprophets and apostles, and (b) the ancient heathen, (c) Jews, and (d)Christianwriters.Inoppositiontothisancientexternaltestimonytothemeaningofsacrifices,theschoolofBähr,Maurice,Bushnell,Young,&c.,havenotasinglewitnesstocite.

(1.)As to the testimonyof theprophets to thepiacular characterof theMosaicsacrifices,IcitethewitnessofIsaiah53:4,6,10,&c.SpeakingoftheMessiah,theprophetsaysGod"madehissoulanofferingforsin,"asin-offering;andtothisend"laidonhimtheiniquityofusall,"andhencehewaspunishedinourstead;"hewaswoundedforourtransgressions,…and the punishment of our peace was upon him."* As to the apostolictestimony, in part, compare 1 Cor. 5:7, where Christ is said to be

"sacrificed for us," and 1 Pet. 1:18, 19, where it is said that we areredeemedwiththepreciousbloodofChrist,as"alambwithoutblemishandwithoutspot,"withMatt.20:28, "TheSonofMancame togivehislife a ransom for many." "The prominent idea of ransom is that ofpayment—of vicarious substitution—of one thing standing in place ofanother. No figure can so fully convey this idea as one drawn frompurchaseswithmoney.What a source ofmisconception, then,would ithave been thus to yoke the idea of sacrifice to that of vicariousness, iftheseideaswerenotharmonious,butdiscordant?Itsacrificepointedtono substitution,no expiation,butonly to self-surrenderof thepenitentworshipper, could any mode of speaking be devised more likely tomisleadthancallingthesacrificialofferingaransom—aλύτρον—themostpotentsymbolofsubstitutionandexchange."*

(2.)Itwouldbeentirelyaworkofsupererogationforustoencumberourpageswithcitationsfromheathenauthors,provingthattheyuniversallypractised their sacrificial rites andused their sacrificial language in thesense for which we are contending, since no man living contests thepoint.

(3.)ItiscertainlyimportanttoknowtheopinionoftheJewswithrespecttotheirownreligiousrites.Andit isanindisputablefactthatthewholebodyofancientJewishtheologicalliteratureisunanimousinexpoundingtheirnational sacrifices as vicarious andpiacular.ThusRabbiLeviBenGerson, quoted by Outram, says, "The imposition of hands was a tacitdeclaration on the part of every offerer that he removed his sins fromhimselfandtransferredthemtothatanimal."SoalsoIsaacBenArama:"Wheneveranyonesinsthroughignorance,orevenwithknowledge,hetransfershissinsfromhimselfandlaysthemupontheheadofthevictim.Andthis is thedesignof thoseconfessions,—Ihavesinned, Ihavebeenrebellious, I have done perversely,—as appears from the confessions ofthehighpriest,pronouncedoverthebullocksacrificedashissin-offeringonthedayofatonement."RabbiMosesBenNachmansays:"Itwasjustthat his blood be shed and that his body should be burned. But theCreator,ofhismercy,acceptedthisvictimfromhimashissubstituteandransom,thatthebloodoftheanimalmightbeshedinsteadofhisblood;that is, that the life of the animal might be given for his life." Rabbi

Solomon Jarchi says, referring to Lev. 17:11: "The life of every livingcreatureisintheblood:whereforeIhavegivenittomakeanatonementfor your souls: life shall come and atone for life;" andAbenEzra, "Thebloodmakesatonementforthesoul;themeaningislifeinsteadoflife."*

(4.) Outram cites the following testimonies from the early ChristianFathers, anddeclares, that as far ashisknowledgeextended, theywereagreed in understanding that the Jewish sacrifices were vicarious andpiacular."Helaidhishandsupontheheadofthecalf;thatis,helaidthesinsofmankinduponhisownhead: forhe is theheadof thebody, theChurch."‡"Ontheheadofthevictimtheoffererlaidhishands,asitwerehisactions; forhandsare significantofaction;and for theseheofferedthesacrifice."*"Thepriestslaidtheirhands,notuponallvictims,butonthosethatwereofferedforthemselves,andespeciallytheirsin-offerings;but upon others the offerers themselves laid their hands. This was asymbol of the substitution of the victim in the room of the offerer forwhom it was slain."† "An attentive observermay learn this very thing,also, from the law respecting sacrifices, which enjoins every one whooffersasacrificetolayhishandsontheheadofthevictim,andholdingitbythehead,tobringittothepriest,asofferingtheanimalinsteadofhisown head. Wherefore its language respecting every victim is, Let theoffererpresentitbeforetheLord,andlayhishandsupontheheadofhisoffering;…whenceitisconcludedthatthelivesofthevictimsweregiveninsteadofthelivesoftheofferers."

III.Itonlyremainsforus,inthisthirddivisionofourargument,toprovethatthesacrificesofthelawweretypicalofthesacrificeofChrist;thatis,that the principles of vicarious and piacular suffering uponwhich theyproceededareidenticalwiththoseuponwhich,byonesacrificeforsin,hehasforeverperfectedthemthataresanctified.

"Every true type," says Litton, "is necessarily a symbol; that is, itembodies and represents the ideas which find their fulfilment in theantetype; but every symbol is not necessarily a type; a symbol mayterminateinitself,andpointtonothingfuture;itmayrefertosomethingpast.Thedifferencebetweenthetwowillbecomeevidentifweconsiderthat the learned researches of modern times have made it more thanprobable that thereligionsofantiquitywereallsymbolical incharacter,

orsoframedastoconvey,undersensibleimages,theideasonwhichtheywere respectively based; but no one would think of calling the rites ofheathenism types; they were a species of acted hieroglyphics, whichreached the understanding through the senses,—and here their useterminated. A type is a prophetic symbol; and since prophecy is theprerogative of him who sees the end from the beginning, a real type,implying as it does a knowledge of the reality, can only proceed fromGod."

NowweclaimthatitcanbeprovedthattheMosaicsacrificialsystemwasnotonly symbolicalofdivine truth inconnectionwith the thenexistingdispensation, but that it embraced types, or prophetic symbols, of thebetterthingstocomeinthegospel.Thisiscertain,because—

1.ChristhimselfdeclaresthatthewholeOldTestamentScriptureinallitsdivisions, the lawaswellas theprophetsand thePsalms, spokeofhimandhiswork.John1:45;5:39;Luke24:27."Tohimgivealltheprophetswitness,thatthroughhisname,whosoeverbelievethinhimshallreceiveremissionof sins."Andall these things stood in such a relation tohimthat all these things must be fulfilled which were therein writtenconcerninghim.Luke24:44.Andinwhatsensethiswasso,wecantraceinJohn19:36.John,asaneye-witnessofthecrucifixion,declaresthattheexemption of our Lord's person from the mutilation to which the twothieveswithwhomhewascrucifiedweresubjected,"wasdoneTHATtheScriptureshouldbefulfilled,Aboneofhimshallnotbebroken."ButtheScripturessaythisonlyofthePascallamb.Ex.12:46;Num.9:12.AndtheApostle John declares that the saying this of the Pascal lamb wasequivalenttosayingthispropheticallyofChrist.ThatthePascallambwasa sacrifice in the strict expiatory sense is admitted by all moderntheologians. It is expressly called קרבן (Num. 9:7), which everywheremeans something offered to God. It is calledזבח, sacrifice (Ex. 12:27),which is, in the Old Testament, only applied to the bleeding offeringspresented to Jehovah. This the apostle distinctly asserts in the verysentenceinwhichhedeclaresthatChrististheChristianPassover;"ForevenChristourPassoverissacrificed(ἐτύθη)forus."1Cor.5:7.

2. The sacrificial language of theMosaic ritual is constantly applied toChrist.Jowett,nomeanwitness,admitsthattheauthoroftheEpistleto

theHebrewspresentsthe"NewTestamentashiddenintheOld,andtheOldasrevealedintheNew."*ButitisnotconfinedtotheEpistletotheHebrews, but characterizes thewhole Testament. John the Baptist, thelastOldTestament prophet (John 1:29), stood as the index-finger, andspoke as the voice of the whole Old Testament dispensation, when hesaid,"BeholdtheLambofGod,whichtakethawaythesinoftheworld."Paul (Eph. 5:2) witnesseth of Christ that "He gave himself for us anoffering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour," whichcertainlymeansthattheeffectofhissacrificeterminatesuponGod,andnotuponeitherthesinfuloffererorthemoraluniverse."Nowonceintheend of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice ofhimself…havingbeenonceofferedtobearthesinsofmany.""ForevenChristourPassover issacrificed forus."1Cor.5:7. "Wewereredeemedwith the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish andwithoutspot."1Pet.1:19."Thisman,afterhehadofferedonesacrificeforsins, for ever sat down on the right hand ofGod." "By one offering hehathperfectedforeverthemthataresanctified."Heb.10:12,14.

3.TheyareexpresslysaidtohaveprefiguredChristandhiswork.Thesethings, Paul says, "are a shadow of things to come, but the body is ofChrist."Col.2:17.Thelawhad"ashadowofgoodthingstocome,andnotthevery imageof thethings."Heb.10:1.Thetabernacleanditsserviceswere patterns of things in the heavens, and figures—antetypes—of thetruetabernacleintowhichChristhasnowenteredforus.Heb.9:23,24."Forthebodiesofthosebeasts,whosebloodisbroughtintothesanctuaryby thehighpriest for sin, areburnedwithout the camp.WHEREFOREJesusalso,thathemightsanctifythepeoplewithhisownblood,sufferedwithout the gate." Heb. 13:11, 12. In this case, as in the case of theunbroken bones of the Pascal lamb, the antetypemust conform to thetype.Theargumentof theapostle, inHeb.9:13,14,necessarily involvesthe assumption of this identity of principle between the type and theantetype. "For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of anheifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh;HOWMUCHMOREshall thebloodofChrist,who through the eternalSpirit offeredhimselfwithout spot toGod, purge your conscience fromdead works to serve the living God?" If the one can avail to effect thelower end on the same principle, how much more shall the infinitely

betteravailtoeffectthehigherend?Youngattempts,inthefirstplace,toprove that the Mosaic sacrifices signified nothing more than anexpressionof thesubjectiveexercisesof thesinner,and then that thesesacrificesarenottypicalofthegreaterandbettersacrificeofChrist.Butthecorrespondenceswhichtheapostlespointoutcannotbeunderstoodin the vague and general sense which Young prefers. They not onlydeclarethatthereis,insomesense,ananalogybetweenthesacrificesofthe lawandthesacrificeofChrist,but theyaffirmthat the formerwerepatterns, types, shadows, of the latter. They point out, in particular,whereintheanalogyconsistsandwhereinitfails.Theyshowthatitholdsin all the essential particulars of "bearing sin,"Christ being "made sin"(that is,חטאת, sin-offering), of being vicarious, of "giving his life as aransom,"of"redeemingusbyhisblood,"ofexpiatingsin,ofpropitiatingGod,ofsecuringpardon.Matt.20:28;Rom.3:25;2Cor.5:21;Heb.2:17.

4. And lastly, the Scriptures habitually assert, in the plainest andmostdirect terms that language admits of, that Christ accomplishes for themanwhocomestoGodbyhimjustwhatwehaveshownthattheMosaicsacrificesaccomplished for themanwhoapproachedGodby them,andthathe accomplishes it in the samemanner. "He that knewno sinwasmade a sin-offering for us." 2 Cor. 5:21. "Christ redeemed us from thecurseofthelaw,beingmadeacurseforus."Gal.3:13.Hesaysofhimself,"TheSonofMancametogivehislifearansomformany."Matt.20:28;Mark10:45."ThebloodofJesusChrist,hisSon,cleansethfromallsin."1John1:7."Heisthepropitiation(ἱλασμός)foroursins;andnotforoursonly,butalsoforthesinsofthewholeworld."1John2:2."Hereinislove,not thatwe loveGod, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be thepropitiation (ἱλασμός) for our sins." 1 John 4:10. This makingpropitiation, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews declares, Christeffectsasour"HighPriest."Heb.2:17.Paulsays,"Beingjustifiedfreelybyhis grace, through the redemptionwhich is inChrist Jesus:whomGodhath set forth to be a propitiation (ἱλαστήριον), through faith in hisblood." Rom. 3:24, 25. "Much more, then, being now justified by hisblood,weshallbeSAVEDFROMWRATHthroughhim.Forif,whilewewereenemies,wewerereconciledtoGodbythedeathofhisSon,muchmorebeingreconciled,weshallbesavedbyhislife."Rom.5:9,10."OurLordJesusChrist,whogavehimselfforoursins"(περὶἁμαρτιῶν),which

is the very phrase frequently used in the Septuagint to translateחטאת,sin-offering.SeeLev.4and16;Gal.1:3,4."Inwhomwehaveredemptionthroughhisblood, the forgivenessofsins,accordingto therichesofhisgrace."Eph.1:7."Butnow,inChristJesus,ye,whosometimewerefaroff,are made nigh by the blood of Christ." Eph. 2:13. "In whom we haveredemptionthroughhisblood,eventheforgivenessofsins,"and,"Havingmadepeacethroughthebloodofhiscross,byhimtoreconcileallthingsuntohimself."Col. 1:14,20. "Be itknownuntoyou, therefore,menandbrethren, that through thisman (διὰ τούτου) is preached unto you theforgiveness of sins: and by him (ἑν τούτῳ) all that believe are justifiedfromallthings,fromwhichyecouldnotbejustifiedbythelawofMoses."Acts13:38,39.*

We claim that these passages teach the gospel, not in a figure, but indirectterms,tobeunderstoodaccordingtotheordinaryuseoflanguageandforceofwords.AllthatJowett,andthosewhoagreewithhimonthissubject, can say to turn the force of the Scriptures is, that they are"figurative;" that we must take their "inward meaning," because theirliteralmeaningisdishonouringtoGod,andrevoltingtotherefinedmoralsenseofadvancedthinkers.

Thuswehavethewholeheathenworld,theJewishpeople,andtheentireChristian Church, theOld Testament symbols, and theNewTestamenthistorical narratives and didactic statements, all on one side, and theSocinians, Rationalists, Jowett, Maurice, Bushnell and Young on theother.

CHAPTERIX:THEORTHODOXDOCTRINEPROVEDBYTHEFACTTHATCHRIST

EFFECTEDSALVATIONBYACTINGASTHEHIGHPRIESTOFHISPEOPLE

THATourdoctrineas to thenatureofChrist'swork,asabovestated, istrue, we claim is established by our fourth argument, namely, that theScriptures clearly set forth Christ as acting and suffering as the High

Priest of his people. It is essential to the Moral Influence Theory toconsiderChristsolelyasthemediumthroughwhichGodexertsasavingmoral influenceuponman.*Thepointof thecontroversyof theChurchwith the advocates of that theory, as was truly stated by Limborch, is,whetherChrist,byhisdeath,removedobstaclestooursalvationexistingin thenatureofGod, aswell as those existing in thenatureofman. Inopposition to their error, I propose to prove that the characteristicfunctionoftheancientpriest,andespeciallythehighpriest,was,thatherepresentedthepeoplebeforeGod;that,takenfromamongmen,hewasordained toact inbehalfofmen in thosematterswhichhaveabearinguponGod(τὰπρὸςτὸνθεὸν), thathemaybringnear toGodbothgiftsandsacrificesforsin.Heb.5:1.ItisessentialtotheGovernmentalTheorytoassume(a)thattheworkofChrist, in itselfconsidered,accomplishesonlythesalvability,andnottheactualsalvation,ofany,and(b)thatitisgeneral and indefinite in its reference, having respect to no particularindividuals,buttoallsinnersofmankindassuch.Inoppositiontotheirerror, I propose to prove that the ancient priest and high priest (a), inevery instance, sought and obtained remission, not remissibility—reconciliation,notmerely thepossibility of reconciliation—for those forwhomtheyacted;and(b)thathencetheworkofthepriesthadadefinitereference to particular persons, whom he represented, for whom heofferedexpiation,andinwhosebehalfheinterceded.

I. The distinctive character of the priest was, that he was divinelyordainedtoactinbehalfofmeninthosematterswhichhaveabearingonGod.AsthegeneralcharacteroftheprophetwasthatofonequalifiedandauthorizedtospeakforGodtomen,sothegeneralideaofapriestisthatofonequalifiedandauthorizedtotreatinbehalfofmenwithGod.WhenKorah, Dathan and Abiram, and their colleagues, rebelled against theassumption of an exclusive priestly character on the part ofMoses andAaron,onthegroundthatitbelongedtoeverymemberoftheholynationin common,Moses appealed toGod, saying, "Even to-morrow Jehovahwillshowwhoarehis,andwhoisholy;andwillcausehimtocomenearunto him; even himwhom he hath chosenwill he cause to come nearuntohim."Numb.16:5.

Hence a priestwas one—1. Taken from amongmen to represent them.

"Every high priest taken from among men was ordained for men, inthings pertaining to God." Heb. 5:1. Especially did the high priest, inwhomtheentirepriestlycharacterculminated,act inall respectsas theliteralrepresentativeofthewholecongregation.(1.)Heborethenamesofeachtribegravenonhisshouldersandonhisbreast-plateoverhisheart.Vitringa,* quoted by Fairbairn, says, "This high priest represented thewholepeople.AllIsraelwerereckonedasbeinginhim."Ex.28:9–29.(2.)Ifhesinned,itwasregardedasthesinofthewholepeople.Lev.4:3.(3.)He made atonement and offered intercession in behalf of the wholepeople.Heplacedhishandsuponthescape-goatandconfessedthesinsofthewholepeople,andlaidthemupontheheadofthegoat.Lev.16:15–21.

2.HewaschosenbyGodashisspecialelectionandproperty."Jehovahwillshowwhoarehis,andhimwhomhehathchosentocomenearuntohim."Numb.16:5."Nomantakeththishonouruntohimself,buthethatiscalledofGod,aswasAaron."Heb.5:4.

3. Hemust be holy; that is, bothmorally pure and consecrated to theserviceofGod.Hewore,circlinghishead,abandofpuregold,onwhichwasengraved"HOLINESSTOTHELORD."Ex.39:30,31."Theyshallbeholy unto their God, and not profane the name of their God: for theofferingsof Jehovah,madeby fire, and thebreadof theirGod,do theyoffer:thereforetheyshallbeholy."Levit.21:6;Ps.106:16.

4.Thepriest'sgranddistinctionwas,thathehadarighttodrawneartoGod.Hencethecommondesignationofpriestswas"thosewhodrawnearto Jehovah." Ex. 19:22; Numb. 16:5; Ezek. 42:13 and 44:13. Thedistinctivepriestlyactwhichmarkedhisgreatfunctionwastobringnear,translated—הקריב habitually to offer. Lev. 16:6, 9, 11, 20, &c. Everyoffering which it was the office of the priest to bring near to God isdistinctivelycalledקרבן,orthatwhichisbroughtneartoGod,oroffered,—translatedinourversion,oblation,offering,orsacrifice.Lev.2:1,4,5,and27:11,&c.The fat,as themostexcellentpartofeverysacrifice,wasalwaysentirelyburntbythepriestonthealtar,andsosentuptoGodashisportion.Thisisconstantlycalled"God'sfood"or"God'sbread,"whichitwasthepriest'sgrandprerogativetopresenttohim.Lev.3:11;21:6,8,17, 21, 22; 22:25; Ezek. 44:7; Mal. 1:7, 12. This altar, upon which the

priestspresentedtheirofferingstoJehovah,iscalled"God'stable."Mal.1:7, 12; 1Cor. 10:17, 21, andHeb. 13:10.Theofferingswhich itwas thedistinctivedutyof thepriest tobringnearand topresent toGod,whenproperlypresentedarehabituallysaidtobe"asweetsavour,anofferingtotheLord."Ex.29:18,25;Levit.1:9,13,17;Numb.15:7,14,24,&c.,&c.Thedistinctionofthepriestwasthathewastheministerofthesanctuaryortemple.HerehecameanddischargedallhispriestlyfunctionsastherepresentativeofmanandasthefamiliarofGod.Onlythepriestscouldenterdaily into theHolyPlace, andonly thehighpriesthimself onceayear into theMostHoly, in thepresence of theSchekinah—and that inconnectionwiththeexpiatorysacrifices—tosprinklesacrificialbloodonthe altar of incense and on the Capporeth, and to present the incensesymbolicalofprayer.Theconstantbiblicaldesignationof thetemple, towhich all the priest's functions had reference was the "dwelling" or"house" of Jehovah. Ex. 25:8; 29:45, 46; Deut. 23:18; Josh. 9:23, and"tabernacleofthemeeting;"thatis,properlythetentofmeetingbetweenGodandman,whereGod,propitiatedbyblood,mettheChurchthroughtheirrepresentatives,thepriests,whobroughtthepropitiatingbloodintohispresence.

5.Hencethetwograndfunctionsofthepriestwere(a)topropitiatewithbleeding sacrifices, Heb. 5:1–3; and (b) to make intercession for thepeople.ThenatureoftheformerfunctionIhavesufficientlydiscussedinthe last chapter. The symbolical design of the presentation of incensebeforetheLordisveryclearlysetforthinScripturetoberepresentativeof prayer—the prayers of God's people inmass; and in the case of thepriests,therepresentativesofthepeople,intercessoryprayer.Thealtarofincensewasplacedontheoutsideoftheveil,overagainstthemercy-seator propitiatorium. Ex. 30:6. Incense was daily offered by the priestsbefore the veil, behind which God sat enthroned. During the "time ofincense" it was customary for the wholemultitude of the people to beprayingwithout.Luke1:10.Onthegreatdayofatonementitwascarriedwithintheveilbythehighpriest,"thatthecloudoftheincensemaycoverthemercy-seatthatisuponthetestimony,thathedienot."Lev.16:13;Ps.141:2;Rev.5:8and8:3,4.All thisprovesbeyondanyquestion that thepriest,astherepresentativeofthepeople,astheministerofGod'shouse,havingauthoritytocomenearandtobringnear,topresentGod'sfoodon

histable,andtopresenttoJehovahsacrifices,affordingtoGodanodourofasweetsmell,—that inthiscapacity thepriestwas forsinfulmentheonly medium of acceptable approach to God. The priest's workterminatedonGod, andmade return toGodobjectivelypossible to thesinner.TheMoralInfluenceTheorymakesChrist'sworkterminateonthesinner, causing the sinner to be subjectivelydisposed to return toGod.ButhereintheNewTestamentPriestthoroughlycorrespondstotheOldTestamenttype.Jesustestifiesofhimself,"IamtheWAY,thetruthandthelife:NOMANCOMETHTOTHEFATHERBUTBYME."

II.Theworkoftheancientpriestsecuredtheactualandcertainremissionofthesinsofallforwhomheacted,anditboreadefinitereferencetothepersonsofallthosewhomherepresented,andofnoneothers.

1.Thepriest isnever inone single instance represented inScriptureasoffering a sacrifice, the immediate design or effect of which was toproduce a moral effect upon the transgressor, or to place him in apositioninwhichremissionisapossibility,subjecttootherconditions,ortoexhibitGod'sdeterminationtopunishsin.Theprofessedanduniformdesignandeffectofthepriest'sworkwastosecuretheremission,andnottheremissibility,of thepenaltyduethesinof thepersonorpersonsforwhom he acted. When an Israelite sinned, he went to the priest, whopresented a sin-offering in his stead—life for life—and the immediateeffect was forgiveness, remission of the penalty due. The constantpromiseattachedtothecommandtosacrificeis,"anditshallbeforgivenhim." Lev. 4:20, 26, 31, &c., &c. The sacrifice, and not something elsefollowingthesacrifice,ipsofacto,absolved.

2. The Jewish high priest offered intercession for precisely the samepersons—for all of them, and for none others—for whom he hadpreviouslymadeexpiationHeborethenamesofthetribesofIsraeluponhis breast.He confessed the sins of the entire congregation, andmadeatonement for them with the goats of the sin-offering. He appearedbeforeGod,within theveil, inbehalfofall thecongregation.Theentirework of the priest was one work. To speak the language of Christiantheology,theofficewhichtheydischarged,bothintheimpetrationandinthe application of benefits, had respect to precisely the same persons.They sacrificed for, they interceded for, theyblessedprecisely the same

persons,andnoneothers.Numb.6:22–27.

III. Christ was a real, and not merely a metaphorical priest, and hispriesthoodwas,astoitsessentialcharacteristics,shadowedforthbythepriestsoftheMosaiceconomy.

1.TheentireEpistletotheHebrewsisaninspiredwitnesstothefactthattheLeviticalpriestsweretypesofChrist,andthatheactedastheliteralHighPriestofhispeople.InthisshortletterheiscalledPriestsixtimesandHighPriesttwelvetimes.Oftheearthlytabernacleitisdeclaredthatit "stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings and carnalordinances, imposed on themuntil the time of reformation. But ChristbeingcomeaHighPriestofgoodthingstocomebyagreaterandmoreperfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of thisbuilding;neitherbythebloodofgoatsandcalves,butbyhisownblood,he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternalredemptionforus…ForChristisnotenteredintotheholyplacesmadewithhands,whicharethefiguresofthetrue,butintoheavenitself,nowtoappearinthepresenceofGodforus…Forthelawhavingashadowofgoodthingstocome,andnottheveryimageofthethings,cannever,withthosesacrifices,makethecomersthereuntoperfect…Butthisman,afterthathehadofferedonesacrifice forsins, foreversatdownontherighthandofGod…Forbyoneofferinghehathperfectedforeverthemthataresanctified."Heb.9:10–24,and10:1–14.

2. His work of propitiation, therefore, must have been real and notmetaphorical, because it is declared to be the substance of which theservicesoftheLeviticalpriestswerethe"shadows,""figures,"or"types."Butshadowsarecastbyliteralsubstances,notbymetaphors;andatypeor image necessarily implies real characters and attributes which itrepresents.

3.Thisisrenderedcertainfromthefollowingfacts.(1.)Hewasexpresslydeclared to be a priest both in the Old Testament and in the New."Jehovahhathsworn,andwillnotrepent,Thouartapriestforeverafterthe order of Melchizedek." Ps. 110:4, and Heb. 5:6; 6:20. Of the manwhosenameistheBRANCH,itissaidthatheshallbe"apriestuponhisthrone."Zech.6:13. (2.)TheNewTestament accountofhispersonand

characterascribesalltheliteralcharacteristicsofarealpriesttohim.(a)Hewastakenfromamongmentorepresentthem.CompareHeb.5:1,2,with Heb. 2:14–18, and 4:15. "Forasmuch then as the children arepartakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of thesame…Whereforeinallthingsitbehoovedhimtobemadelikeuntohisbrethren; that hemight be amerciful and faithful highpriest in thingsπρὸςτὸνθὲον,tomakereconciliationforthesinsofhispeople."(b)HewaschosenbyGod tohisoffice.Heb.5:4–6. (c)Hewasperfectlyholy.Luke 1:35; Heb. 7:26. (d) He possessed beyond all others the right ofnearestaccesstotheFather,andthegreatestinfluencewithhim."Icameforth from the Father, and am come into the world; again I leave theworld, and go to the Father."He said to the Father, "I knew that thouhearestmealways.""If thebloodofbullsandofgoatssanctifiethtothepurifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, whothroughtheeternalSpiritofferedhimselfwithoutspot toGod,"avail tothesalvationofoursouls?"ForChristhasnotenteredintotheholyplacesmadewithhands,…butintoheavenitself,nowtoappearinthepresenceofGodforus(ὑπὲρἡμῶν).John16:28;11:42;Heb.1:3;9:11–14,24.(3.)Andfinally,boththeOldandtheNewTestamentsdeclarethatheliterallydischargedthefunctionsofapriest.Theseare(a)expiation.Is.53:10,12.DanieldeclaredthataftersuchatimetheMessiah"shouldbecutoff,butnot for himself," and that he would make "an end of sins andreconciliation for iniquity."Dan.9:24–26;Eph.5:2;Heb.9:26;10:12;1John2:2.*(b)Intercession."Whoishethatcondemneth?ItisChristthatdied,yearatherthatisrisenagain,whoisevenattherighthandofGod,whoalsomakethintercessionforus."Rom.8:34;Heb.7:25;1John2:1.

4.Lastly,wemaintainthatthepriesthoodofChristwasarealandliteralpriesthood,becausethewholehistoryprovesthattheelaboratesystemofLeviticaltypes,beingimagesorshadowsofhiswork,werepreparatorytohim, and found their fulfilment in him. Thus, for example, the apostleJohndeclared that the fact that the soldiers didnot break the limbs ofJesus,astheyhaddonethoseofthetwothieves,wasinfulfilmentofthelawwithregard to thePascal lamb.John19:36;Ex.12:46;Numb.9:12.The instantofChrist'sdeath theveilof the temple,whichhad fromthebeginning marked the line between the priests, bringing near theofferings, and the unapproachable Jehovah, dwelling between the

cherubim,"wasrentintwainfromtoptobottom."Matt.27:50,51.Thiswastruenotonlyofeachtypeorpropheticsymbol indetail,butalsooftheentiresystemasawhole.Itisagrandhistoricalfactthattheancienttemple, its ritual services, and its ministers and their functions,prefigured and prepared theway for the advent andwork of Christ fornearly two thousand years. It is also a grand historical fact that thepriestlyworkofChristimmediatelyanddefinitelysupersededtheworkoftheLeviticalpriesthood.ThesacrificeofChristmadetheLeviticalpriest,ipsofacto,functusofficio.

Henceweargue, since theancienthighpriestwasa typeofChrist, andsincehewasaliteralandnotametaphoricalHighPriest,thatitcertainlyfollows—(1.) That since "Christ is the one Mediator between God andman"inhischaracterofHighPriest(compare1Tim.2:1,withHeb.9:11–15),hecannotbeprimarily themediumofdivine influencesuponmen,but,onthecontrary,themediatingperson,propitiatingGodinbehalfofmen,actinginbehalfofmeninthosethingswhichhaveabearinguponGod. (2.) It follows that Christ must have been in a strict sense theRepresentativeof those forwhosebenefitheacted. (3.)That thedesignandeffectofChrist'spiacularsacrificeofhimselfastheHighPriestofhispeoplecouldnothavebeentobringallmenintoasalvablecondition,inwhichtheremissionoftheirsinsispossible;buttheymusthavebeentosecure with certainty the actual remission of the sins of all those forwhomhedied.And(4)itfollowsthatChristmustmakeintercessionforall those for whom he made expiation. But (a) Christ's intercession isalways efficacious. It is offered from a throne at the right hand of hisFather.His formula of intercession is "Father, Iwill."His testimony isthatthe"Fatherhearethhimalways."And(b)heintercedesonlyforhis"ownpeople."John17:9."IpraynotfortheWORLD,butforthemwhichTHOUHASTGIVENME."

CHAPTERX:CHRIST'SSUFFERINGSWERESTRICTLYANDDEFINITELYVICARIOUS

I PRESENT, asmy fifth argument, that large class of ScriptureswhichteachthatChrist'ssufferingswerevicarious; that is, thathesuffered, inthestrict senseof theword,as theSubstituteofhispeople—notmerelyfortheiradvantage,butstrictlyintheirroomandstead.

Bushnellhaslatelywrittenaremarkablework,thelogicofwhichmaybejudged of from the relation sustained by its title to its doctrine anddesign.Itisentitled"VicariousSacrifice,"anditsdesignistoprovethatthesufferingsofChristwerenotvicarious,butsimplyphilanthropic—insympathy withmen and for their benefit. "The true conception is thatChrist, in what is called his vicarious sacrifice, simply engages, at theexpenseofgreatsuffering,andevenofdeathitself,tobringusoutofoursins themselves,andsooutof theirpenalties;beinghimselfprofoundlyidentifiedwith us in our fallen state, and burdened in feelingwith ourevils." … "Love is a principle essentially vicarious in its own nature,identifying the subjectwith others, so as to suffer their adversities andpains, and taking on itself the burden of their evils." … "Motherhood,friendship, patriotism, are all vicarious." … "The eternal Father beforeChrist,andtheHolySpiritcomingafter,andthegoodangelsbothbeforeandafter,allalikehavebornetheburdens,struggledinthepainsoftheirvicariousfeelingformen;andthen,atlast,nowChristianitycomesintoits issue, inbegettinginusthesamevicariouslovethatreignsinalltheglorifiedandgoodmindsoftheheavenlykingdom."…"WhatwecallthevicarioussacrificeofChristisnothingstrangeasregardstheprincipleofit—nosuperlative,unexampledandthereforeunintelligiblegrace.Itonlydoesandsuffers,andcomes intosubstitution for, justwhatanyandalllovewill,accordingtoitsdegree."*

Thus,theonlydistinctionbetweentherelationsustainedbythesacrificeof Christ to our salvation, and that sustained by the sympathies andsufferingsofourmothersandpastors,isonenotatallofkind,butsolelyofdegree.ThesufferingsofChristonthecrosssustainpreciselythesamerelation to our sins as do the prayers and tears of ourmothers as theyintercede for our salvation. Angels, the Father himself, and the HolyGhost,allarewoundedforourtransgressions,andsuffer,thejustfortheunjust, and give their lives ransoms for many in the same sense thatChristdid,andtothesameeffect—onlyastheyseverallydifferindegree.

Nowitstandstoreasonthat,ascertainlyaspantheismisatheism,doesthis generalizing of vicarious suffering, which of right is the sole,inalienableandgloriousfunctionofthe"oneMediatorbetweenGodandman," amount only to a direct and absolute denial of the doctrine ofvicarious sacrifice, and to the affirmation that the sufferings of Christweremereincidentalconcomitantsofhisphilanthropicinterpositionsinman's behalf.We disprove this denial of the vicarious character of thesufferings of Christ by proving that the Scriptures assert inmanywaysthattheyarevicarious.

Thereareseveralformsofexpressionwhichessentiallypresentthesamegreat principles, but with variations. His sufferings are said to bevicarious.He himself is said to have been the Substitute of his people,and aRansom for them, that is, in their stead.He is also said to havebeentheirRepresentativebeforeGod,andtheoneMediatorbetweenGodandman.Wehavebeforeseen thatChristwasaccuratelyprefiguredbythebleedingsacrificeuponthealtar,andbythehighpriestwhobroughtthebloodneartoGodwithintheveil.Hewasinlikemannerprefigured,atthesametime,bytheslaingoatuponthealtar,andbythelivinggoatcarrying away the expiated sins of the people into the wilderness. HisofficeasMediator includedthe functionsatonceofProphet,PriestandKing, and yet not one of his personal types embraced, in one person,morethantwoofthese,asDavidandEzra.Thereasonforthis,ofcourse,lay in the fact that the typewas finiteand transient,while theantetypewas infinite and eternal.Hewas at onceGod, and priest, and bleedingsacrifice,deadandaliveagain forevermore,offererandoffering.Whenwesay,therefore,thatourblessedLordis,inthestrictsenseoftheword,our Substitute or our Ransom, we do not mean that for any singlemoment these relations exhaust all the relations borne or functionsdischargedbyhis infinite person.At the very samemoment he isGod,whose justice demands propitiation; and Priest, offering himself asacrifice; and the sacrifice, offered to satisfy that justice. Let it bedistinctly understood, then, that when we say that Christ was theSubstituteofhispeople,andhissufferings,inthestrictsenseoftheword,vicarious, we affirm this to be true of him viewed in his function as asacrifice.WhenwesaythatheistheRepresentative,weaffirmthistobetrue of him as the second Adam or federal Head, undertaking and

dischargingall theobligationsof thebroken law inourstead.Whenwesay he is our Mediator, we affirm that to be true of him as our HighPriest,asheisordainedformaninthethingspertainingtoGod(τὰπρὸςτὸνθεὸν).

Theplaceweoccupiedwas"underthe law."Wewereplacedunder itatthecreation,andperfectobediencemadetheconditionofourwell-being.ByourfallinAdamwebecameatonceincapableofobeyingthedemandsofthelawandsubjecttoitsunrelaxablepenalty.Thelawremainsoverus,therefore,asaninexorabletaskmaster,demandingtheimpossible,andasthe organ of immutable justice, demanding our death. Christ, being adivine Person,was of course himself the norm and fountain of all law,andincapableofbeingsubjectedtoanypersonalconditionsoflife;yet,astheTheanthropicMediatorinbehalfofhiselect,he"wasmadeunderthelaw," that is, transferred to that position, "that hemight redeem themthatareunderthelaw."Gal.4:4,5.Theplacehetook,therefore,wasourlaw-place. In taking our law-place he necessarily assumed our legalresponsibilities; for example, obedience as a condition of life, andsuffering as a penal consequent of disobedience. And he did this "toredeemthemthatareunderthelaw;"thatis,allhedidinourplacewasforoursake.

WeacceptfullyBarnes'sdefinitionofasubstitute.*"Theideais,thatthepersonsubstitutedistodoorsufferthesamethingwhichthepersonforwhomheissubstitutedwouldhavedone."Thisisafairstatementofthetruedoctrineofsubstitution,whichnecessarilyinvolvesthetruedoctrineoftheAtonement.TheadvocatesoftheGovernmentalTheoryareabletoadmitthatChristdiedasourSubstituteonlyintheloosesenseofhavingdiedforoursakes.Ontheotherhand,wemaintain,asis impliedintheabovedefinition, thatChrist sufferedasourSubstitute in the strict andproper sense of having suffered in ourplace or stead.The truth of thispositionisexpresslyaffirmedinScriptureaswellasindirectlyinvolvedinmanyrelateddoctrines.

1.Wesaw,underaprevioushead,thatintheJewishsacrificesthevictimwas in themost literal sense conceivable substituted for the offerer tobearthepenaltyduehim,andthustodischargehisobligationstothelaw.Reconciliation was effected through propitiation, propitiation through

expiation, and expiation through the substitution of life for life. Christsufferedasasacrifice,andhencewassubstitutedinasacrificialsense.

2.Theprepositionὑπὲρwith the genitive, generally thoughnot always,carrieswithittheideaofstrictsubstitution.Caiaphassaid(John11:50,)"Itisexpedientforus,thatonemanshoulddiefor(ὑπὲρ)thepeople,andthatthewholenationperishnot;"thatis,thatoneshoulddieintheplaceofthenation—thatis,insteadoftheirdeath.Paul(2Cor.5:20)says:"Weprayyou(ὑπὲρΧριστοῦ)inChrist'sstead,beyereconciledtoGod;"thatis,we do in Christ's placewhat hewould do in person if present. PaulwritestoPhilemonthathesendsbacktohimOnesimus,"whomIwouldhave retained with me, that in thy stead (ὑπὲρ σοῦ) he might haveministereduntomeinthebondsofthegospel."Philemon13.Thesameconstruction is habitually used to set forth the nature of Christ'ssubstitutionforus."Wethusjudgethatifonediedforall(ὑπὲρπάντων),then were all dead." 2 Cor. 5:14. "For he hathmade him to be sin for(ὑπὲρ)usthatknewnosin."2Cor.5:21."Christhathredeemedusfromthecurseofthelaw,beingmadeacursefor(ὑπὲρ)us."Gal.3:13."ThatbythegraceofGodheshouldtastedeathfor(ὑπὲρ)everyman."Heb.2:9."ForChristhathoncesufferedforsins,thejustfor(ὑπὲρ)theunjust,thathemightbringustoGod."1Pet.3:18.

3.TheprepositionἀντὶexpressesmorepreciselythananyotherwordintheGreeklanguagetheexactideaofsubstitutioninthestrictestsenseoftheword.Thisistheradicalanddefiniteusageofthepreposition.*

Thusitissaid(Matt.2:22),"ArchelausdidreigninJudeaintheroomof(ἀντί) his fatherHerod." Again, (Matt. 5:38) "An eye for (ἀντὶ) an eye,andatoothfor(ἀντὶ)atooth."AndwhenthiswordisusedtoexpresstherelationofChristtothoseinwhosebehalfheacted,itssenseisrendered,if possible, more precise and emphatic by association with the wordλύτρον,redemption-price.Thus(Matt.20:28),"TheSonofMancametogive his life a ransom for many (λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν). The same isrepeated in Mark 10:45; and in 1 Tim. 2:6. Paul, after his manner,combinesinonemostemphaticformula,theforceofallthethreewordsmost exactly expressing substitution, "who gave himself a ransom(ἀντίλυτρον)for(ὑπὲρ)all;"thatis,gavehimselftobeasubstitutionaryransomintheplaceofall.IftheHolyGhostdidintendustounderstand

thatChristwasstrictlysubstitutedinthelaw-placeofhispeople,hecouldhaveusedno languagemoreexactlyadapted toexpresshismeaning. Ifthis were not his meaning, we may well despair of arriving at theunderstanding of hismeaning on any subject through the study of hiswordsinanydepartmentofScripture.

When the purpose is to express the relation which the death of Christsustains not to the persons of his people, but to their sins, theprepositions used are περὶ and ὑπὲρ, with the genitive. Robinson saysthatπερὶἁμαρτίας,inthisconnection,signifies"onaccountofsin,orforsin;thatis,fordoingawayorexpiatingsin."Rom.8:3;Heb.10:18,26;1Pet.3:18; 1John2:2,and4:10.The sameauthority rendersὑπὲρwhenconstruedwithἁμαρτιῶν,asindicatingthe"ground,motive,oroccasionoftheaction."1Cor.15:3.SeeHeb.5:1–3,and7:27.ThisusagemaygivenoadditionalforcetotheargumentprovingthatChristisourSubstitutein a literal sense, which I have presented above, but it abundantlydisproves themoral view of the atonement in any form it can assume.Christdiedfor,becauseof,oursins.Thisnaturallysuggests,andhas,asamatter of fact, always suggested to the greatmajority ofmen, that theimmediate reasonofhis dyingwas the removal of sin;not that our sinwastheremoteoccasionwhichrenderedhisdyingproper.

TheadvocatesoftheGovernmentalTheorymaintainthatChristdidnotsuffer the true penalty of the law; that is, he did not suffer what theywould have done; that is, that hewas their Substitute,while he lackedthatwhichisessential tothe ideaofasubstitute.It is true,asIshowedabove, that the person upon whom the penalty is to be inflicted beingchanged—onedivinePersonbeingsubstitutedformanyhumanpersons—thelawitself,onprinciplesofessentialjustice,spontaneouslyadjuststhequality of the sufferings constituting the penalty to the quality of thevictim. Sinners being the victims, the penalty includes remorse andeternal death. Christ being the substituted victim, remorse and eternaldeath, ipsofacto,ceasetobethepenalty,andhe,standinginourplace,sufferspreciselytheverypenaltyofthelawinourstead,thatis,allthatthelawinrigourofjusticedemandsontheaccountofoursins,whenthataccount is settled in his person. In every substitution theremust be aconstantaswellasavariablequantity.Asubstituteisnotadifferentman

inadifferentplace,butadifferentmaninthesameplace.

CHAPTERXI:THEORTHODOXDOCTRINEPROVEDFROMTHEFACTTHATTHE

SCRIPTURESDECLARETHATOURSINSWERELAIDUPONCHRIST

OUR doctrine is explicitly and emphatically taught in a large class ofpassageswhichassertthatoursinswerelaiduponChrist—thattheywerechargedtohisaccount,andmadehisinsuchasensethattheywerethelegalcauseofhissufferingthepenaltyduetothem."TheLordhathlaidon him the iniquity of us all." Is. 53:6. "He bare the sin of many." Is.53:12."Forhehathmadehimtobesinforus,whoknewnosin,thatwemightbemadetherighteousnessofGodinhim."2Cor.5:21."Christhathredeemedusfromthecurseofthelaw,beingmadeacurseforus."Gal.3:13. "SoChristwasonceoffered tobear the sinsofmany."Heb.9:28."Whohisownselfbareoursinsinhisownbodyonthetree."1Pet.2:24.

It is claimed that these expressions cannot possibly be interpretedliterally; that it cannot be true that Christ in any literal sense wastransformedintosin;thattheall-perfectSonofGodcouldnothavebeeninanynaturalsenseofthewordasinner.Thosewhorejecttheorthodoxdoctrineof satisfactionhence illogicallyconclude that since these termsare not to be interpreted literally, they have no definite and certainlyascertainablemeaning at all, butmaybe accommodated to any viewofthe atonement which we have reason on other grounds to prefer. Inoppositiontothis,wemaintainthattheusageofScripturewithrespecttothephrases"sin,""tobearsin,"or"iniquity,""toimpute"or"tolayupon"one "sin" or "iniquity," is uniform, and that their sense is bothdefiniteandcertainlyascertainable;andthatthemeaningofthepassagesabovequoted,wheninterpretedinthelightofthisusage,isunmistakablyclearandconsistentonlywiththedoctrinethatoursinswere,instrictrigourof

justice,laiduponandpunishedinthepersonofChrist.

1.Thewordsin ishabituallyused inScripture toset forthmoralevil inthreeaspectsorrelations.(1.)Sinconsideredastoitsformalnature,thatis, as transgression of God's law. 1 John 3:4. (2.) Sin considered as amoral quality inherent in the soul of the agent—as pollution—macula.Rom.6:11–13. (3.) Sin consideredwith respect to its legal obligation topunishment—as guilt—reatus. In this last sense it is used in all thosepassages which speak of "bearing sin," of "laying on iniquities," of"imputing sin,"&c. In this sense theHebrewwords for sin (חטאת) andguilt (אשם) were used to designate the sacrifices, which were made tosuffervicariouslythepenaltyduetheritualtransgressionsoftheofferer.In like manner Christ is said to be made sin—that is, according toconstantusage,asin-offering—becauseheisthesacrificewhovolunteersto suffer vicariously the penalty consequent upon our transgressions ofthemorallaw.

2.Thephraseto"imputesin,"or"righteousness,"initsscripturalusagesignifiessimplytosettoone'saccount,tolaytoone'schargeorcreditasagroundof legalprocess.Thethingimputedmaybelongtothepersontowhomit is imputedoriginally. In thatcase it is imputed in thesenseofbeing simply charged to him, made the ground of a legal indictmentpreparatory to judicial process. Or the thing imputed may not beoriginally his, but may be made his by the imputation, because of thelegal connection subsisting between the person to whom the thingoriginallybelongedandhimtowhomitisimputed.Thus,nottoimputesintothedoerofitisofcoursenottochargetheguiltofhisownsinuponhimasagroundofpunishment.Toimputerighteousnesswithoutworkscan only mean to credit a believer with the rewardableness of arighteousnesswhichdidnotoriginatewithhimself.Rom.4:4–8.GodinChristnotimputingtheirtrespassesuntohispeople,is,ofcourse,GodforChrist's sake not charging their trespasses to them as a ground ofpunishment.2Cor.5:19.Christmustbemadesinforusinpreciselythesame sense that we aremade the righteousness of God in him. 2 Cor.5:21. But, as will be shown below, we are justified or pronouncedrighteous in Christ forensically, as amatter of legal relation, notmadeinherentlyrighteousbytheinfusionofgrace.Themaculaorpollutionof

sinmightpossiblybetransmittedbygeneration.Otherwise itmusteverremainthe inalienablepersonalqualityof the individualsinner. It isanabsurdity, for which no class of Reformed theologians have ever beenresponsible, to represent personal character, either good or bad, astransferable fromoneperson to another by imputation.All that canbeimputed from person to person is the guilt or legal obligation topunishmentofanysin,andthatonlyinthosecasesinwhichthepersonto whom it is imputed has become in some way or other justlyresponsiblefortheactionofthepersontheguiltofwhosesinisimputed.

Thisusageoftheword"impute"isnotacreationof"artificialtheology,"as is asserted by Dr. Young and by all those who maintain either the"Moral"orthe"Governmental"theoryoftheAtonement.Thisisevident,because (1) this sense is embraced in the classical usage of the wordλογίζομαι. Its primary sense is to count, reckon.Then,when construedwithapersoninthedativeandathingintheaccusative,itsignifiestosetdownthatthingtotheaccountof thatperson,andis thusequivalenttothe Latin term imputare.* Ainsworth defines imputare—"to ascribe, tocharge; to lay theblameor faultonanyone."Suidas'Lexicon—"λογίζω,reputo;etλογίσομαι,computabo;etλογιοῦμαι,numerabo,computabo;etλογῶ,existimo,utillud:etimputatumestipsiinjustitiam."

(2.) The same is true of the usage of the Hebrew חשב in the OldTestament. The daughters of Laban complained (Gen. 31:15) that theirfather "counted" them strangers—that is, regarded and treated themasstrangers. "If any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings beeatenatallonthe thirdday, itshallnotbeaccepted,neithershall itbeimputed unto him that offereth it; it shall be an abomination, and thesoulthateatethofitshallbearhisiniquity."Lev.7:18.Thesacrificewasofferedasamatteroffact,butwasnotsettothecreditoftheoffererasacceptable or effective. The heave-offering of the Levites was to be"reckoned as though itwere the cornof the threshing-floor, and as thefulness of the wine-press." Numb. 18:27, 30. That Phineas slew theoffending Israelite at Shittim "was counted unto him for righteousnessuntoallgenerationsforevermore."Ps.106:31.

(3.)ThesameistruewithregardtotheNewTestamentusageofthewordλογίζομαι.Christ, referring to Isa.53:12, said: "For I sayuntoyou, that

thisthatiswrittenmustyetbeaccomplishedinme,Andhewasreckonedamong the transgressors."Luke22:37. "Therefore if theuncircumcisionkeep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision becounted for circumcision?" Rom. 2:26. "Abraham believed God, and itwascounteduntohimforrighteousness."Gal.3:6."Tohimthatworketh,thereward isnotreckonedofgrace,butofdebt.""Tohimthatworkethnot,butbelievethonhimthatjustifieththeungodly,hisfaithiscountedforrighteousness."Davidspeaksoftheblessednessoftheman"towhomtheLordimputethrighteousnesswithoutworks—towhomtheLordwillnot impute sin." "Faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness."Rom. 4:3–9. "God in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, notimputingtheirtrespassesuntothem."2Cor.5:19."Atmyfirstanswernomanstoodwithme,butallmenforsookme;IprayGodthatitmaynotbelaid to their charge." 2 Tim. 4:16. "He was numbered with thetransgressors."Mark15:28."ButalsothatthetempleofthegreatgoddessDianashouldbecountedfornaught."*Acts19:27.

TheScripturesplainlyteach,therefore,thatall theguiltorobligationtopunishmentincurredbythesinsofhispeoplewasimputedorchargedtotheaccountofChrist, as the legalgroundof theexecutionuponhimofthepenaltyinvolvedinthecase.Yet,notwithstandingthattheguiltofallour sins is thuscharged toChrist, andexpiated inhim,all theirblame,shame, pollution and power, as inherent personal habits or principles,remainall thewhile inalienablyours.Thesesinsarenonethe lessours,aftertheirimputationtohim,thantheywerebefore.(a.)Theveryforceofthe imputation is to make him "alienæ culpæ reus," that is, penallyresponsible foranother's sin.Theymust remainours inorder that theymaybetohimthesinsofanother.(b.)Becausepersonalmoralqualities,and thepollution inherent insinfulones,are inalienableandcannotbetransferredbyimputation.(c.)Because,asOwenpointedoutlongago,tobe"alienæculpæreus"makesnomanasinner,subjectivelyconsidered,unless he did unwisely or irregularly undertake the responsibility. (d.)BecauseourblessedLordwasadivinePerson,andthereforeabsolutelyincapableofpersonalsininanysenseordegree.While,therefore,heboreoursins,andconsequentlysufferedthepenaltyinvolved,andhencewasboth regarded and treated by the Father, during the time and for thepurposeofexpiation,asvicariouslyguiltyandworthyofwrath,hewasall

the while not one iota the less personally immaculate and glorious inholiness,andallthemorethewell-belovedSonoftheFather,inwhomhewaswellpleased.

Allthistheorthodoxhavealwaysheldandcarefullyexpressed.Weregardit, then, as an evident sign of weakness, and as an offence againsthonourable argument,when the advocatesof theGovernmentalTheory(as for instance,Jenkyns,Fiske,andothers),bystudiouslyconfoundingthe imputationofguiltwiththetransferenceofpersonal inherentsinfulcharacter,andbyhabituallysettingforththecoarseandindiscriminatinglanguage of Luther on this subject as a fair representation of theSatisfactionTheory,disingenuouslyinsinuatethatatleastthemoreself-consistentoftheorthodoxhaveheldtheblasphemythatChristwasmadepersonallyasinnerwhenheboreoursinsuponthetree.Onthissubject,Iremark, (1.) No Christian ever did, or by possibility could, hold thedoctrine of imputation which they thus covertly impute to us. It isnonsenseontheonehand,andinfamousblasphemyupontheother.(2.)Luther'slanguageonthispointwas,characteristicallyofthemanandofhisage,coarseandwild,andneithertobedefendednorimitated.(3.)ButLutherwas a goodman, andno competent theologianbelieves, andnohonestonewillpretend, thatheheldadoctrine inanyrespectdifferentfromthatwhichIhavestatedaboveasthatoftheScripturesandoftheReformedChurches.(4.)Buthislanguagerendershimpeculiarlyliabletomisconception upon the part of the uninstructed. It is, therefore, aninstrumentpeculiarlyfittedfortheuseofcontroversialists,who,lackingargument,needtoexcitetheprejudicesoftheuninstructedagainsttheiropponents. (5.)Theseverysamegentlemen,who thusexhibitLuther tothe public as a vile blasphemer, in order that all who hold the samedoctrineoftheAtonementmaybesilentlyimplicatedinthesamecharge,nevertheless honour him as a true Christian and a great reformer. Butunless they misrepresent his doctrine of imputation he cannot be aChristian.Whichalternativewill theyaccept?Will theyacceptasa trueChristianatraduceroftheirLord?OrwilltheyassertthatLutherwasnoChristian?Orwilltheyacknowledgethatforpurposesofcontroversytheyhavemisrepresentedhisdoctrine?*

3.Thisdoctrineoftheimputationoftheguiltofoursinsisclearlyproved

by the passages above stated, when interpreted in careful comparisonwiththeusageofthewordstranslated"tobearsin,"bothintheOldandNewTestament.Thus(1) theHebrewwordסבלhastheprecisesenseofbearing—notofbearingawayor removing,but in thesenseof carrying.Thus (Lam. 5:7), "Our fathers have sinned and are not, and we haveborne(סבל) their iniquities."This canonlymean tobear thepenaltyofthesinsoftheirfathers.SoofChrist,"Myrighteousservantshalljustifymany; forhe shallbear (סבל) their iniquities." Isa. 53:11. (2.)Theworditsinwithconstruedwhenyet,סבלthanusagediversifiedmoreahasנשאalways plainly means "to bear sin" in the sense of "being penallyresponsible"forit."Nottobearsin"isnottohavesinchargedorimputedasagroundofpunishment. If ahusbandcausehiswife tobreakavowmadewithhisknowledge,"hemustbearheriniquity,"Numb.30:15;thatis,hemustberesponsibleforthepunishmentattached.Ifasoulsin,"heshall bear his iniquity;" that is, he shall be held guilty and liable topunishment,andthereforeshallhebringaram,andthepriestshallmakeatonement. Lev. 5:17, 18. The consequence of bearing sin is death orpenalty. Numb. 18:22. "And the goat shall bear upon him all theiriniquitiesintoalandnotinhabited."Lev.16:22.

(3.) The authors of the Septuagint translation render these wordssometimeswithἄιρω, to bear—to bear away; but often alsowithφέρωandἀναφέρω,which can onlymean to bear in the sense of bearing onone's self inorder tobearaway.Robinson,whocannotbe suspectedoftheologicalbias,givesthemeaningbothofφέρωandἀναφέρωas"totakeupandbearintheplaceofanother;totakefromanotheronone'sself;tobearthepunishmentofsin;toexpiate."

Bushnell*says thatMatthew'sreference(Matt.8:17) toIsa.53:4"is theoneScripturecitationthatgivesbeyondquestiontheexactususloquendiofall thevicariousandsacrificial languageof theNewTestament."Thepassage in Isaiah is as follows: "Surely he hath borne (Hebrew, ;נשאSeptuagint, φέρω) our griefs, and carried (Hebrew, (סבל our sorrows."ThereferenceinMatthewis:"Andheeastoutthespiritswithhisword,andhealedallthatweresick;thatitmightbefulfilledwhichwasspokenbyEsaias theprophet,saying,Himself took(ἔλαβε)our infirmities,andbare our sicknesses." From this datum Bushnell draws two amazing

conclusions: (1.) That the exact usus loquendi of all the vicarious andsacrificiallanguageoftheNewTestamentistobederivedfromthissinglepassage.(2.)ThattheonlysenseinwhichChristboreeitheroursins,oursorrows,orourdiseaseswas thathe tookthemonhis feelings—hadhisheartburdenedwithasenseofthem.

To the first assumptionwe answer that theusus loquendi of thewordscanbedeterminedonlyby a careful analysis and comparisonof all thepassages in which they severally occur in the original Hebrew, in theSeptuagint,andintheNewTestamentitself.

Tothesecondassumption,weanswerthatitisanotoriousfact,admittedbyallscholars,thattheNewTestamentwritersquotetheOldTestamentfreely,accommodatingthesensetoapresentpurpose.IsaiahaffirmsthatChristboreoursorrows—thatis,borethemonhimselfinordertoremovethem. Isaiah uses the technical words נשא and ;סבל the Septuaginttranslates by φέρω, but Matthew substitutes ἔλαβε. There is nocontradiction; only Isaiah emphasized the carried, and Matthewemphasizedtheremoved.Thefirstpointedoutthemeans,theothertheresulteffected.The fact is thatheenduredvisible sorrows,whichmademenbelievethathewasunderdivinechastisement;henceitissaid,"Wethought him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted … But he waswounded for our transgression, the punishment of our peacewasuponhim."*

CHAPTERXII:THEORTHODOXDOCTRINEASTOTHENATUREOFTHEATONEMENTPROVEDBYTHECHARACTEROFTHE

EFFECTSWHICHAREATTRIBUTEDTOITINSCRIPTURE

ASourseventhargument,wecitethosenumerouspassagesofScripturewhich describe in various relations and lights the effects of theredemption work of our Lord. These are set forth in three capitalrelations:(a)astheseeffectsconcernGod,theyaretermedpropitiation,and hence reconciliation; (b) as they respect sin, expiation; and (c) astheyrespectthesinnerhimself,redemption.

I. The effect of Christ's death, as it regards God, is revealed to bepropitiation,andconsequentlyreconciliation.Theprincipalwordswhichhave been used by theHoly Ghost to express the effect of the atoningwork of Christ as it regards God, are the Greek words καταλλάσσειν,καταλλαγή, ἱλάσκεσθαι, ἱλασμός, and ἱλαστήριον, and theHebrewword.כפר

1. The classical usage of the word καταλλάσσειν is (a) to change, toexchange; and (b) to change a person from enmity to friendship, toreconcile.Andtheusagewithregardtothederivativenounκαταλλαγήisprecisely similar.WhenGod is said to reconcile us to himself by JesusChrist, theexpressiondoubtlesscomprehends thewholeresulteffected,andthatevidentlyincludesamutualreconciliationofGodtousandofustoGod. Young andBushnell, and the advocates of theMoral Influencehypothesisgenerally,insistthatthewordisusedonlyinthesenseofthepersuasionofthesinnerbyGod,throughthecrossofChrist,tolayasidehis wicked alienation. But that the other sense of the propitiation, orrendering placable the divine nature in respect to sinners, is alsoincluded,andinsomepassagesisthemainsenseintended,isplainfromthefollowingconsiderations:(1.)InRom.5:10,11,thephrase,"Wewerereconciled toGodby thedeathof his Son," is explainedby theparallel

phrase, "being justified by his blood," so as to be "saved from wraththroughhim."(2.)In2Cor.5:18–20,thephrasethat"GodwasinChristreconciling theworlduntohimself," is explainedby saying in the samesentence,"notimputingtheirtrespassesuntothem."Nottoimputesinistoforgiveit.Rom.4:5;2Tim.4:16.(3.)ThecommandaddressedbyPaultogospel-hearers,"BeyereconciledtoGod," ispreciselyparalleltothatother commandgivenbyChrist inMatt.5:24: "Therefore, if thoubringthygift tothealtar,andthererememberestthatthybrotherhathaughtagainst thee,…go thyway; first be reconciled to thybrother, and thencome and offer thy gift." Thismustmean, Go, cause thy brother to bereconciled to thee by removing the cause for his anger. So, "Be yereconciled to God,"mustmean that they should accept Christ as theirpropitiation,asthatwherebytheymightbereconciledtotheirGod.(4.)The meaning of this word is rendered plain, and the doctrine I aminsistingonisconclusivelyestablished,bytheusageofthesecondGreekverbnotedabove, ἱλάσκεσθαι,anditsassociationwiththeHebrewword.כפר

2. In its classical sense the word ἱλάσκεσθαι means to propitiate anoffendeddeitybymeansofexpiatorysacrificesorpenances.Thiswastheuniversally received senseof thewordand itsuniformusageamongallpersonswhoused theGreek languageagesbefore the translatorsof theSeptuagintuseditastheproperGreekequivalentoftheHebrewכפר;anditcontinuedtobe itssensewithoutshadowofchangedowntothetimewhentheinspiredapostlesusedittoexpressthepreciseeffectofChrist'sworkasitrespectsGod.ThisfactisacknowledgedbyYoung,althoughitisradicallysubversivealikeoftheGovernmentalAtonementTheoryandofhisown.ThusChristismadeafaithfulhighpriest,inthingspertainingto God, tomake reconciliation for (ἱλάσκεσθαι) the sins of his people.Heb. 2:17. In 1 John 2:2, and 4:10, the Lord Jesus is said to be theἱλασμός for our sins—a word used by the Seventy to translate ,כפריםexpiation.AndinRom.3:25,heisdeclaredtobean ἱλαστήριονthroughfaith in his blood—that is, a propitiation by means of an expiatorysacrificecoveringthesinsofhispeoplewithhisblood.

3.TheHebrewwordכפר is theprincipaloneusedby theHolySpirit toexpressthepreciseeffectdesignedandaccomplishedbythesacrifices,(a)

inrespecttosinasacovering,andhence(b)inrespecttoGodasameansofreconciliation.Theroot-meaningofthewordistocover,overlay,andthissenseiscarriedwithitthroughitsentireusage.TheHolyofHolies,in the temple,wasGod's immediatepresence-chamber, and themercy-seat,coveringtheArkoftheCovenant,wasGod'sthrone.Inthisark,asthe foundation on which his throne rests, were placed the two stonetables of the law, on which were engraven those commandmentssummarily embodying the principles of perfect righteousness,constituting in thispositionGod's terrible testimonyagainst all sinandallsinners.Thearkwascoveredwithaslabofpuregold,calledtheכפרתor covering, rendered in the Greek, ἱλαστήριον; in the Latin,propitiatorium; and in the English, mercy-seat. Immediately over thismercy-seat, andbetween the cherubim,habituallydwelt theSchekinah,or visible manifestation of Jehovah's presence. On the great day ofatonement,thehighpriestenteredwithintheveil,firstwiththebloodofthebullockslain,asanatonementforthesinofhishouse;andagainwiththebloodofthegoatslain,asasin-offeringforthesinofthepeople;andhe sprinkled them both in turn over the mercy-seat, and seven timesbefore it.Lev.16:14,15.Hence,whenGod lookeddowntowardhis law,on which rests his throne, and which called for the execution of thepenalty upon every transgression, his eye rested first on the ,כפרת orcovering bearing the sacrificial blood; the sins were therefore covered,andGodwasreconciled.Hencethissmallslabofgoldbecamethemostimportant part of the tabernacle—the Holy of Holies being at timesdesignatedas"thehouseof theכפרת,or thehouseof theblood-bearingcovering." 1Chron. 28:11.*Hence thewordכפר, originally signifying tocover, came to be used by the Holy Ghost to express the effect of asacrifice in expiating the guilt of sin, and hence in propitiating theinfinitely holy God. Hence it is properly translated in our version, indifferentconstructions,bythewordstomakeatonement,toappease,topacify,toreconcile,topurge,topurgeaway.Ezek.16:63;Gen.32:20,21;Ps.65:3,4;78:38;1Sam.3:14;Numb.35:33.Andhencealsothecognateword, כפרים is translated atonement, and כפר is translated sometimesransom;Ps. 49:7. "If there shall be laiduponhima sumofmoney (anatonement, something to cover his offence), then he shall give for theransom of his soul whatsoever is laid upon him." Ex. 21:30. "I am theLord thy God, the Holy One of Israel; I gave Egypt for thy ransom,

Ethiopia and Seba for thee." Isa. 43:3; and sometimes satisfaction.Numb. 35:31, 32. Thus under the Old Testament, as well as under theNew,sacrificialexpiationisdeclaredtobeofthenatureofaransom;thatis, of some person or thing given for another as the condition ofdeliverance.Butthefixedideaofthebasisofthewholeusageofthewordand its derivatives is, that (a) God is reconciled to the sinner only bycoveringhissin,and(b)thatsiniscoveredonlybysacrificialblood.Thus,inLev.10:17,itissaidthatthe"sin-offeringisgiventomakeatonement(that is, covering of sin by blood) for them before the Lord." Pauldeclares,asthesumoftheOldTestamentritual,that"withoutsheddingofblood isno remission," and "where remissionof these is, there isnomore offering for sin." Heb. 9:22 and 10:18. The Seventy habituallytranslate this word כפר (to cover sin by blood) by the Greek wordἱλάσκεσθαι, the fixedmeaning of whichwas to propitiate by expiation.And the apostles, following theSeventy, apply the sameword toChristandhiswork.His"bloodisshedfortheremissionofsins."Matt.26:28.He is the ἱλασμός (1 John 2:2) and the ἱλαστήριον, or mercy-seat,coveringoursinswithsacrificialblood.

II.TheeffectofChrist's sufferings, as it respects the sinsofhispeople,wasexpiationofguilt.Propitiationhasreferencetothebearingoreffectof satisfaction uponGod. Expiation has reference to the bearing of thesame satisfactionupon the guilt of sin. It doesnot, in the least degree,removethepollutionormoralturpitudeofsin.Itremovesonlyitsguiltormoralobligation,andhenceitslegalexposuretopunishment.Thesamewords,alikeinclassicalLatinandGreek,andintheoriginalsofboththeOld and the New Testaments, are used in different constructions toexpressthisdoublebearingofabloodysacrifice,nowuponGodandnowuponsin.(a.)Thewordsἱλάσκομαιandἱλασμός,translatedintheEnglishNew Testament by the word propitiate, were habitually used by theSeventy to translate ,כפר which can only, as a general thing, signifyexpiation by covering with blood. (b.) The word ἱλάσκομαι, whenconstruedwithGod, evidently and confessedly isusedbyboth classicalwriters and the Seventy in the sense of propitiation; but when it isconstruedwith sin, it can only be used in the sense of expiation.Heb.2:17.Christwasmadea faithfulHighPriest in thingspertainingtoGod(ἱλάσκεσθαιτὰςἁμαρτίαςτοῦλαοῦ),toexpiatethesinsofthepeople.In1

John 2:2 and 4:10, Christ is twice declared to be the expiation for oursins.(c.)TheHebrewwordכפרissometimesconstruedwithGodwhenitmustberenderedpropitiation,as,forinstance,Ezek.16:63:"WhenIampacifiedtowardtheeforallthatthouhastdone,saiththeLord."SeeGen.32:20.Whereas the same word is generally and more immediately, inaccordance with its radical meaning, construed with sin, or with theperson or thing inwhich the sin inheres. Isa. 6:7;Dan. 9:24; and Lev.4:20; 5:6, 10; 16:6, 12: "And Aaron shall bring the bullock of the sin-offering,which is forhimself, andshallmakeanatonement forhimselfandforhishouse;…andheshalltakeacenserfullofburningcoalsoffirefromoff thealtarbefore theLORD,andhishands fullof sweet incensebeaten small, and bring itwithin the veil: and he shall put the incenseuponthe firebefore theLORD, that thecloudof the incensemaycoverthemercy-seat(כפרתorcovering)thatisuponthetestimony,thathedienot.Andheshalltakeofthebloodofthebullock,andsprinkleitwithhisfingeruponthemercy-seateastward:andbeforethemercy-seatshallhesprinkleof thebloodwithhis finger seven times.Then shall hekill thegoatofthesin-offeringthatisforthepeople,andbringhisbloodwithintheveil,anddowiththatbloodashedidwiththebloodof thebullock,andsprinkle itupon themercy-seat, andbefore themercy-seat: andheshallmakeanatonement(coveringbysacrificialblood)fortheholyplace,becauseoftheuncleannessofthechildrenofIsrael,andbecauseoftheirtransgressionsinalltheirsins."Althoughadifferentwordisused,thisisevidentlytheideaofDavidwhen,inPs.32:1,hesays,"Blessedisthemanwhosesiniscovered;"whichheexplainsbytheparallelphrases,"whosesinisforgiven,"and"towhomtheLordimputethnotiniquity."AndPaul,inRom. 4:5, declares that this is the principle onwhich, in the gospel,God justifies the ungodly without works, and reckons faith forrighteousness.

Youngsupposesthatheoverthrowsthisentirebodyofproofbynoticingthe fact (a) that the Seventy sometimes translate the word כפר by theGreek terms ἁγιάζειν, to consecrate, and by καθαρίζειν, to purify,althoughheadmitsthattheircharacteristicrenderingis ἱλάσκεσθαι.(b.)That in those cases in which the word כפר is used to set forth theceremonialatonementforthesacredinstrumentsofreligion,asthealtar(Ex.29:36,37),andfortheplagueofleprosyinthewallsofahouse(Lev.

14:48–53), it cannot possibly be used in the strict sense of makingexpiation for sin.* We answer to the first point, that the very thingexpressed by the habitual and always consistent usage of this word is,thatasinnercanbereconciled,andhissincleansed,andsoulmadeholy,andhislifeconsecratedtoGod'sservice,onlyashissiniscoveredandsoatonedbysacrificialblood.Remissionofsins,theimmediateeffectofanacceptableoffering, is inorder to sanctification—sanctification isnot inordertoremission.Butsincesacrificialblood,bymakingexpiation,andsosecuringremission,alwayseffectspurification, it iseminentlyproperthattheinstrumentalityshouldbedifferentlydesignated,asoneorothereffectmightbe in the special casemostprominently thoughtof.To thesecondpoint,theanswerisobvious,thatthesinofmanreallybrings,inatrue sense, under condemnationwith himself, his body, hisworld, andtheveryinstrumentsofhisdailylifeandreligiousservice.Thediseaseofleprosywas chosen as a type or imageof sin. Leprosy in thewalls of ahousewastreatedasanimageofthatinman.Thepriestwasdirectedtoslayabird,tosprinklethehouseseventimestomakeanatonementforthehouse.Thisisofcourseafigurefrombeginningtoend;butafigureofwhat? The leprosy is a figure of human sinfulness, involving guilt andpollution.Theatonement is a figureofhuman redemption fromsin. Inbothcases thecleansingcomesthroughtheatonementorcovering,andthecoveringiseffectedthroughsacrificialblood.

WhenitissaidthattheAtonementhadabearinguponthedivinenature,andinsomerealsensepropitiatedGod'sjusticeandsoreconciledhimtothe sinner, it is by no means forgotten (a) that God is absolutelyunchangeable in his states andmoods, aswell as in his essence, or (b)that instead of the Atonement being the cause of God's love for hispeople, it is itself the effect of that love pre-existing from eternity. For"GodsolovedtheworldthathegavehisonlybegottenSon."John3:16.

The scriptural doctrine of propitiation isnomore inconsistentwith thedivineunchangeablenessthantheScripturedoctrinewithrespecttotherealefficacyofprayer.Wemaynotbeabletodefinethemethodofthatconsistency,yetitisnotdifficulttobelievethattheatoningworkofChristwaspresent,likeeveryactofprayer,inthedivinemindfrometernity.Itbynomeansfollowsthatbecausetherearenochronologicalsuccessions

inGod, thereare therefore tobe tracednorelationsof causeandeffectthroughhisthoughts,purposesoractions.

In like manner, our doctrine is not in the least inconsistent with theglorioustruththattheloveofGodforhisownpeopleiseternalandself-originated—the cause and not the effect of the Atonement. The fact is,that his love for their persons, and his holy displeasure for their sins,wereco-existentstatesofmind frometernity.Andyet theapostle takesupon himself to say that the very elect themselves, so beloved, were,becauseofGod'srighteousness,"bynaturethechildrenofwrath,evenasothers." Eph. 2:3. The wrath of God is a verity, being revealed fromheaven,andcomingevennowuponthechildrenofdisobedience,andinmanycasesfearfullytreasuredupagainstthedayofwrathtocome.Rom.1:18;2:5.But it is assertedover andover again that "we shall be savedfrom wrath through Christ" (Rom. 5:9), and that "Christ delivered usfrom the wrath to come." 1 Thess. 1:10. Absolutely considered, God isunchangeable.ButsuchachangeinourrelationstoGodwaswroughtbythe work of Christ, that his infinite righteousness coincides with hisinfinite love in all their blessedmanifestations and operations towardshisownpeopleforever.

YoungcomplainsthatourdoctrineofSatisfactionleadsinevitablytotheconceptionoftwodifferentGods.*"TheoneGodisangrywiththeotherGod; and the incarnateGod is represented as bearing thewrath of thefirst." He admits, that "When we bow in adoring reverence before theeternalessentialUnity,itisnothardtothinkofdistinctaspectsblendingmysteriouslyandharmoniouslyinonebeing,orofdistinctagenciesandinfluences springing out of one source." Although we have not time todwell upon the point, it is impossible not to notice the very significantfact that, although he professes to be, and doubtless is in his heart, adevoutbeliever in the realdivinityofourLordJesusChrist, yethavingadopted the Unitarian theory as to the nature of Christ's work, henecessarilygravitatestowardstheUnitariantheoryastotheconstitutionofhisperson.Intheaboveextract,whichharmonizeswiththetoneofhiswholebook,hedistinctlyexcludesthescripturaldoctrineofthethree-folddistinctionofpersonsintheunityofessence.Ifthefirstclause,inwhichhespeaksoftheFather,SonandHolyGhostas"distinctaspects,"stood

alone,wewould credit himwith being a Sabellian, holding thatGod isone singlepersonaswell asone single essence, andadmittingamodalthree-foldness in respect to manifestation and operation. But in thesecondclause,whichdoubtlessheintendstobeexegeticalofthefirst,herepresents the divine in Christ and the Holy Ghost to be "agencies orinfluences" springingoutofadivine source.NeitherStraussnorRenanwouldobjecttosuchastatementoftheTrinityas involvedinarationalconception of the person of Christ. Let the reader, for the purpose oftracing the connection, compare Bushnell's book on the "VicariousSacrifice,"inwhichhegivestheUnitarianviewastotheworkofChrist,with the radically defective viewof the person of ourLord given in his"GodinChrist."

TothechargethatourviewofSatisfactionnecessarilyinvolvesTritheism,we answer—(1.) That the eternal subsistence of three distinct persons,capable of mutual personal interaction in the unity of one indivisibleessence,isatruthclearlyrevealedinScripture,yetonewhichnomancandistinctly construe in his own mind. As it is presented in differentrelations in Scripture, every person who, with competent clearness ofthought,observeshisownmentalstates,knows thathismindoscillatesbetween the extreme of too widely separating the persons (Tritheism),and the opposite extreme of too closely pressing the unity toward theextinctionofthepersonaldistinction(Sabellianism).Nevertheless,thereareno truthsmore clearly taught in Scripture than these: (a.)That thetrueGodisoneGod.(b.)ThatChrist,inthehighestsensethewordbears,is the greatGod in person. (c.) That, at the same time, he is a distinctperson from the Father. (2.) We answer, that our doctrine of theexecution,bytheFather,ofthepenaltyofthelawuponthepersonoftheGod-man as the Substitute of his people does not bear a tritheisticappearance any more than the undeniable representations given inScripture of the relations sustained by the Son to the Father. Theymutuallyloveandarebelovedbyeachother.TheSoniscommanded,issent by the Father; prays to him; addresses to him the pronoun thou;uses,withreferencetohim,thepronounhe.WhentheSoncameintheplace of men, and suffered in their stead (αντὶ), then the Scripturesdeclare that theFather laiduponhimthe iniquitiesofusall,andmadehimtobesinandacurse.OnthecrosstheSoncriedinagony,thewhole

worlddarkeninginsympathy,"MyGod,myGod,whyhastthouforsakenme?"

III.TheScripturessetforththeeffectoftheatoningworkofChrist,asitbearsuponthesinnerhimself,asaredemption;asadeliverancefromthecurseofthelawbythepaymentofanequivalentasaransom-price.Thewordswhichexpressthiseffectareoffrequentrecurrence,andaresuchas ἀγοράζειν, to buy. "Ye are bought with a price," 1 Cor. 7:23;"RedeemedustoGodbythyblood,"Rev.5:9;Ἐξαγοράζειν,toredeem,tobuyout of thehandsof; "Hath redeemedus from the curseof the law,beingmadea curse forus."Gal.3:13.Alsoλυτρόω,mid., to ransom, toredeem by payment of a ransom; "For ye were not redeemed withcorruptiblethings,suchassilverandgold,butwiththepreciousbloodofChrist."1Pet.1:18.Christiscalledourλύτρον,ransom(Matt.20:28),andour ἀντίλυτρον, substituted ransom (1 Tim. 2:6) Λυτρόω is veryfrequently used by the Seventy to translate the Hebrew גאל and ,פדהwords of very frequent occurrence, and translated in our version byredeem and ransom. The Jehovah of the Old Testament habitually isdescribedas theRedeemerofhispeopleofIsrael. Isa.41:14;44:24,&c.And the people of the Lord are constantly set forth as thosewho havebeenboughtwithaprice—ransomed.Isa.35:10;51:11;62:12,&c.

Ithasoftenbeenchargedagainstthesupportersoftheorthodoxdoctrineof the Atonement that, by unduly pressing the literal sense of a fewpassageslikethosejustcited,wehavebeenledtorepresenttheworkofour Lord as purely a mercantile transaction. This objection is utterlyunfounded. The orthodox have from the first carefully distinguished instatement, and in argument triumphantly vindicated their doctrine, inviewofthedistinctionbetweenapecuniarysatisfactionontheonehandand a penal satisfaction on the other.* In a matter of pecuniaryindebtedness,theclaimrespectsexclusivelythethingdue,andnotatallthe person of the debtor. A pecuniary satisfaction, therefore, being thepaymentofthemoneydue,whichwasalltheclaimrequired,ipsofacto,liberates,nomatterwhetherthedebtorpaysoranotherpaysforhim.Thereceiptinfullofthecreditorispurelyabusinessacknowledgmentthathisclaim is satisfied, and therefore extinguishedby the simple forceof thepayment,andwithoutanyroomfortheexerciseofgraceonhispart.Ina

case of debt, moreover, the demand is for the precise amount due.Nothing satisfies but the payment of the very thing nominated in thebond.Now the orthodox doctrine is, that the sufferings of Christ are apenalsatisfactiontothedemandsofthelaw.Inthiscasetheclaimofthelaw essentially respects the person of the criminal aswell as the penaldebt incurred.Theclaimsof law,preceptiveandpenal,areallpersonal,andcanbetransferredfrompersontopersononlybytheprerogativeofthe sovereign as amatter of graciouswill. As amatter ofmere law, nosatisfaction can find acceptance other than the literal suffering of thepenaltybythecriminalinperson.Ifthesovereignadmitsasubstituteintheplaceofthecriminal,itisamatterofpuregrace.Evenifthesovereigndoesadmitasubstitute,thesolutionofthepenaldebtbythatsubstitutedoes not give any claim to the criminal represented, nor, ipso facto,liberatehimfromthelegalbondsinwhichheisheld.Theonlyrightstowhich the vicarious solution of a penal debt can give rise accrue to thesubstitute,notthecriminal,andthecriminalreceivesthebenefitsthereofpurelyasamatterofgrace,andatsuchtimesandundersuchconditionsasmaybesettledbetweenthesovereignjudgeandthesubstitute.Inthecase of a penal infliction, the demand respects not any constant anddefinite kindanddegreeof suffering.Thedemand is forwhateverkindanddegreeofsufferingtheinfinitelyrighteousintelligenceofGodseesineach given case to be morally right; the crime to be expiated and thepersontosufferbeingbothtakenintoconsideration.

Thecommerciallanguage,abovequoted,isnottheinventionoforthodoxtheologians.ItisthespontaneousandveryfrequentlanguageoftheHolyGhost, deliberately chosen to set before ourminds the true nature andmethod of Christian salvation. It is moreover plain that this language,takeninitsobvioussense,ismostappropriatetothesubject,ifourviewofthenatureoftheAtonementbetrue,whileitiscertainlyunnaturalandmisleadingifeitherofthealternativeviewsshouldbetrue.

OntheMoralInfluenceTheorythelanguagemustbeemptiedofallsense,andtheideasitsuggestsmustnotonlybemodified,buttotallyignored.Asamoral impression, theworkofChrist terminatesupon theheartofthesinner.Butasaransom,asanactofredemptionoutofthehandsofjusticeforapricepaid,itmustrespectthedeliveranceofthesinnerfrom

theclaimandpowerofsomepersonexteriortohimself.

TheGovernmentalAtonementTheorysets forth thesufferingsofChristashavingonlyageneralandimpersonalrelationtothemassofsinners,andaveryindefiniterelationtothelawanditspenalty.ThesufferingsofChrist,inthisview,securednoclaimuponGodonChrist'spartanymorethanonours.Itsimplymakesitconsistentwithgovernmentalexpediencytooffersalvationoneasierterms,anditputsthesinnerinasalvable,notasavedcondition.Butthischaracteristicscriptural languageofransom,buyingwithaprice,redeemedoutofthehandsof,&c.,necessarilycarrieswithittheideas(a)ofapersonalreferencetotheindividualsredeemed,that is,paid for; (b)of thesepersonsbeing really savedby redemption,notsimplyputinasalvablecondition;and(c)ofChristhavingacquiredaright to that for which he had paid the price. There is an exactcorrespondencebetweentherepresentationthatChristassumedourlaw-place,andasourSubstitutesuffered,inoursteadandbehalf,thepenaltyof the law,and this scriptural languageabovequoted, thatChrist is theransomofoursouls,thepricepaidforourredemption;thatis,bywhichwewereboughtofffromtheclaimsofthatlawbywhichwewereheld.

TherearethreeseveralgenericformsofconceptionunderwhichtheworkwroughtbyChristforthesalvationofmenissetforth.Theseare(a)thatofanexpiatoryofferingforsin;(b)thatoftheredemptionofthelifeandlibertyofacaptivebythepaymentofaransominhisstead;and(c)thesatisfactionof the lawby thevicarious fulfilmentof itsdemands.Thesedifferentconceptionsaredesignedbothtolimitandtosupplementeachother inamannerstrictlyanalogoustothecombinationof thedifferentperceptionsofthesameobjectbythedifferentbodilysenses.Thesenseofsight, although when educated in connection with the concurrent andmutuallylimitingandsupplementingperceptionsoftheorgansoftouchand hearing, it is unmatched as to the extent and accuracy of itsinformation,yetwould,iflefttoitself,neverhaverisenbeyondaninfant'svague perception of a surface variously shaded, without any sense ofrelationinspace.Allourknowledgeofthematerialworld,consideredasanobjectofsense,arises fromtheeducationofourminds in theuseofour bodily senses in combination, and the habits of judgment andinference which are thus produced. Men learn to interpret the

impressions made upon them through their eyes by means of otherimpressions made upon them, in connection with the same objects,throughthesensesoftouchandhearing,andviceversa.Inlikemannerour knowledge of the true nature of thework of Christ and its bearinguponusresultsfromall thevariousformsinwhichtheScripturesset itforth in combination, each at once limiting, modifying andsupplementing all the others. It should be noticed, moreover, that theScriptures do not present these several views as different sides of thesame house to be taken in succession, but habitually present them incombination,as lightsandshadesblendtogether inthesamepicture inproducingthesameintelligibleexpression.Thus,inthesamesentences,itissaid,"WeareredeemedwiththepreciousbloodofChristasofalambwithoutblemishandwithout spot." 1Pet. 1:18, 19.Christ came"togivehislifearansomformany."Matt.20:28."Christhathredeemedusfromthecurseofthelaw,beingmadeacurseforus."Gal.3:13."Hehathmadehim,whoknewnosin,tobeasin-offeringforus,thatwemightbemadetherighteousnessofGodinhim."2Cor.5:21.*Thatis,heredeemsusnotinthesenseofmakingapecuniarypaymentincancellationofourdebts,but byhis vicarious suffering, like thebleeding sacrifices of theMosaicritual,ofthepenaltydueoursins.

Thefactherenoticed,thatthesameinspiredsentencesrepresentChristatthesameinstantandinthesamerelationsasaransomandasasin-offering,andasmadetoendurethecurseofthelawforus,isworthyofcareful study.The teaching of Scripture is not thatChrist is a sacrifice,andaransom,andabearerofthecurseofthelaw,butitisthatheisthatparticularspeciesofsacrificewhichisaransom;thathisredemptionisofthatnaturewhich is effectedbyhis bearing the curse of the law in ourstead,andthatheredeemsusbyofferinghimselfableedingsacrificetoGod. Thus, the teaching of the Holy Ghost is as precise as anyecclesiastical theory of Atonement. Christ saves us by being a sacrifice.Butnotanyoneofthemanykindsembracedinthewholegenussacrifice.He is specifically a sin-offering in the Jewish sense, because this wasdeclared, while the temple was still standing, by a Jewish apostle toJewish readers. More specifically yet, the offering of himself as a sin-offering is declared to have been equivalent to his making himself aransomforus,andtohisbearingthecurseof the lawinourstead,and

that thedesignandeffectof thisransom-paying,curse-bearingsacrificeofhisis,thatheredeemsusfromthecurseofthelaw.Itisnotanykindofa sacrifice, but a ransom-paying, curse-bearing sacrifice. It is not anykindofredemption,butasacrificialredemption.Agivenlineoflatitudeathousand miles long may be a very indeterminate definition of thegeographicalpositionofacity;but theprecisepointof intersectionofalineoflatitudeandadeterminatelineoflongitudemarksamathematicalpoint with metaphysical precision. The Holy Ghost has ideallyrepresented the work of Christ as marked by the precise point ofconvergenceof thebleedingsacrifice,of redemptionby thesubstitutionofapersonalransom,andofthevicariousbearingofthecurseofthelawbyasubstituteinthesteadofthecriminal.*

Besides this, these different expressions are sometimes applied todifferent subjects.When it is said that Christ "has redeemed us by hisblood"(Rev.5:9),thetermredemptionofcourseisusedtodesignatethenatureanddesignedeffectofhissacrifice,whichhefinishedonthecross.ButwhenitissaidthatChrist"obtainedeternalredemptionforus"(Heb.9:12), and that we are "sealed by the Holy Spirit unto the day ofredemption," the word is of course used to include, in addition to themeans whereby Christ obtained our salvation, also its application andcomplete realizationbyus—whennotonly the remissionof sinand thecompletesanctificationofoursoulswillhavebeenattained,butupontheconsummated adoption, to wit, the redemption of our bodies, "thecreatureitselfalsoshallbedeliveredfromthebondageofcorruptionintothegloriouslibertyofthechildrenofGod."Rom.8:21–23.

CHAPTERXIII:THETRUENATUREOFTHEATONEMENTPROVEDBYTHENATUREOFTHEUNIONWHICHTHESCRIPTURES

ASSERTSUBSISTSBETWEENCHRISTANDHISPEOPLE

AS our eighth argument, I propose to establish, by an induction ofscriptural passages, the fact that a UNION of such a kind subsistsbetweentheLordJesusandhispeople,as—howevermysteriousitmaybein its own nature—yet when once admitted, on the ground of divinetestimony,asafact,involves,asanaturalresult,theconsequenceofhisbearingoursins,andourbeingclotheduponwiththerewardablenessofhis obedience, and which is utterly anomalous andmeaningless if ourdoctrineofliteralsubstitutionandofpenalsufferingsisrejected.

Themainobjectionallegedagainstthedoctrineofvicariousexpiationofsin by its opponents is, that it confounds all our elementary andnecessaryideasofjustice.Thisobjection,insubstance,thoughvariouslymodifiedinform,ismadebytheUnitarianandTrinitarianadvocatesoftheMoral Influence Theory, such as Socinus, S. Crellius, Bushnell andJohn Young, and by all classes of the adherents of the GovernmentalAtonement School. It may be considered in two relations: (1.) As itrespectsChrist,itisclaimedthatthejudicialtreatmentoftheinnocentasif he were guilty is an outrageous injustice, involving the confusion ofeverymoralprinciple.(2.)Asitregardshissinfulpeople,inwhosesteadChristissaidtohavedied,itisclaimedthathispunishmentintheirsteadcan, as a matter of abstract justice, avail them nothing, for the plainreasonthat thepreciseandonly thingwhich justicedemands isnot thesufferingofsomuchpain,butthejudicialinflictionofthepainuponthesinnerinperson.Fiskeandmanyothersinsist,asdotheSocinians,thatitis essential to the idea of the penalty that it is pain inflicted by thelawgiver upon the transgressor in person. As to the first side of theobjection,weadmitthat,inthecommonjudgmentofallmen,toregardand treat a man as responsible for a sin for which he is not trulyresponsible isbeyondquestionunjust.But thisplainprincipledoesnotapplytothecaseofChristsufferingthejustfortheunjust;because(a)he,beingtheequalofGod,thefountainofalllaw,andowingnoobediencetothelawonhisownaccount,andhavinganunlimitedrighttodisposeofhis services and of his life as he pleased, voluntarily assumed our

obligations and made them his own. As far as Christ is concerned,therefore, there is obviously no injustice in the Father's exacting fromhim all the conditions of a suretyship which he has spontaneouslyassumedandvoluntarilyyields.Besidesthis, it isadmittedonallhandsthatChristsufferedforhispeople.TheadvocatesoftheMoralInfluenceandGovernmentaltheoriesoftheAtonementmaintainthatoursinsaretheoccasionofhissufferings.Wesaythattheyarethejudicialgroundofhissufferings.Weallagreeinmaintainingthathissufferingsarecausedby our sins, and that they are self-assumed by him with the utmostfreenessandspontaneityoflove.Ifthisbeso,itisevidentthatthereisnoinjusticeintheoneviewofthecaseanymorethanintheother.(b.)SincethesufferingsofChristsatisfyGod,andmaintain thehonourofhis lawandtheinterestsofhisgovernment,evenbetterthanthepunishmentofeach sinner in person would have done, there can, of course, be noinjustice involved in thearrangementas faras the interestsofGodandhisgovernmentareconcerned.(c.)Thisvicarioussufferingisaninfinitebenefittothosesinnerswhoaresaved,andnodisadvantagewhatsoevertoanywhomaybelefttobearthepenalconsequencesoftheirownsins.Therefore, if there be no injustice done to any one of the partiesconcerned,therecanbenoinjusticeinthecase.

As to the second side of the objection abovemade,we confess that thedivine administration, both as to the coming in of the curse throughAdam, and as to the redemption from the curse through Christ, restsuponprincipleshigherandgranderthanthoseembracedintheordinaryrulesofhuman law.Ourdoctrine, althoughnever contradicting reason,doesnotrestupon it,butuponthesupernaturalrevelationgiven in theWordButwhilethecompletesatisfactionwhichabsolutejusticefindsinthevicarioussufferingsofasubstitutedvictimmaytranscendreason, itbynomeansconflictswithit,because(1)it isnopartoftheteachingofScripturethatsincanbe imputedtoanyone,or itsguiltbeexpiatedbythesufferingsofanyonetowhomitdoesnottrulybelong.Theremustbe,ofcourse,ineverycasesuchaunionasshallintheunerringjudgmentofGod be a firm foundation in justice for this imputation. It is no merementalassumptiononthepartofGodofthatwhichisnottrueinfact.Onthe contrary, it is a most wise and righteous recognition of the exactresponsibilityofeachpartyintherelationsinwhichhestandsintheeye

oflawtoallothers.Grotius,whodiscussedthesubjectwithgreatlearningandability,andcertainlywithsufficientdeferencetotheclaimsofreason,maintainsthatwhileitisnecessarytotheessenceofapenaltythatitbeinflictedonaccountofsin,itisnotnecessarythatineverycaseitshouldbe inflicted on the person of the sinner, if only there be such a unionbetween the person who sinned and the person who is punished asjustifies the imputation.* Turretin says† that there are three kinds ofunionknowntouswhichjustifytheimputationofsin,becausetheyareofsuchanaturethat,inthecaseofcertainactions,themoralresponsibilityforthesiniscommontoallthepartiesinvolved.Theseare—(a)natural,asbetweenafatherandhischildren;(b)moralandpolitical,asbetweenakingandhissubjects;and(c)voluntary,asbetweenfriendsandbetweenanarraignedcriminalandhissponsor.NowtheunionofChristwithhispeoplerestsonstrongergroundthananyoftheseconsideredalone.Itis,aswehaveseen,voluntaryuponhispart,whospontaneouslyassumedalltheobligationshebore.But itwas,moreover, theeternalandsovereignordinanceof the threedivinePersons in council,whosebehestsare thefoundationofalllaw,ofallrights,andofallobligations.Ifitbearevealedfact that suchaunion subsists on suchgrounds, it is surely futile for amortaltoclaimthatitisapurementalfiction,andthatthejudicialactionthatproceedsuponitisunjust.(2.)Providenceconstantly,asamatteroffact, proceeds upon principles which appear to be identical with thatuponwhich the substitutionofChrist in theplaceof sinnersultimatelyrests. God, as the Creator, Father and Guardian of the human family,actingforitsadvantage,placedthemoralprobationofthewholeraceinthe conduct of Adam, the natural head and covenant representative ofthat race, during a limited period and under the most favourableconditions, in the Garden of Eden. Adam sinned, and as a matter ofunquestionablefact,thepenaltyofthatsinhasbeenexecutedincommonupon him and on each of his descendants from birth. The penaltydenounced and actually executed upon him included spiritual death,mortalityofbody,theearthcursedwithbriersandthorns,thenecessityofwinningbreadbythesweatofthebrow,andofbringingforthchildreninpain.Eachoneof these elementsof evil hasbeen executeduponhisdescendantsuniversally,andliterally inthesamemannerinwhichtheywereexecutedonhim.Theyarenotthemerenaturalconsequencesofhissin.Iftheywerepenalevilsinhiscase,theyarepenalconsequencesofhis

sininourcase.Thistheapostleexplicitlydeclares,Rom.5:19:"Asbyoneman'sdisobediencemanyweremadesinners,so[thatis,uponthesameprinciple]by theobedienceofoneshallmanybemaderighteous."Asamatterofdailyexperience,also,wefindthepenalconsequencesofmanysinspassingoverupon thosewhoareprovidentiallyboundupwith thesinfulagents.Ex.20:5.Goddoesactually,ashesays,visittheiniquitiesofthefathersuponthechildrentothethirdandfourthgenerationofthemthathatehim.

Nowwepropose toprove (1) that theScripturesplainly teach thatGodhas established between Christ and his people a union sui generis,transcending all earthly analogies in its intimacy of fellowship andreciprocal copartnership, both federal and vital, and hence called bytheologians"mystical"inthesenseofbeingmysterious,inperfectionandcompletenesstranscendingallanalogy.And(2)thatthefactofthisunionbeingestablished,itgoesfartoexplainhiscommunitywithusintheguiltof our sins, and our community with him in the rewards of hisrighteousness.

I.TheScripturesteachthatsuchaunionexistsasamatteroffact.

Asmightbesupposed,theScripturespresentthisuniontoussimplyasamatter of fact, to be credited solely on the ground of divine testimony.Theyattemptnorationalexplanationsof itsnature.WecanunderstanditsessentialnaturenomorethanwecanthecoexistencefrometernityofthethreedivinePersonsintheunityoftheoneessence;ortheunionofthe twonatures in theonepersonof theGod-man;or theunionof thewholeraceinthepersonofAdam.Asittranscendsallnaturalanalogies,the Scriptures set forth its variety and fulness, element by element, bymeans ofmany partial analogies. Thus they liken it to the relation thefoundationof a building sustains to the superstructure erectedupon it,configured to it, and supported by it (1 Pet. 2:4–6); to a tree and itsbranches.John15:4,5. "Abide inme,andI inyou.Asabranchcannotbearfruitofitself,exceptitabideinthevine;nomorecanye,exceptyeabide inme. Iamthevine,yeare thebranches.He thatabideth inme,andIinhim,thesamebringethforthmuchfruit;forwithoutmeyecando nothing." It is also likened to the organic union of the differentmembersofonebody:"Foraswehavemanymembersinonebody,and

allmembershavenotthesameoffice,sowe,beingmany,areonebodyinChrist."Rom.12:4,5."Forasthebodyisone,andhathmanymembers,… so also is Christ.… Now ye are the body of Christ, andmembers inparticular." 1Cor. 12:12,27. "Wearemembersofhisbody,ofhis flesh,andofhisbones.This isagreatmystery;butIspeakconcerningChristandhisChurch."Eph. 5:30, 32, and4:15, 16.Also, to ahusband inhisrelationtohiswife.Eph.5:31,32;Rom.7:4;Rev.19:7–9;and21:9.Andmoreparticularly to therelationsustainedbyAdamtohisdescendants.Rom.5:12–19;and1Cor.15:22and45–49.Heiscalled"thelastAdam,"and the "second man." It is a simple matter of fact, as we have seen,whateverphilosophicalexplanationwemaygiveit,that

"InAdam'sfallwesinnedall."

The literal penalty in all its parts has been from the first universallyexecuted upon the entire race, in the same sense itwas executed uponAdam.Theapostlecallsita"judgment"anda"condemnation."Thesameinfallible authority declares (a) that "even so," that is, we are maderighteous through theobedienceofChrist, upon the sameprinciples asthoseuponwhichwehavebeenmadesinnersthroughthedisobedienceofAdam.And (b) that our unionwithChrist is of the same order, andinvolves the same class of effects as our unionwithAdam.We call it aunionboth federalandvital.Othersmaycall itwhat theyplease,but itwillneverthelessremaincertainthatitisofsuchanatureastoinvolveanidentityoflegalrelationsandreciprocalobligationsandrights."Forasbyoneman'sdisobediencemanyweremadesinners;sobytheobedienceofoneshallmanybemaderighteous."Rom.5:19.Heissaidtohave"borneoursinsinhisownbodyonthetree."1Pet.2:24.Wearesaidto"bemadetherighteousnessofGodinhim."2Cor.5:21.Tohavebeenchoseninhimbeforethefoundationoftheworld.Eph.1:3–5."Ofhisfulnesshaveallwereceived,andgraceforgrace."John1:16.Wearedeclaredtobe"completeinhim,whichistheHeadofallprincipalityandpower."Col.2:10.TobecircumcisedinChrist,tobeburiedwithhiminbaptism,Col.2:11,12;andto be quickened together with Christ, and made to sit together inheavenlyplacesinChristJesus.Eph.2:5,6.Inourselveswearedeclaredtobedead,andourlifehidwithChristinGod,andChristtobeourlife.Col. 3:3, 4. We do not live, but Christ liveth in us. Gal. 2:20. We are

baptized intoChrist (Gal.3:27),andsleep inJesuswhenwedie (1Cor.15:18;1Thess.4:14),andourbodiesaremembersofChrist.1Cor.6:15.Hisdeath is said tohavebeen virtually ourdeath (Rom.6:8–11; and2Cor5:14,15),andhisresurrectionfromthedeadtoinvolvethecertaintyof ours. 1 Cor. 15:20–22; Phil. 3:21; 1 John 3:2. In him we haveredemption—throughhisbloodtheremissionofsins.Eph.1:7.Wesharewithhiminhisrighteousness(1Cor.1:30), inhissufferings(Phil.3:10,11), inhisHolySpirit.Rom.8:9.Wearedeclared tobe jointheirswithhim,ordainedtohavefellowshiphereafterwithhiminhisglory,asnowinhissuffering(Rom.8:17),andtositwithhimonhisthrone.Rev.3:21.AsSt.Augustinelongagonoticed,"Suchistheineffableclosenessofthistranscendental union, thatwehear the voice of themembers suffering,whentheysufferedintheHead,andcriedthroughtheHeadonthecross,'MyGod,myGod,whyhastthouforsakenme?'And,inlikemanner,wehear thevoiceof theHeadsuffering,whenhesuffered inhismembers,and cried to the persecutor on the way to Damascus, 'Saul, Saul, whypersecutestthoume?'"

The nature of this union is further set forth bymeans of several titlesapplied to Christ in view of his relation to us. Thus he is called our"second or last Adam" (1 Cor. 15:45–47), our "Head" (Eph. 1:22; 4:15;Col.1:18),our"HighPriest"(Heb.9:11and5:1):"ForeveryhighpriestisordainedformeninthingspertainingtoGod,thathemayofferbothgiftsandsacrificesforsins."AsIhaveabundantlyproved,*thefunctionofthepriestwasuniformly to representmanbeforeGod, andnotGodbeforeman.TheefficiencyofhisworkwasdesignedtoterminateuponGod,andnotuponman.Heiscalledalsoour"MediatorbetweenGodandman"(1Tim. 2:5), which is explained by the accompanying phrase, "who gavehimselfasasubstitutionaryransominthesteadofall."AndinHeb.8:3–6and9:11–15,heissetforthasMediatorinhiscapacityofHighPriest.Hence he cannot beMediator, as Young insists he is, in his constantlyreferred-tonote,* in thesenseofbeingthemediumthroughwhichGodproducesamoralimpressionuponus.ItmustbeinterpretedinthesenseofamediumthroughwhichweapproachareconciledFather.Heisalsocalled our "Advocate with the Father." "If any man sin, we have anAdvocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the(ἱλασμός)propitiationforoursins."1John2:1,2.Andfinally,heiscalled

ourSurety (ἔγγυος). In itsclassical senseἔγγυοςmeans"Bondsman"or"Bailsman" with the Father. Heb. 7:22. This cannot mean, as theSociniansandtheirfollowershave,fromthebeginning,striventoprove,that Christ was Surety for the truth and fidelity of God to us. It mustmean thathewasourSurety for thesolutionofour legalobligations toGod, because it is explicitly declared, in the only passage in which thewordoccurs,thathewasSuretyforusinhisfunctionasHighPriest."TheLord sware and will not repent, Thou art a PRIEST for ever after theorder of Melchisedec: By so much was Jesus made the SURETY of abettertestament."

Wehere,ofcourse,attemptnophilosophicalexplanationoftheessentialbasis of that union. We can know it only so far as its nature and itsconsequencesaremadeknowntousbydirectrevelation.ThedisciplesofSchliermacher, and Realists in general, maintain that this unionessentiallyconsistsinthefactthattheeternalΛόγος,inhisincarnation,assumedtheentiresubstanceofhumannature,andthusbecomes, ipsofacto,inthemostliteralsense,responsibleforallthesinofthatnature.Thisviewwehaverejectedforreasonsassignedinaprecedingchapter,*and,whethertrueorfalse,itisnopartofChristiandoctrine,becausenopart of revealed truth, but at best a human attempt at the rationalexplanation of the truth revealed. All that is clearly taught in theScriptures, and, therefore, all that ought to be received as Christiandoctrineastothenatureofthisunion,is,(1.)thatitisarealunion,suchas in the infallible judgmentofGod lays the foundation in right forhisbeing punished for our sins, and for our being credited with hisrighteousness—thatis,sofarastoanswerallthefederaldemandsofthelawuponus.(2.)Thatit is, insomewaytousunexplained,conditioneduponthefactthatournatureisgenerative,hencethatthewholeraceismadeofoneflesh,andthathebecameboneofourboneandfleshofourflesh.(3.)Thatit isconditionedupontheeternalcounselofFather,Sonand Holy Ghost. (4.) That our legal responsibilities were voluntarilyassumed by the Logos, to be discharged by him as Theanthropos. (5.)Thatprovisionismade,throughtheoperationoftheHolySpirit,forhisbecoming to all his people a "quickening spirit" (πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν), 1Cor.15:45,andfortheirbeingmadelivingmembersofthatspiritualbodyofwhichheistheHead.

This much, and far more, the Scriptures teach to the same effect, thewhole of which, taken together, conspires to form one perfectly self-consistent representation of a union most real and practical, thoughtranscending all analogies. I do not deny that, by skilful selection andapposition, the advocates of each of the heterodox theories of theAtonement may show that the majority of these passages, treatedseparately,arenotabsolutelyincapableofbeingreducedintoconformitywith theirviews.And this followsnecessarily from the fact thateachoftheirhypotheses, as is the casewith respect to everyheresywhich everexisted,isapartialtruth.But—

II. I submit that the induction of scriptural passages I have presentedmakescertainthefollowingpoints:(1.)Thattheentireclassofpassagesabovepresentedarenotonlywithoutexceptionconsistentwith,butwhentaken together naturally suggest, the central principle of our doctrine,viz., that Christ, in the strict and proper sense of the term, wassubstitutedinthelaw-placeofhispeople.(2.)Thattheexistenceofthisineffable union, when established as a fact by infallible authority, goesvery far to explain the relationwhichChrist has sustained to thepenalsanctionsofthelaw,andtheeffectwhichhisworkofactiveandpassiveobedience accomplishes in expiating the sins of his people, and inentitlingthemwithhimselftoagloriousinheritance.And(3)thatneitheroftheviewswhichIopposecan,byanypossibleingenuity,beadjustedtoallthattheScripturesrevealconcerningtheunionofChristtohispeople,taken together as a whole. On neither hypothesis can a rationalexplanation of the application to the subject of such language in suchvarietyandinvolutionbeafforded.

With respect to the Moral Influence Hypothesis, the truth of thisassertion ismore thansufficientlyevident. IfChristcomes tousmerelythat by a revelation of divine love hemaypersuadeus to lay aside ourwickedenmity toGod, inwhat sense, consistentwith thehonestuseoflanguage, can he be said to be our "second Adam," our "Priest," our"Ransom,"our"AdvocatewiththeFather,"the"Propitiationforoursins,"our "Surety," or Bailsman before God? In what sense were we"predestinatedinhim,""baptizedintohisdeath?"Inwhatsensewashisdeathvirtuallyourdeath,orhislifevirtuallyourlife?Inwhatsenseisour

lifehidwithChristinGod?Inwhatsensedowehavefellowshipwithhiminhissufferingsandinthepowerofhisresurrection?Inwhatsenseisheourrighteousnessandwemaderighteousbyhisobedience?

Thesameessentialincongruitywillappearwhenweattempttoadjustthegreat central truth taught by these passages to the GovernmentalHypothesis.IfChristwasnotstrictlyaSubstituteinourplace,andifhedidnotliterallybearthepenaltyandexpiatetheguiltofoursins;ifallhedid was, by sufferings whichwere not of the nature of punishment, toprove thatGodwill punish sin, and thusmake it consistentwithGod'srectitudeasKingforhimnottosaveany,buttoputallinasalvablestate;ifthisrepresentsthewholetruthrevealedastothenatureofredemption,—thenitnecessarilyfollowsthat,afteralltheHolyGhosthassaidaboutit,theunionbetweenChristandhispeopleisnotreal,butonlyfigurative.Hehelpsusmaterially tohelpourselves.Butheneverwas literallyonewith us in the eye of the law.We are not truly of his flesh and of hisbones, and hewas neither our Ransom, nor our Bailsman.We are nottrulyjointheirswithhim,butonlybeneficiaries.Hisobediencedoesnotmakeusrighteous,buthissufferingsopenthewayforGod'sgivingusanopportunity of becoming so. He did not bear our sin, and we are notclotheduponwithhisrighteousness.Oursinwasonlytheoccasionofhissuffering;andthesamesufferingisonlytheoccasion,bymeansofwhichwemay,iffaithful,becomepersonallyrighteous.

CHAPTERXIV:THEORTHODOXDOCTRINE,ASTOTHENATUREOFTHEATONEMENT,PROVEDFROMWHATTHESCRIPTURESTEACHASTOTHENATURE

ANDGROUNDSOFJUSTIFICATION

AStheninthargument insupportof the truthofourdoctrineas to thenatureoftheAtonement,IcitetheclearandindubitableteachingsoftheScriptures as to the nature of JUSTIFICATION and the grounds uponwhich it proceeds. For the ends of my argument, I shall define andestablishbyScripturethetruedoctrineofjustification,firstonthatsideonwhichitimmediatelyantagonizestheMoralInfluenceTheoryastothenatureoftheAtonement,andsecondly,onthatsideonwhichitrefusestocoalescewiththeGovernmentalTheoryofthesame.

I. Those who hold that the entire design and effect of the vicarioussufferings of Christ was to produce amoral influence upon the sinner,andthustoreconcilemantoGodinsteadofpropitiatingGodinbehalfofman,must,ofcourse,holdjustificationtobeadivinework,effecting,byappropriate means, a subjective change in the moral condition of theindividual. Judged from their point of view, it must signify to makeinherentlyorpersonallyjustormorallygood.

Inopposition toallhereticsof thisclass,aswellas inopposition to thePapists, theEvangelicalProtestantChurchhas alwaysmaintained,withan overwhelming weight of scriptural evidence, that that justificationwhichGodeffects,ofwhichChrist's sacrifice is themeritoriousground,andthepeopleofChristthesubjects,isnotaninfusionofgraceeffectingasubjectivechangeinmoralcondition,butadeclarativeactpronouncingthe believer to be forensically just, and thus effecting a change of legalrelation, and not a change of moral character. This principle was theprecise truth, the distinct and forceful enunciation of which,made thegreatReformationoftheSeventeenthCenturywhatitwastothemenofthatandofallsubsequentgenerations.Ithasbeenprovedoverandoveragainbysuchconclusivescripturalreferencesasthefollowing.

1. The common sense inwhich ourEnglishword to justify is used andunderstoodinallsecularspeechandliterature,istodeclareamantobeintheright—nevertomakeortoconstitutehiminherentlyso.Tojustifyistoassertortovindicatehisinnocence;itistopronouncehimtobeinfactinnocent,orclearofalltheclaimsofthatlaworstandardofconductorcharacterbywhichheistested.Thisisnotonlythetheologicalusageoftheterm,butthesenseinwhichitisuniversallyusedinthecommonintercourseof life.TheLatinwords justificatio and justificowerenever

used by classical writers, but were newly-coined terms of ecclesiasticalwritersforthepurposeofexpressingtheologicalideas,andhenceneithertheiretymologynortheirusagecanthrowanyadditionallightuponthissubject.

2. The word which theHoly Ghost has chosen to express the truth heintendstorevealonthissubject isδικαιόω.InclassicalGreekthiswordhassubstantiallythesameusagewhichthewordtojustify,bywhichitistranslated in the New Testament, has in English. Suidas' Lexicon—"δικαιοῦν, to justify, has two senses: 1, punire; 2, justum censere. SoHerodotus,&c."Liddell&Scott'sLexicon—"δικαιόω:1,toholdasrightorfair, to think rightor fit; 2, todoaman justice;hence (a) to condemn,punish,and(b)tomakejust,holdguiltless,justify,N.T."

3.TheHebrewwordצדק, inthevastmajorityof instancestranslatedbythe authors of the Septuagent by the Greek word δικαιόω, and in ourversion by the English word to justify, is always used in the sense ofthinking or pronouncing just, acquitting, and never in the sense ofmakinggoodbytheexerciseofamoral influence.Job9:20:"IfI justifyitperfect,amIsayIifme;condemnshallmouthownminemyself,(צדק)shallalsoprovemeperverse."Job32:2:ThewrathofElihuwaskindledagainstJob, "becausehe justified(צדק)himself rather thanGod."Deut.25:1:"Thenshallthey[thejudges]justifytherighteous,andcondemnthewicked." Prov. 17:15: "He that justifieth the wicked, and he thatcondemneththejust,eventheybothareanabominationtotheLord."SeealsoIsa.5:23;Ex.23:7;andPs.51:4.

4.Thewordδικαιόωoccursthirty-ninetimesintheNewTestament,andin every case, without a single exception, it signifies to esteem, topronounce,ortotreatasrighteous,andneveroncetomakeorconstitutepersonally, inherently righteous.Sometimes theword isused todeclarethefactthatapersonis inherentlyrighteous,asLuke7:29:"Andallthepeoplethatheardhim,andthepublicansjustifiedGod;"andMatt.11:19:"Wisdom is justified of her children." But in the great majority ofinstances it is evident that itwasused in the senseofpronouncingandtreatingapersonasjust,notintrinsically,butinrelationtothedemandsof law as a covenant or condition of life and favour. That is, in thesimplestwordspossible, it isadeclarationthatall theclaimsof the law

aresatisfied.ThusGal.2:16:"Knowingthatamanisnotjustifiedbytheworksofthelaw,butbythefaithofJesusChrist,evenwehavebelievedinJesusChrist,thatwemightbejustifiedbythefaithofChrist,andnotbythe works of the law; for by the works of the law shall no flesh bejustified."Gal.3:11:"Butthatnomanisjustifiedbythelaw,inthesightofGod,itisevident."SeealsoActs13:39;Rom.5:7–9;1Cor.6:11.IfChristdied as God'smedium ofmoral influence upon the sinner, and not aspropitiatingMediatorinbehalfofmenwithajustlyoffendedGod,thentojustifymustmeantomakejust,tosanctify.Whatsense,inthatcase,canbeputuponthosepassageswhichspeakofourbeing"justified,"thatis,sanctified, "without the deeds of the law?" What meaning can beimported intosuchphrasesas,"Bythedeedsof the lawnofleshcanbe'sanctified'"(Rom.3:20),or,"Christisbecomeofnoeffectuntoyou,whoare'sanctified'bythelaw;whosoeverofyouare'sanctified'bythelaw,arefallen from grace" (Gal. 5:4), or, "Whom God hath set forth to be apropitiation,…todeclareatthistimehisrighteousness,inorderthathe[God] might be holy, and the 'sanctifier' of him which believeth inJesus."*

5. The phrases, "to justify" and "justification" are in the Scripturesconstantly used as the opposite of "to condemn" and "condemnation.""Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God thatjustifieth:whoishethatcondemneth?"Rom.8:33,34."Therefore,asbytheoffenceofone,judgmentcameuponallmentocondemnation,evenso by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men untojustificationof life."Rom.5:18.SeealsoRom.8:1;andJohn3:18.Nowthephrase "to condemn"mustbe taken in a legal sense.Therefore, "tojustify"mustbelegalalso.Theoppositeof"tosanctify"istopollute,buttheoppositeof"tocondemn"istojustify.

6.The same truth is establishedby the characterof the termswhich inScripture are used interchangeably with δικαιόω to bring out the fullsense of Christian justification. These are such as, "To imputerighteousnesswithoutworks;""toforgiveiniquities;""tocoversins;""nottoimputeorchargesintoaccount."Rom.4:6–8."Justifiedbyhisblood;""saved from wrath;" "being sinners and yet reconciled to God by thedeathofhisSon."Rom.5:9,10.

7. The same truth is proved by Paul's argument as to the gratuitouscharacter of justification,Rom.3:27, 28 and4:3–5: "Where is boastingthen?Itisexcluded.Bywhatlaw?ofworks?Nay;butbythelawoffaith.…AbrahambelievedGod,and itwascounted tohim for righteousness.Now to him that worketh, is the reward not reckoned of grace, but ofdebt.Buttohimthatworkethnot,butbelievethonhimthatjustifieththeungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." But if justification beonlysettingamansubjectivelyright,makinghimtobegoodinfact,whyshould"sanctification"byworksbeagroundofboastinganymorethan"sanctification" by faith? It is easy to understand how a man can beforensically justwithoutworks,on thecreditof theworksofa"surety."Butwhatmortalcanconstrueinthoughtthethingmeantbysayingthatamanispersonallyholywithoutworksofrighteousness?Howcanfaithbecountedfor"sanctification" inthecaseofamanwhohasnoworks,butbelievesinaGodwho"sanctifies"theungodly?

8.Thesense inwhichPaulusedthetermsinquestionisputbeyondalldoubtbythenatureoftheobjectionswhichheintroducesintohisEpistletotheRomansaslikelytobemadetohisdoctrine.Thequestionwhether,being justified by grace, we should continue in sin in order that gracemight abound, is both obvious and plausible, if the phrase, "beingjustified,"betakenintheforensicsenseattributedtoitbytheProtestantChurchinallitsbranches.Thatis,willnotthefree,gratuitousacquittalofthe sinner, without either obedience or punishment on his part,inevitably lead to licentiousness? But the question whether, being"sanctified"bygrace,weshallcontinueinsinthatgracemayabound,hasnot even a decent appearance of plausibility, because utterly devoid ofsense.

This doctrine, that justification is forensic, and that it is based uponimputedrighteousness,wasthewatchwordofthegloriousReformation—the one word of power which dissolved the venerable power of thePapacy,awakenedthepeoplefromthesleepofages,introducedthenewworldofmodernhistory,andthestupendouscareerofprogressivelibertyand civilization which has issued from it. The state of the world as awhole, today,whencomparedwithall thepast, isawitness to its truth.All the achievements of modern Christianity, in all departments, are a

monument to its value. Yet Bushnell says of this, "articula stantis, velcadentisecclesiæ,IcouldmoreeasilyseetheChurchfallthanbelieveit."*ThepresumptionappearsoverwhelmingthatProtestantismisright,andthat Popery, Socinianism and the nondescript genus of Bushnells andYoungs,arewrong.

TheworkofDr. JohnYoung, ofEdinburgh, entitled the "Light and theLifeofMen," is, as faras thepresentwriterknows, themost thorough,able and honest of all the modern essays in advocacy of the MoralInfluenceTheoryofRedemption. Inhis chapter on Justification, in theface of all the facts above given relating to the uniform usage of theHebrew,GreekandEnglishwords involved in thequestionat issue,heclaimsthattheanalogiesoftheEnglishlanguagedemandthatweshouldsubstitutetheword"torighten," inplaceof theword"to justify,"astheEnglish equivalent of theGreek δικαιόω. Aswe have inGreek δίκαιος,δικαιοσύνη, δικαίωμα and δικαιόω, so we would have in English theuniformclassofwords,right,righteous,righteousnessorrightness;andtorightenorrectify,orsetright.

But the only advantage Young gains in favour of his argument by thissubstitutionresultsfromthefactthathisnewly-coinedterm"torighten,"havingnoestablishedususloquendi,isnecessarilyambiguous.Thewordmaywithequalproprietybeunderstoodeitherinthesenseofrighteningamansubjectively,thatis,makinghiminherentlygood,orofrighteningthemanforensically,orvindicatinghisclaimtoberegardedandtreatedasstandinginarightrelationtothedivinelaw.TheentireplausibilityofYoung'sargumentinthechapterinquestionresultsfromthisambiguityof his chosenword.His theory of the nature of Christ'swork demandsthat "to righten" shall mean to make a man subjectively right. On theotherhand, as Ihave shown, theScriptureusageof thewordsצדק andδικαιόω, which are used by the Holy Ghost in the Old and NewTestaments, to express his mind upon the nature of this "rightening,"demandthattheyberepresentedbyanEnglishequivalentwhich,likethewordtojustify,meanspreciselytopronounceamantobejustintheeyeoflaw—tobefreeofalllegaldemands.Thenewly-inventedterramaybeconvenient toveil the real issue involved,but it is impotent toavoid it.Sense, candor, and a Hebrew and a Greek Concordance of the two

Testaments,willsettlethisquestionbothspeedilyandfinally.

II. The advocates of theGovernmental Theory of theAtonement,whiletheyagreewithusthatjustificationis,asaboveshown,aforensicact,yet,nevertheless,areforcedtodifferfromusastothenatureofjustificationinthefollowingparticulars.

1. As Christ, according to their view, did not suffer strictly in the law-placeofhispeople,andastheirsinswerenotreallyimputedtohim,andashedidnotdiewiththepurposeofexpiatingthesinsofanyparticularindividuals,but toputallmengenerally intoa salvable state, it followsthathisrighteousnessisnotimputedtothebeliever,andthatitisonlyinsomesense theoccasion,butnotatall thestrict judicialground,ofourjustification.

2.AsChrist'srighteousnessisnotimputedtothebelieverasthegroundof his justification, it follows that that justification cannot be an act ofGodas Judge, pronouncinghis judgment according to the fact that themanisrighteous—thatis,freeofallunsatisfiedclaimsoflaw,andentitledtothecovenantrewardsofrighteousness;itcanonlybeamereexecutivepardonpronouncedbyGodasKing,remittingthepenaltyduetosin.

3.As justification ismerepardon,as it isasovereignandnota judicialact,andsinceitisnotfoundedonimputedrighteousness,itfollowsthatit must proceed upon a relaxation of law by sovereign prerogative—anexercise of prerogative in this case wisely guarded from abuse by thegovernmentaldeviceofanatonement.Thiswiserelaxationoftheclaimsoflaw,inwhichalltheinterestsofGod,ofthemoraluniverseandofthesinner are reconciled and provided for, involves two things; (1) theadmissionofthesufferingsofChrist,inthemselvesofincomparablylessvalue,intheplaceoftherealpenaltyofthelaw;and(2)theadmissionoffaith and evangelical obedience, in the place of that perfect obediencewhich the law demands as the ground of the sinner's justification. Thefirstrelaxationpreparesthewayforthesecond,andrendersitconsistentwiththegoodofthemoraluniverse.Thismakesfaiththegroundandnotthe mere condition of salvation, and assimilates the GovernmentalTheory,astoallessentialpoints,withtheArminianSoteriology.

In opposition to this view of the nature of justification, the Scripturesfully support the truthof thedoctrine common to all theLutheranandReformedChurches,includingthefollowingpoints.

1. Justification is not mere pardon executed in virtue of his kinglyprerogative, but it is a judgment pronounced by God as Judge, to theeffect that the believer is in all respects free of the claims of law as acovenantoflife.

2.ThegrounduponwhichjustificationproceedsisneitherthesovereignprerogativeofGod,nor the faithnorgraciousobedienceof thebelieveraccepted inviewofChrist'sexemplarysuffering,but it is theall-perfectrighteousnessofChrist,which,inthejustjudgmentofGodasamatteroffact, belongs to the believer by the terms of the covenant and for thepurposeof justification,andwhichhencefulfils, intherigourof justice,allthedemandsofthelawuponus.

1.Justificationisnotmerepardon.

Itisofcoursebelievedonallhands(a)thatjustificationincludespardonofsinasoneofitsmainelements,and(b)thatthispardoninrelationtothe unworthy subjects of it, who are selected from the great mass ofhumanityneitherbetternorworsethanthemselves, isamatterofgraceabsolutelysovereign.HencejustificationisoftensetforthinScriptureaspardon(Isa.55:7),remission(Acts10:43),forgiveness(Eph.1:7),andthenon-imputationofsin(Rom.4:8),&c.But that justification isnotmerepardonisevidentfromthefollowingfacts.

Merepardon is (a) the act of a sovereignwaiving the claimsof the lawanddischargingthepenalty.(b.)Itproceedsuponsovereignprerogativeandtheproprietiesofgovernmentalpolicy torelaxthedemandsof law,but does not declare them satisfied. (c.) The effect of mere pardon issimplytoremitthepenalty;itdoesnotadvancethepardonedmantoanypositivefavour,norentitlehimtoanypositivereward.

But,onthecontrary,justificationisajudicialactofGodproceedinguponthe fact that all the demands of law upon the persons concerned aresatisfied, and it pronounces believers to be entitled to the rewards

conditioned upon obedience to the law as a covenant of life. This iscertain (1) from the uniform classical andNewTestament usage of thewordsδίκαιος,δικαιοσύνη,δικαίωμα,δικαιόω.Theδίκαιοςwas"apersonobservantofrules,henceobservantoftherulesofright,"themorallaw,and hence a just man, or rectus. Δικαιοσύνη was the character of theδίκαιος;thatinthemanwhichconformstoandfulfilsthelaw.*Δικαιόωis to proclaimaman to be δίκαιος, that is, to possess a δικαιοσύνη, orrighteousness.Nopersonconfounds inGreekanymore than inEnglishthe ideas of justification and mere pardon; and the language which isuniformlyused toexpress theonecannot,byany fair interpretation,beheldtoconveytheother.Thelanguagenecessarilysuggeststhefunctionofajudge,notofasovereign,anditimpliesthatthelawissatisfied,notrelaxed, and that the person declared to be just is entitled towhateverbenefits have been graciously made to depend, by covenant, upon theconditionofperfectconformitytothelaw.

(2.)TheScripturesdeclarethatjustificationproceedsuponthegroundofa righteousness. "The righteousness of the law," "their ownrighteousness," is contrasted with "the righteousness of God," "therighteousnessoffaith."Theformerisdeclarednottobe,butthelattertobe, thegroundof justification.HenceChrist is said tobe "theLordourrighteousness" (Jer. 23:6), and "the endof the law for righteousness toevery one that believeth" (Rom. 10:3–6); and we are said to be the"righteousnessofGodinhim."2Cor.5:21,and1Cor.1:30.Justificationisparaphrasedas"the imputationofrighteousnesswithoutworks,"and"faith"issaidtobe"imputedforrighteousness."Rom.4:6,22."Theywhoreceive the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by Jesus Christ.Therefore as by the offence of one JUDGMENT came upon allmen toCONDEMNATION,EVEN so by theRIGHTEOUSNESS of one the freegiftcameuponallmenuntoJUSTIFICATIONoflife.Forasbyoneman'sdisobedience many were made sinners, so by the OBEDIENCE of oneshallmanybemadeRIGHTEOUS."Rom.5:17–19.Theessenceofpardonis that a man is forgiven without righteousness. The essence ofjustification is that a man is pronounced to be possessed of arighteousnesswhichfulfilsthelaw.

(3.)AccordingtohiseternalcovenantwiththeFather,theworkofChrist

secures forhispeoplenotmerelypardon,butboth (a) remissionof thepenaltyduetosin,and(b)atitletothepurchasedpossession.Eph.1:14.Pardoneffectsnothingmorethanremission.Butthepromiseisthat"thejustbyfaithshall live."Eph.3:11.Justificationcarrieswithittheeffectsorconsequencesof"peacewithGod,""accessandrejoicinginthegloryofGod,""reconciliationwithGodandsalvation."Rom.5:1–10.ThebloodofChrist is said to effect not only remission of sins, but also "inheritanceamongthemthataresanctified,"andtheelevationofthoseforwhomitwasshed,tobe"kingsandpriestsuntoGod."Rev.1:5,6;Acts26:18.

2.ThegrounduponwhichGodpronouncesthejustificationofsinnersisnot sovereign prerogative, but the all-perfect "righteousness of Christimputedtousandreceivedbyfaithalone."

WhenwesaythatjustificationisajudicialandnotasovereignactofGod,it is by no means intended by the most rigid adherent of the oldCalvinism that ever lived to deny either of the following great andprecious truths. (a.)That thesubstitutionof thepersonofChrist in theplaceofhispeople,forthepurposeoffulfillingboththepreceptandthepenalty of the law in our place,was an act of absolute sovereignty, theonly reason of which is the "counsel of his ownwill." Nor (b) that theelection of any individual sinner to a part in that body which Christrepresentsinhisobedienceandsufferingwasanactofsovereignty.Nor(c) that as far as any claims of any sort on the part of the elect sinnerhimselfisconcerned,theapplicationofthisredemptiveworkofChristtohiminthegiftoffaith,repentanceandtheirgracioussequencesisanytheless absolutely and unconditionally sovereign. These principles belongfullyasmuchtotheoldCalvinismastotheNewEnglandTheology.Butwhat we do mean to affirm is precisely this: that God having, asSovereign, admitted the substitution of Christ in the law-place of hiselect,andhavingsovereignlychosenagivenindividualtoaplaceintheirnumber,andhaving,accordingtohispromisetotheSon,butsovereignlyasfarasconcernsthemanhimself,conferreduponhimthegiftoffaith,hethenproceedsasJudgetopronouncethefactthatthelawissatisfiedwith respect to that man, because of the perfect work wrought in hisbehalf by his Substitute. Justification is precisely this judicial decision,recognizingthebelieverasrighteous(forensically),andprovidingforhis

beingsoregardedandtreatedforever.

Now the foundation of this act must be the righteousness of Christ,because (1) justification has been proved above to be a forensic andjudicialact,andnot tobemerepardon,butapronouncingamantoberight before the law. Itmust, therefore, proceed upon the ground of arighteousness of some sort—that is, upon the application to the case ofthatwhichwill in the senseof strict justice satisfy thedemandsof law,andnottheself-willoftheSovereign.

But (2) the lawdemands either perfect obedience, past andpresent, orthe executionof thepenalty.Consequently, "by the law canno fleshbejustified,"ifrespectbehadtotheirownimperfectobedience.

(3.)When the Scriptures declare that justification does not proceed onthegroundofhumanworks,theyalwaysusethewordsinageneralsenseto include works of whatever kind. This excludes, of course, faith andevangelical obedience, as well as obedience to the law of the Adamiccovenant."Andifitbeofgrace,itisnomoreofworks:otherwisegraceisnomoregrace.Butif itbeofworks,thenit isnomoregrace:otherwiseworks is nomoreworks." Rom. 11:6. "Now to him that worketh is therewardnotreckonedofgrace,butofdebt.Buttohimthatworkethnot,butbelievethonhimthat justifieth theungodly,his faith iscounted forrighteousness.EvenasDaviddescribeththeblessednessofthemanuntowhomGodimputethrighteousnesswithoutworks."Rom.4:4–6.

(4.)ThefactthatthisjustificationofthesinnerproceedsuponthegroundofChrist'srighteousnessmadeforensicallythesinner'srighteousnessbyimputationisdirectlyassertedinScripture.Asweprovedinaprecedingchapter that theguilt orobligation topunishmentattaching toour sinswaschargeduponChristandexpiatedinhisperson,sowenowseethatthe Scriptures teach with equal clearness the correlative truth that therewardablenessattachingtoChrist'srighteousnessisactuallycreditedtothebeliever,andrewardedinthewholeprocessofhissalvation.Christiscalled"theLordourrighteousness."Jer.23:6.Heissaidtobe"theendofthe law for righteousness toeveryone thatbelieveth."Rom.10:4.He is"made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, andredemption."1Cor.1:30."Hewasmadesinforus,whoknewnosin,that

we might be made the righteousness of God in him." 2 Cor. 5:21."Therefore as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men tocondemnation, even so by the righteousness of one the free gift cameupon allmen to justification of life. For as by oneman's disobediencemany were made sinners, SO BY THE OBEDIENCE OF ONE SHALLMANYBEMADERIGHTEOUS."Rom.5:18,19.Itisoftensaidthatfaith"isimputedforrighteousness."Rom.4:9,22.Butthespecificfaithwhichjustifies is faith inoron (εἰςorἐπί)ChristJesus.Acts9:42; 16:31;Gal.2:16.Itsveryessence,therefore, istrustuponhimandhissin-expiatingandlife-purchasingmerits.Itsveryessenceconsistsinitsself-emptying,self-denying, Christ-grasping energy. The phrase "to impute or reckonfaithforrighteousness"representsnothinkableidea,unlessitmeanstoreckon as the righteousness of the sinner that righteousness which hisfaithtrustsandappropriates.Themereactofleaningwillneversupportafaintingman,unlessheleansuponsomeobjectcapableofsupportinghisweight.Inthatcaseitistheobjectwhichisreckonedhissupport,andnothis act of leaning. The act of leaning is the samewhether aman leansupon a broken reed or upon a rock,while the results differ. The act oftrustingisthesamewhetheramantrustsafalsefoundationortoChrist.ThedifferenceintheresultarisesfromthefactthattherighteousnessofChrist,uponwhichhisfaithreposes,ismadehissofarforthastoansweralltheconditionsandtosecurealltherewardsoftheCovenantofLife.

CHAPTERXV:THEORTHODOXDOCTRINE,ASTOTHENATUREOFTHE

ATONEMENT,PROVEDFROMTHETEACHINGSOFSCRIPTURE,ASTOTHE

NATUREANDOFFICEOFFAITH

OUR view of the nature of the Atonement, and of the federal unionsubsistingbetweenChristandhispeople,istheonlyoneconsistentwith

theteachingofScriptureastothenatureandofficeofFAITH.

Themostprominentandimportantcharacteristicofthegospelpreachedby the apostles is, that they habitually presented salvation to all theirhearersasaninstantgifttofollowimmediatelyupontheexercisebythemof faithon theLordJesusChrist.Nothingbeside thiswas required.Noother condition was necessary in addition to this in order to render iteffective.Whenever thisconditionwaspresent, thegiftofsalvationwasinno case eitherdeniedordelayed.The singledirectiongiven to everyinquirerwas,"BelieveintheLordJesusChrist,andthoushaltbesaved."

Now it is susceptible of demonstration that this faith, as set forth inScriptureastheconditionofsalvation,isnotmereassentofthemindtothe claims of Christ's person or to the truth of his doctrine, but that,togetherwith thisassent, it includes trustor relianceuponhimandhisfinishedwork.Thisiscertain,because—

1.Tobelieve,"in"or"on"apersonnecessarilyinvolvestrust,reliance,ofwhich his character andhis doings are the ground, aswell as credit orassenttothetruthfulnessofhiscommunications.AnditisafactthatthesoleconditionofsalvationishabituallypresentedintheScripturesbythephrases,"tobelieveinoruponChristJesus;"εἰςorἐπίτὸνΧριστὸν,andεἰςτὸὄνομαΧριστοῦ,andἐντῷΧριστῷ.John3:18: "He thatbelievethon him is not condemned, but he that believeth not is condemnedalready,becausehehathnotbelieved in thenameof theonly-begottenSonofGod."John3:36: "He thatbelievethon theSonhatheverlastinglife."John7:38:"Hethatbelievethonme,astheScripturehathsaid,outofhisbellyshallflowriversoflivingwater."Acts9:42;16:31:"AndtheysaidbelieveontheLordJesusChrist(ἐπὶτὸνΚύριον,&c.),andthoushaltbe saved, and thy house." Gal. 2:16: "Even we have believed in JesusChrist,thatwemightbejustifiedbythefaithofChrist."

2. We are said to be saved by faith in or upon Christ, πἱστις εἰς τὸνΧριστὸνandἐνΧριστῷ.Acts20:21;26:18;Gal.3:26;Col.1:4.

3. This one special act of faith, which is the single yet indispensablecondition of salvation, is in Scripture illustrated by a variety ofparaphrases,describinginotherwordsthenatureofthethingtobedone.

Thesearesuchas,"ComingtoChrist;"John6:35:"Iamthebreadoflife;he thatcomethtome,shallneverhunger;andhe thatbelievethonme,shallneverthirst."ReceivingChrist;John1:12:"Butasmanyasreceivedhim,tothemgavehepowertobecomethesonsofGod,eventothemthatbelieveonhisname."FlyingtoChristforrefuge;Heb.6:18:"Thatbytwoimmutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, wemighthaveastrongconsolation,whohavefledforrefugetolayholduponthehopesetbeforeus."Committingallour interests tohiskeeping;2Tim.1:12:"ForIknowwhomIhavebelieved,andampersuadedthatheisabletokeepthatwhichIhavecommitteduntohimagainstthatday."

4.Theeffectsinseparablefromthisfaithareofsuchanatureastoshowthat the faith itself isanactof thewholesoulembracingChrist, relyinguponhimandappropriatinghiswholeworkasthebasisofourfuturelifeandhappiness.ByfaithweareunitedtoChrist.Hedwellsinourheartsbyfaith.Eph.3:17.Itisbyfaiththatweeatthefleshanddrinkthebloodof the Son of God. "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,dwellethinme,andIinhim."John6:56,&c.

Itmustberememberedthatthisformofpresentingthegospelisnotoneformamongseveralothers,butitistheonesolewayinwhichthegospelwasofferedby theapostles tosinners in theirday,and it is the forminwhich the gospel has always been presented, when it has beenaccompanied with the witness of the Holy Ghost, from the day ofPentecostuntilthepresenttime.AndiftheChurchdoctrineoftheliteralsubstitution of Christ in the law-place of his people, and his vicarioussufferingoftheirpenaltyinordertoexpiatethemandpropitiateGod,isacknowledged,thenallthisscripturalusagewithrespecttofaithinChristas the sole conditionof salvation is veryplain. Ifhis sufferingsexhaustthepenaltyforwhichwewerebound—ifhisobediencemeritsaneternalrewardforus—thenallwecanhavetodoistoacceptandappropriatehisfinishedsubstitutionarywork,andtotrustuponitimplicitlyasthelegalandmeritoriousfoundationonwhichourentirehopeisbuilt.Andsuchafaith,whenonceexercised,will immediately secure itsend.The instantwebelieve,therighteousnessofChristinallitsfulnessandfederalrightsisours forever.Andthe instantweexercisesucha faith,weareunitedforensically to its object in an ineffable and perpetual communion

(κοινωνία)ofallrelations,honoursandrights.

Ontheotherhand,accordingtotheMoralInfluenceHypothesis,asinnermaywithevidentproprietybecalledtocreditthecommunicationsofthedivine Messiah, and to yield obedience and sympathy to the spiritualinfluenceoftheheavenlyMediumoftheFather'slovetoman.Butonthishypothesis,itisonlyinaveryfar-fetchedsensethatwecouldbesaidtotrust on him, and to commit all our interests to his charge. And it issimplypreposterous topretend that theScriptureswouldmake trust inChrist the one sole and essential thing to be done in order to theremissionofsins,ifthewholedesignandeffectoftheworkofChristwasto produce a moral impression upon ourselves, that is, save us bypersuadingustobegood.Ifthatwereso,theonecharacteristicpointofthe gospelwould be tomake us look inward and reform.On the otherhand, as above shown, and as the whole world knows, the onecharacteristic point of the gospel is tomake us look outward toChrist,andtrustself-abandoninglyuponhim.

It is true,also, that thescriptural languagewith respect to faith refusesabsolutely to coalesce with the Governmental Hypothesis. If it be truethatChristdidnotsufferinthestrictsenseasourSubstitute;ifhedidnotoccupyourlaw-placeinthecovenantuponthefulfilmentofwhichourlifewassuspended;ifhedidnotsufferthepenaltyofthelawinourstead;ifhis righteousness is not credited to our account as the ground of ourjustification;iftheeffectofhisdeathisactuallytosavenone,buttoputallmen indiscriminately inasalvablestate;—then, insuchacase, therecanobviouslybenoproprietyinourbeingrequiredtobelieveonChristas the one sole condition of salvation. In such a case it would becongruous enough to require us to submit toGod as Sovereign, and tocredit the personal claims, the official character, and the infallibleteachingofChrist.Wemayevenwithsufficientproprietyberequiredtotrust to his work as far as it is concerned in putting us in a salvablecondition.But itplainlywouldbeabsurd, in thatcase, tomake theonesole condition upon which remission of sins and actual salvation isinstantly suspended to be trust upon Christ—ignoring the fact that hiswork,costlyasitis,isonlyoneoftheindependentgroundsonwhichoursalvationdepends.

OntheGovernmentalHypothesis,faithmustbeeither(a)thesovereignlyimposedconditionofsalvation,or(b)asincludingevangelicalobedienceaccepted in theplaceofperfect legalobedience forChrist's sake, as thegroundofour justification.Butsincesavingor justifyingfaith,asaboveshown,involvestrust,itsveryessenceexcludesthepossibilityofitsbeingitselfthegrounduponwhichjustificationdepends.Faithisinitsnatureself-emptying, appropriating and building upon that onwhich its trustterminates.IfbeliefinoruponChrististhesoleconditionofsalvation,ifit istheonethingtobedonebytheinquirer,andifsalvationinvariablyfollowsuponitsexercise,thenitisbeyondquestionthatChrist'spersonand work, on which the faith terminates, must be the ground, themeritorious principle, on which the salvation rests, and the efficientvirtuebywhichitiseffected.

Thustheverynatureofsavingfaith,assetforthintheconstantlanguageof Scripture,makes it evident that it is the instrumentwherebywe areunitedtoChristandmadeparticipantsinhisrighteousness,andinallthecovenantedconsequencesthereof.

CHAPTERXVI:THEORTHODOXDOCTRINEASTOTHENATUREOFTHEATONEMENTPROVEDFROMWHATTHESCRIPTURESTEACHASTOITSABSOLUTENECESSITYINORDERTOTHESALVATION

OFSINNERS

THE orthodox doctrine of the nature of the Atonement is further

certainlyestablishedbytheteachingofScriptureastothesenseinwhichtheexpiationofsinbyChristwasanabsolutelyessentialprerequisite inorder to the salvationof sinfulmen,and thereforeNECESSARY to thatend. It is earnestly maintained by all Calvinists that since all men aresinners,whosenatural claims asmere creaturesupon theirCreator arejustly forfeited, salvation must spring up, if at all, out of grace as aproductofthesovereignwillofGod.If,therefore,salvationbeamatterofgraceandsovereignty, itcannotbeamatterofnecessityinanysenseofthewordwhatsoever.ButonthehypothesisthatitisthepurposeofGodtosaveguiltymen,thequestionmustarise,Inwhatsense,andonwhatgrounds,wastheatoningworkofChristnecessarytothatend?

Thisquestionhasbeenmuchdiscussedamongtheologians,anddifferentanswershavebeengivenbydifferentclassesofthem,incorrespondencewith the fundamental principles of their respective systems. TheSociniansholdthattheworkofChrist,asawhole,wasoneofdoubtlessmanyplanssubjecttoGod'sselection,bywhichhecouldsoftentheheartsofmenandbringthemtorepentance.TheadvocatesoftheGovernmentalTheory hold that his sufferings and death were necessary in order tomake a moral impression on the subjects of God's moral governmentgenerally,sothatthehonourof the lawmaybeupheld,anditssubjectsduly impressedwith theevilof sinand thecertaintyof itspunishment,notwithstanding the special instanceof impunity allowed in the case ofsinners amongmankind.Dr. Twisse and others held it to be necessarysimplybecauseGodhaddeterminedthathewouldforgivesinonnoothercondition. Thomas Aquinas* held that it was impossible that thepunishmentofsincouldberemittedabsolutely—thatis,inflictedneitherupon the sinner nor upon his substitute—if justice be taken into theaccount.YethemaintainedthatbecauseofGod'sabsolutesovereignty,itwouldnothavebeenunjust inGod, ifhehadsowilled it, to ignore theclaims of justice, and to remit sin by simple prerogative, without anysatisfactionatall.ThegreatbodyoftheChurch,ontheotherhand,haveuniformlyheldthatit isessentialtotheverynatureof justice(a)thatitshouldbevoluntary, that is, spontaneousand free in thedivinenature,but (b) that its exercise should not be optional. Hence the Churchdoctrinehasalwaysbeen,thatifthesinneristobeforgiven,anadequatesatisfactiontodivinejustice,intherealexpiationofthesin,isabsolutely

necessarytothatend.

It is obvious that this question is identical with one discussed under aformer head, viz., What is the reason why God punishes sin? Is thatreasontobefoundinthebarefactofhisownwill;orinthemoralstateoftheindividualsinner;or inthemoral impressionit isdesirabletomakeonthegeneralcommunitysubjecttothedivinegovernment;ordoesitlieintheimmutablenatureofGodhimself?Itisevidentthat, if itdependsupon the bare will of God, the necessity for its provision is purelycontingentuponhiswill.Ifthereasonforitresultsfromtheobduracyofsinners otherwise irremediable, or in the exigencies of the divinegovernment, or in conditions of the publicmind of the subjects of thatgovernment in general, then the necessity alleged is still contingent onthewill ofGod, because these grounds or occasions for theAtonementmight, of course, oneandall, be removedby thegraciouspowerof theHolyGhostactingdirectlyupontheheartsofhiscreatures,andinducingwhatevermoral state he desired, if he had sowilled. But, on the otherhand,ifthenecessityinquestionresultsfromtheimmutabledemandsofthedivinenature, it is obviously absolute inorder to the forgivenessofthe sinner, and contingent neither upon the divine will nor upon themoralconditionofthecreature.Hence,conversely,ifthenecessityfortheAtonement be absolute, it follows that it must have its ground in thedivinenature,andnotintheexigenciesofgovernmentortheconditionofthecreatures.Theargumentinbothdirectionsisconclusive,alikewhenitproceedsfromthenatureoftheAtonementtoitsnecessity,andwhenitproceeds from its necessity to its nature. I have in a previous chapterprovedthenecessityoftheAtonement,andconsequentlyitsnature,fromtheholinessofthedivinenature,andfromtheimmutabilityofthedivinelaw. At present, I propose to present those biblical statements whichdirectlyestablishthefactthatthenecessityfortheAtonementofChristtotheendoftheremissionofsinsisabsolute,andwhich,byimmediateandunavoidable inference, establish the conclusion that the ground of thatnecessitymustlieinthedivinenature,andneitherintheobduracyofthesinnernorintheexigenciesofthedivinegovernment.

ThefactthatthenecessityfortheAtonement,inordertothesalvationofsinners, is absolute, is to be certainly inferred from the following

scripturaldata.

1. It may be inferred from the amazing greatness of the sacrifice. TheScripturesconstantlyspeakofthesacrificeoftheSonbytheFatherasanunparalleled wonder. All else that God will or can do is as nothing incomparisonwith thegiftofChrist. IfGod"sparednothisownSon,butdeliveredhimupforusall,howshallhenotwithhimalsofreelygiveusallthings?"Rom.8:32.Thissacrificewouldbemostpainfullyirrelevantifit were anything short of absolutely necessary in relation to the enddesigned to be attained—that is, unless it be indeed the only possiblemeanstothesalvationofsinfulmen.GodsurelywouldnothavemadehisSonawantonsacrificetoapointofbarewill.Christcertainlywouldnothave been sacrificed if divine wisdom could have devised, or if divinepowercouldhaveexecuted,anyotherprocesscapableofeffectingtheenddesigned—thatis,theredemptionofmenfromthecurseofthatlaw.

2.ThesametruthisassertedineffectinGal.2:21:"Ifrighteousnesscomebythelaw,thenChristisdeadinvain."Intheoriginalthereisnoarticlebefore the word νόμος (law). The affirmation of the text is, that ifrighteousnessby law(δὶανόμου),byany lawwhatsoever,werepossiblefor man, then Christ is dead in vain. So great a sacrifice as this ismisplaced,istoallintentsinvain,thrownaway,madewithoutadequatepurpose,ifanyothermeanscouldhaveattainedtheend.

3.Again,inGal.3:21,itissaid:"Ifalawhadbeengivenwhichcouldhavegivenlife,verilyrighteousnessshouldhavebeenbythelaw."Godcangivenolawwhoserequirementsfallshortofabsoluteperfection,otherwisehewould deny himself. There can be no change or compromise ofrighteousness. But in the case of man this all-perfect law can onlydemandandcondemn. It isnot the functionof law toempower,nor toremit,nortogivelife,nortoatone.VerilyChristwouldneverhavebeensacrificedifrighteousnesscouldhavebeenbylaw.

4.GodexpresslymeasureshislovetohispeoplebyhisgiftofhisSontodie for them. "God SO LOVED THE WORLD that he gave his only-begotten Son." John 3:16. "God COMMENDETHHIS LOVE TOWARDUS,inthat,whilewewereyetsinners,Christdiedforus."Rom.5:8."InthiswasmanifestedtheloveofGodtowardus,becausethatGodsenthis

only-begottenSonintotheworld,thatwemightlivethroughhim."1John4:9.This isanamazingtruth,and it is true justbecause thesacrificeofChrist was necessary to secure the salvation of those God loved; andhencethegreatnessofhislovetousismeasuredbythegreatnessofhissacrificeforus.Butifthesacrificewasnotnecessaryinthestrictsenseofthat term, then theremusthavebeen someoneormorealternativesatGod'sdisposal,andhencethesacrificeofChrist, thealternativechosen,couldbeinnotruesenseameasureofhisloveforhispeople,butonlyofhisownunwillingnesstoadoptanyotheroneofthepossiblealternatives.

5. Paul declares, Rom. 3:25, 26, "That Christ was set forth to be apropitiation(ἱλαστήριον,expiation)throughfaithinhisblood,todeclarehis righteousness for the remission of sins that are past." That is, theexpiatory work of Christ is set forth as the vindication of therighteousnessoressentialholinessofGod, inrespect to the fact thathehadremittedsinsintimepast.Andheproceeds"todeclare,Isay,atthistime his righteousness, that he might be just and the justifier of himwhichbelieveth inJesus." It isabsolutelynecessary thatGodshouldbejust.Thisheeternallyis.Butthatheshouldbejustwhilehejustifiestheunjust,itwasnecessarythatChristshouldbeofferedapiacularsacrificefor sin. Therefore the sacrifice of Christ, considered as ameans to thejustification of sinners, was an absolute necessity. And therefore itfollows,asshownabove,thatthegroundofthatnecessitymustlieinthedivinenature—whichistheoneonlyabsolutegroundofnecessityintheuniverse.AndifthegroundforthenecessityfortheAtonementisintheconstitutionofthedivinenature,itfollowsthattheAtonement,astoitsnature, is a satisfactionbyvicariouspenal sufferingsof thedemandsofthedivinenature.

CHAPTERXVII:THENATUREOFTHEATONEMENTDETERMINEDBYWHATTHE

SCRIPTURESTEACHASTOITSPERFECTION

THEquestionastothePERFECTIONoftheatoningworkofChristhasoftenbeenagitatedintheChurch.Itrelatestotwodistinctpoints.(a.)Isthatworkperfectasto its intrinsic justice-satisfyingvalue?Does it fullysatisfy all the demands of the law by reason of its own inherentmerit.And(b)as to itsapplicationandeffect, is theatoningworkofChristsocomplete in itself that it secures the salvationof those forwhom itwasmade?Ordoesitonlyputthesinnerinasalvablestate,leavingtheresulttodependuponotherconditions?

I.Thefirstpoint,itisevident,wouldhavenorelevancywhatsoeveronthesuppositionofthetruthoftheMoralInfluenceTheory.IftheonedesignofChrist'ssufferingsistotouchourheartsandsubdueouraffections,theefficiency of the work must depend upon every man's subjectiveappreciationofChrist'sperson,ofhismotives,andof thenecessityandvalue of his interventions in our behalf. The advocates of theGovernmentalTheorydenythatChristsufferedthepenaltyofthelaw,orthathis sufferingswere in intrinsicvaluea full equivalent for thepenalsufferings in person of all those in whose behalf he suffered. Theymaintain that since these sufferings are an expedient to secure certainendsintheadministrationofthedivinegovernment,theyareintroducedand acted on in the remission of sins by God in his capacity of aSovereign, and not as a Judge. He wills to accept the satisfaction ofChrist,notbecauseinitsintrinsicnatureitisafullequivalentinrigourofjustice for thepersonal punishment of his people, but becausehiswiseandbenevolentmindseesthathemaydosowithperfectsafetytoallthebestinterestsofhisgeneralgovernment.

DunsScotus,referringthenecessityfortheAtonementultimatelytothewill and not to the nature of God, consequently maintained that Godcouldhaveforgivensinwithoutanysatisfaction;thatifhehadsowilled,he might have proposed conditions of forgiveness other than thosefulfilledbyChrist;andthatthetemporaryandfinitesufferingsofChristareacceptedbyGod,inthegraciousexerciseofsovereignprerogative,as

asubstitute,butnotasafull,legalequivalentfortheeternalsufferingsofmen.ThisprincipleScotusexpressedbythetermacceptilatio,borrowedfromtheRomanlaw,anddefinedas"theoptionaltakingofsomethingfornothing,orofapartforthewhole."

Grotius,inhisgreatworkDeSatisfactione,rejectedthetermacceptilatio,but retained substantially the idea. He refers the necessity of theAtonement to the interests of good order in the universe.He considerstheoptionalwillofGodthegroundandoriginoflaw,andmaintainsthatthedemandsof lawmayofcourseberelaxedby thechoiceof thesamewill that creates them.He held that Christ did not pay in the stead ofsinners a quid pro quo but an aliud pro quo, which God graciouslyaccepts; that is, God's law is not satisfied in rigour of justice by whatChristhasdone,buthehassovereignlyrelaxed it, so that it isvirtually,that is, in practical effect, satisfied thereby. Limborch says: "ThesatisfactionofChristissocalled(bysome)becausethatheforoursakesendured all the penalties charged against our sins, and by fullydischargingthemhemadesatisfactiontodivinejustice.ButthatopinionhasnofoundationinScripture.ThedeathofChristiscalledasacrificeforsin; but sacrifices were not payments of debts, neither were they fullsatisfactions for sins; but the penalty was gratuitously remitted oncondition that the sacrifice was offered."* … "In this they greatly err,because they consider the price of redemption to be in all thingsequivalenttothosemiseriesfromwhichredemptionissecured.Thepriceof redemption was determined by the estimation of him who held thecaptive,anddidnotreleasethecaptiveonthegroundofmerit."

Curcellæus says: "Christ did not, therefore, as is commonly thought,makesatisfactionbysufferingallthosepenalevilswhichwemeritedforour sins; for, in the first place, this does not pertain to the nature orpurpose of sacrifice; for sacrifices were not the payment of debts:secondly, Christ has not suffered eternal death, which was the penaltydeservedbyoursin,forhehunguponthecrossonlyforafewhours,androseagainthethirdday.Evenifhehadundergoneeternaldeath,itdoesnot appear how he could havemade satisfaction for all the sins of thewholeworld;forthiswouldhavebeenonlyonedeath,whichnevercouldhave equalled all the deaths which individual men merited for their

respective sins.… Fourthly, this opinion cannot possibly be madeconsistentwiththegratuitousremissionofallsins,whichtheScriptureseverywhere teach that God, in his infinite mercy, concedes to us inChrist."

TheCatholic,LutheranandReformedChurcheshaveheld,ontheotherhand, that thepenalsatisfactionmadebythesufferingsofChrist to thelawandjusticeofGodisinitsownintrinsicvalueafullequivalentinthestrictrigourofjusticeforthepenalsufferingsofallmenforever,andthatGodacceptsandactsuponthissatisfactioninthejustificationofbelieversin his capacity of Judge, not in the exercise of sovereign prerogative,acknowledgingitsintrinsicvalueandfulladequacytotheenddesigned,as amatter of fact, and not by any gratuitous acceptilation or graciousestimation,arbitrarilyraisingthesacrificeuptothelevelofthelaw,norby any sovereign relaxation letting down the law to the level of thesubstitutedpenalsufferings.Wedonothereappeal to theperfectionofthe Atonement to prove the truth of our view of its nature. On thecontrary,weratherprove thatourview,as to its inherentperfection, iscorrect fromwhat has been already sufficiently proved as to its natureand necessity. If the Atonement was absolutely necessary in order tosatisfytheimmutablejusticeofGod,andifitconsistedinChrist'sbearinginour stead the literal penalty of the law in full rigour, then it is plainthat,initsintrinsicvalue,itwasfullyequaltoallthatthelawdemandedofthoseforwhomheacted.Sincehewasadivineperson,Christwasofcourseaboveallthepossibleclaimsoflaw.Invirtueofhishumannaturea divine Person wasmade vicariously under the law for us. Hence hisobedience,bothactiveandpassive,wasevidently,asfarashehimselfwasconcerned,aworkof supererogation;demandednotofhimself;needednotbyhimself; andwholly accruing to the credit of those forwhomheacted. And since he was the eternal Son of God, who condescended tosuffer and obey, to suffer terribly and shamefully, to fulfil all hisobedience, the details of "all righteousness," although itwere but for atime,itisevidentenoughthattheintrinsicvalueofhisworkismorethanequal to all that his people could have suffered and obeyed under anypossibleconditionsforanypossibletime.ThedifficultywhichaChristianexperiences is surely not to believe this, but rather to understand whyinfinite wisdom saw it to be necessary to exact so much of SUCH a

Sufferer.

II. The second point debated concerning the perfection of Christ'ssatisfaction relates to its application or effect. Thomas Aquinas taughtthat the passion of the Redeemer was not only a sufficient but asuperabundant satisfaction for the sins of men. The Romish Churchadopted this idea, and adjusted it to their hierarchical system. Christ'smerit is superabundant. It belongs to the Church, its depository andauthorized dispenser. This merit avails directly, through theinstrumentalityofbaptism,totheremovaloftheguiltoforiginalsinandof all those actual transgressionswhich preceded baptism. The penaltyaccruing for the guilt of post-baptismal sins has, in virtue of Christ'smerit, been transmuted from eternal death to temporal pains, and allsuch temporal pains are accepted as sufficient only for Christ's sake.Nevertheless, a person guilty of post-baptismal sins must, in order totheirforgiveness,expiatethemeitherbypenancesandworksofcharity,orinthenextworldbythepainsofpurgatory;allofwhicharenecessaryandpossess,forChrist'ssake,arealexpiatoryvirtue.Andhencealsotheefficacy of sacramental grace, priestly absolution, plenary indulgences,&c., results fromthe fundofmerit lodged in theChurch,accruing fromthesuperabundanceofChrist'ssatisfaction.

TheadvocatesoftheGovernmentalTheoryoftheAtonement,andindeedall theadvocatesofan indefiniteAtonementgenerally,necessarilyhold,withrespecttothedesignedapplicationoreffectofChrist'ssatisfaction,thatitactuallyavailstosavenoone,butonlybyremovinglegalobstaclestomakethesalvationofallmenpossible.Inthisview,hissatisfactionisonlyoneoftheconditionsuponwhichthesalvationofallmendepends,butitisnotitsgreatefficientcause,carryingwithitassubordinatetoitall other causes and conditions. The work of Christ is thus in itselfconsideredsofarimperfectthatitmaytotallyfailofanysavingeffectinasingle case, and it needs to be renderedperfect as an efficient cause ofsalvationbysomeco-operatingcauseabextra,derivedeither(a)fromthesovereigndecreeofGod,or(b)fromthefreewillsofmen.

InanswertotheRomanistsweaffirm—

1. The Bible represents all the sufferings of believers in this life as

disciplinary,designedtoadvancetheirmoralandspiritualimprovement,andhavingnorespectwhatevertotheexpiationofguilt.TheremovalofcondemnationisreferredsolelytotheworkofChrist(Rom.8:1,33,34),andthedesignofdiscipline isreferredsolely to thepaternalpurposeofimprovingthepersonsexercisedthereby,"forourprofit,thatwemaybepartakersofhisholiness."Heb.12:5–11.

2.TheScripturesdeclare that"thebloodofJesusChristcleanseth fromall sin." 1 John 1:7. And that "by one offering for sin he hath for everperfectedthemthataresanctified."Heb.10:12,14.AndthatallChristians"are complete in him,which is the head of all principality and power."Col.2:10.

3. Trust in the one sacrifice of Christ is made the sole condition ofacceptanceandfavouratalltimes.Butthisactoftrustnecessarily,fromits verynature, excludes all dependencewhatsoeverupon the expiatoryvalueofourownsufferings,oruponthemeritofourownservices.

Inanswer to theProtestant impugnersof theabsoluteperfectionof thesatisfactionofChristasthealoneprocuringcauseofthesalvationofhispeople, I call towitness, in addition towhathasbeen cited against thekindredpositionoftheRomanists,thefact,thattheScriptureshabituallyand characteristically, and in every variety of form, assert that thesatisfaction of Christ effects the deliverance, the redemption, thesalvation, theadoption, the sanctification,&c.,&c.,ofhispeople.Everyreader of the Scriptures knows that they constantly declare that theFathergavetheSontodeath,andthattheSonsubmittedtodie,forthepurposeofeffectingthesethings.EveryreaderknowsthattheScripturesconstantly declare that the obedience and sufferings of Christ actuallyeffect these things.Theydo,asamatterof fact, "saveus," "redeemus,""reconcile us to the Father," secure for us "the adoption of sons," "theindwelling" and all the "fruits of the Spirit." If this be so, thenunquestionably Christ, by his expiatory sacrifice, did not merely makesalvation possible. His sacrifice must secure that salvation as a whole,andallthatisincludedinit.Nottheendwithoutthemeans,buttheendthroughthemeans;noteternallifewithoutfaithandobedience,butfaithandobedience inorder toeternal life. Inthisrespect theredemptionofChrist is like the eternal decree of God. It does not alter any natural

relationsustainedbytheseveralelementsinvolvedinthebeliever'slifetothe means of grace, the exercises of free will, and the necessity forgracious affection and obedience, but it does render the event it wasdesigned to secure certain, and in order to that end secures all theantecedentsandconditionsuponwhichthateventdependsortowhichitis related. We will not be saved without faith and obedience, but ourprecious Saviour left no such conditions unprovided for. The faith, theobedience,andtheperseverancetotheendwereassurelypurchasedbythe great ALL-PERFECT sacrifice as were the remission of the penaltyandfinalsalvation.

CHAPTERXVIII:THESATISFACTIONRENDEREDBYCHRISTPROVEDTO

EMBRACEHISACTIVEASWELLASHISPASSIVEOBEDIENCE

I PROPOSE to prove, in conclusion, that our blessed Lord, havingassumedourlaw-place,and,asourSubstitute,becomeresponsibleforallourobligationstothelawinitsfederalrelation,hasdischargedthembyhis obedience as well as by his sufferings—having, by his sufferings,cancelled the claims of penal justice, and by his obediencemerited therewardsofthatoriginalCovenantofLifeunderwhichallmenwereheld.

In the thirdchapterIhavestatedthereasonswhythewordAtonementfailsunambiguouslyandcomprehensivelytoexpresstheentirenatureoftheworkwroughtbyourLordforourredemption.(a.)Whileitproperly,as theEnglishequivalent for theHebrewכפר,means tomakeexpiationforsinbymeansofavicariousinflictionorenduranceofthepenalty,itisneverthelessusedbymany toexpressmerereconciliation,at-one-ment.(b.)Evenwhenit issettledthattheword"toatone"isequivalenttothephrase "to make expiation," the difficulty still presses, that it is toonarrowfortheusetowhichit isput,andcannotproperlycoverall that

Christhasdoneforthedischargeofourlegalobligations.TheScripturesteachusplainlythatChrist'sobediencewasastrulyvicariousaswashissuffering,andthathereconciledustotheFatherbytheoneaswellasbytheother.NowthewordAtonementsignalizesonlytheexpiationofourguilt by Christ's vicarious sufferings, but expresses nothing concerningthe relation which his obedience sustains to our salvation, as thatmeritorious condition upon which the divine favour and the promisedrewardhavebycovenantbeensuspended.Ontheotherhand, thewordSatisfactionexactlyandexhaustivelyexpressesallthatChristhasdoneasourSubstitute,inourstead,foroursakes,totheendofsatisfyinginourbehalfthefederaldemandsofthelaw,andofsecuringforustherewardsconditionedupontheirfulfilment.Hiswholeworkwasofthenatureofasatisfaction. As far as it consisted of penal suffering, it satisfied thepenalty of the law and the justice of the Law-giver; and as far as itconsisted of obedience, it satisfied the conditions of the covenant uponwhichthedivinefavourtowardshispeoplewassuspended.

The great defect of Symington's otherwise orthodox and excellentworkon the Atonement is that, while he admits Christ's obedience to bevicarious,andtohavemeritedforustherewardsoftheCovenantofLife,heyetinsiststhattheworkofexpiation,underthetitleof"Atonement,"ought to be discussed separately,while his vicarious obedience, and itsrelation to the rewards of an impeccable moral character and eternalfelicity,isleftoutofsight.Onthecontrary,Iaffirm—

1. In opposition to Symington—who, while admitting that Christ'sobedienceandsufferingswerealikevicariousandalikeessentialinorderto our salvation, yet unnaturally separates them—that since they areinseparable parts of one perfect work of satisfaction, which are neverseparatedeitherinthemediatorialworkofChristorintheireffectuponthe covenant-standing of his people, therefore, they cannot beproperlyseparatedinanycompleteaccountofhiswork.ThewholeearthlylifeofChrist, including his birth itself, was one continued self-emptying evenunto death. His birth and every moment of his life, in the form of aservant, was of the nature of holy suffering. Every experience of painduring the whole course of his life, and eminently in his death on thecross,was,onhispart,avoluntaryandmeritoriousactofobedience.He

lived his whole life, from his birth to his death, as our representative,obeying and suffering in our stead and for our sakes; and during thiswhole course all his sufferingwas obedience and all his obediencewassuffering. The righteousness which he wrought out for his peopleconsisted precisely in this suffering obedience. The righteousness ofChrist,which is imputed severally to eachbeliever as thegroundofhisjustification,consistspreciselyofthisobedientsuffering.Hisearthlylife,assuffering,cancelsthepenalty,and,asobedience,fulfilsthepreceptandsecures thepromised reward;but the sufferingand theobediencewerenot separated in fact, and are inseparable in principle, and equallynecessarytosatisfythelawofthecovenantandtosecurethesalvationoftheelect.

2. In opposition to all those who deny that Christ's obedience wasvicarious, or, strictly speaking, any part of his work of redemption, Ipropose to show, that his obedience is an inseparable element of thatrighteousnesswhichhewroughtinourstead,andwhichisimputedtousasthegroundofourjustification.

InthesixthchapterIdistinguishedthethreedistinctrelationswhichmenmay sustain to the law—the natural, federal and penal. The naturalrelationisthatintowhicheachmoralagentisintroducedbytheveryfactofhiscreation,andunderwhichhecontinuesnecessarilytoexistaslongas he has being. It is unchangeable and inalienable, incapable ofrelaxation,intermission,modificationortransfer;andunderitthesamelawcontinuesperpetuallythestandardofmoralcharacterandobligation,alike to angels and devils, to men under probation, fallen andunregenerate, in perdition, regenerate and confirmed in glory. ThefederalrelationisthattemporaryandspecialrelationunderwhichithaspleasedGodtointroduceallofthoseordersofmoralagentswithwhichwe are acquainted immediately after their creation. They are broughtunder it in the character of those created holy yet fallible, in a state ofunstablemoralequilibrium.Therelationisspecial,becauseithasforitsend the specialdesignofaffording those subject to it anopportunityofrenderingobedience,whileopentothefullforceoftemptationandliableto seduction, as the condition of their being endowed byGodwith thesupernaturalgraceofaconfirmedand impeccablemoralcharacter,and

the blessedness thence resulting for ever. This relation is temporary,becausefromitsverynatureitmust,ineveryevent,beterminated,ipsofacto,eitherbythefirstsinwhichbringsinthepenalty,orbythegrantingof the promised reward when the conditions upon which it has beensuspended have been accomplished. The penal relation comes inwhenthe lawhasbeenbroken, and the trialhas ceased. It springsoutof theessential nature of the law, and continues in force until that perfectrighteousness of which the penalty is the outward expression iscompletelysatisfied.

It isnotorious that,asamatterof fact,menhavesustainedallof theserelations to the law, and that by reason of sin they are condemned ineach.Theyareunderperpetualobligationtobeconformedtothelawasastandardofcharacterandasaruleofaction,buttheyarewhollyunableto meet the obligation. Their hopes of eternal well-being were allsuspended upon the conditions undertaken by the first Adam in thegarden,butallthisisalreadyandforeverforfeitedbypastdisobedience.They are justly subject to the penalty of eternal death. They must berestored to conformity to the law, in all these respects, by a powerexterior to themselves, or they cannot be saved. As a matter of fact,believersarerestoredtoconformitytothelaw,initsnaturalrelation,asastandardofcharacterandasaruleoflife,bytheHolyGhostregeneratingandsanctifyingthem.Buttheirrestorationtoconformitytothelaw,initspenal and federal relations, is accomplished by Christ through his oneworkofobedientsufferingevenuntodeath.Ifheassumedourplace,soas to suffer the penalty in our stead, he must, at the same time, havesecuredourtitletotherewardconditioneduponobediencebymeansofhis perfect obedience, which was inseparably implicated with hissufferings,andwhichwasrenderedinthesamecovenantrelationinourstead as well as in our behalf. All that Christ did on earth he did asMediator. He was acting in our stead while he was obeying as well aswhile he was suffering. The active and passive righteousness of Christwerenever, in fact, separated fromeachother, and therefore, except intheir logicaldiscrimination,weshouldneverexhibit themasseparated.TheywerewroughttogetherbyChristasourSubstituteashisoneworkofredemption.ItwaswithreferencetobothoftheseconjointlythatJesusiscalled "theLordour righteousness."SosaysJohnWesley,asquotedby

RichardWatson.*Thereforenoviewofthenature,relationandeffectsoftheonewhichexcludesallconsiderationoftheothercanbeaccurate,andmuch less can it be complete. They consequently should never beseparated,butshouldberegardedastheinseparablepartsofoneorganicwhole,andsignalizedbyatitlecapableofembracingboth.Satisfactionisthegenusincludingthetwocomplementaryspecies,obedienceandpenalsufferings.

The principle which lies at the bottom of this distinction was firstdiscriminated by Thomas Aquinas, and by him denoted by the termssatisfactioandmeritum.Bysatisfactiohemeantthecompletefulfilmentofalltheclaimsoflawandjusticewithrespecttothepenalty.Bymeritumhemeantthatwhichsecures,byvirtueofthedivinepromise,thefavourofGodandeverlastingwell-being.BoththeLutheranandtheReformedChurches,recognizingthevalidityofthisdistinction,havemaintainedintheir Confessions that Christ, as the second Adam, assumed all ourcovenant responsibilitiesprecisely at thatpoint in theprocess towhichthe first Adam had brought them when he fell. The penalty heexhaustivelydischarged,instrictrigourofjustice,bymeansofallhislife-long sufferings culminating in his death. And the condition of perfectobedience, on which the promised reward was suspended, by theunfailing obedience of his entire life. Through thewhole ofChrist's lifethererananelementofinfinitehumiliation,especiallyinhisdeath.Everyact, therefore,was, inoneaspect, an itemofvicarious suffering,and inanotheraspect,an itemofvicariousobedience to thewillofhisFather.Bothelementswerenecessary,andtheyareas inseparableascolorandsurface,orasmatterandform.Yetitisnecessarytodiscriminatethemasto both their essence and their effects. That is, the perfect and painfulobedience of his life and deathmust be viewed (a) as a guilt-expiatingenduranceofthepenaltyofthelawinthesteadofhispeople,and(b)asthatwhichbyGod'sfreepromisehasbeenmade,toallthoserepresentedbyChrist,theconditionofdivinefavourandofeternalwell-being.Intheone aspect, the obedience is called passive, to signalize it as penalsuffering. In another aspect, the same obedience is called active, tosignalizeitasthedoingofthatwhichiscommanded."Thequestionthenreturns,WhetherthesatisfactionrenderedbyChristinourplaceistobeconfined to his death, or to those sufferings which preceded and

accompanied it; or whether it truly embraced all those things whichChristdidandsufferedforusfromthebeginningofhislifeevenuntotheend?Whichlastweaffirm."*Thetruthofthispositionisestablishedbythefollowingconsiderations.

I.Thelaw,asacovenantoflife,wasaccompaniedbytwosanctions:(a.)The promise of divine favour and eternalwell-being, conditioned uponperfect obedience; and (b) the penalty of "death" suspended ondisobedience.Moses declared that the legal condition of salvationwas,that "the man that doeth these things shall live by them." Lev. 18:5.CompareRom. 10:5, andGal. 3:12. Christ declared the principle of thelaw to the young ruler thus: "If thou wilt enter into life, keep thecommandments." Matt. 19:17. Eternal life, the adoption of sons, theeternal inheritance,areconditionedonlyonobedience.Thegospeldoesnotproceedupontheruinsofthelaw,but"Christistheendofthelawforrighteousness to every one that believeth," and the object forwhich hecameinthefleshwas"thattherighteousnessofthelawmightbefulfilledinus."All the conditions, therefore,must bemet. If thewholework ofChrist's satisfaction ended inhis suffering in our stead the penalty dueour sins, his people, as a consequence, would be replaced and left justwhere Adam was before he fell. There are then four, and only four,conceivablealternatives,oneorotherofwhichmustbe true. (1.)EitherGodmustaltertheconditionsofhumanprobation,andgranttherewardsof the Covenant of Life to sinful men on very different and far lowerconditionsthanthoseuponwhichtheywereofferedtoinnocentAdam,ortothehumanraceoriginallyinhim,ortoanyotherorderofcreaturesasfarasrevealed intheirseveralprobations. (2.)Orwemustcontinueforeverdestituteofanyshare in thoserewardswhichwereconditionedonobedience,thatis,withoutconfirmationinaholycharacterandwithouteternal blessedness. (3.)Orwe shall be left to thenecessity of fulfillingtheconditionsof theCovenantofWorks inourownpersons, renderingtherefor perfect obedience of heart and life, and that, too, before wereceive grace and as the condition of our reception of it. (4.)OrChristmust fulfil this part also of the requirements of the law as well as thepenaltyinoursteadandbehalf.

As to the first alternative, it is evident that if eternal blessedness is

granted on any conditions short of perfect obedience, then the entireCovenantofLife,God'sownordinance for thehumanrace, fails,and isdishonoured instead of honoured, is broken and supplanted instead ofbeing fulfilled andmagnified by the gospel. The essential principles ofeternal justice would be violated if to mankind, as one of theconsequencesoftheirsin,confirmationinapermanentimpeccablemoralcharacter,eternallifeandthefavourofGod,weregrantedonconditionsdeniedtonewly-createdangelsandtoAdamininnocency.

Astothesecondalternative,itisplainthatwecannotenduretoremaindestituteofthoserewardswhichthegreatoriginalordinance,whichgiveslaw to all that follow it, suspended upon the condition of perfectobedience.Moreover, thepromisesof thegospelandtheexperiencesofChristians,inspiredanduninspired,assureusthatwearenotrequiredtoremaindestituteoftherewardssoessentialtolife.

Weare,therefore,shutuptothechoicepresentedinthethirdandfourthalternativesabovestated,theformerrepresentingtheArminianandthelatter the Calvinistic theories as to the legal grounds upon which thepositive justification of the believer in Christ proceeds. The Arminianholds that, in someway never defined, the sufferings of Christmake itconsistentwiththerectoraljusticeofGodtoremitthepenaltyofthelawin the caseofbelievers, and tooffer themon the lowered conditionsoffaith and evangelical obedience the same blessings that were originallyconditionedonperfectobedience.TheCalvinistholdsthatChrist,actingasourRepresentative ina strictly legal sense,has suffered inour steadthe penalty of the law, in order to free us from eternal bondage to thesame,andobeyed theprecept inorder to secure forus theblessings soconditioned. There is no third plan that can be substituted in place ofthese.Everyconceivableplanofjustificationthatadmitsthefactsofthegospelatall,can,initslastanalysis,bereducedtooneorotherofthese.All logical Arminians have uniformly chosen the former. The Romishtheoryofco-operativejustification(Christ'smeritsandthemeritofgoodworks)amounts to thesame thing.TheGovernmentalAtonementmen,whenever they condescend to a definite statement of the nature of thegrounds of justification,must come to the same conclusion. Emmons,*forinstance,maintains(a)that"justification,inagospelsense,signifies

no more nor less than the pardon or remission of sin." (b.) "Thatforgiveness is theonly favourwhichGodbestowsuponmenonChrist'saccount."(c.)"Thefullandfinaljustificationofthebeliever,ortheirtitleto their eternal inheritance, is conditional. They must perform certainthings, which he has specified as terms or conditions of their takingpossessionoftheirseverallegacies."(d.)"ThatGoddoespromiseeternallifetoallwhoobeyhiscommandsorexercisethoseholyandbenevolentaffectionswhichhiscommandsrequire."GoodJohnWesleyandRichardWatsonwaverbetweenthetwoviewsofjustificationstated,alikeunabletoacquiesce ineither,or to findanystablepositionbetween them.Thesamemust inevitably be the casewith all thosewho,while holding thetruthwithrespecttothenatureofsin,ofgraceandofexpiation,refusetoaccept, in their plain biblical sense, the complementary truths withrespect to thesovereigntyofGod, theextentof theAtonement,and theimputationofsinandofrighteousness.

NowwemaintainthattheCalvinisticsideofthisalternativemustbetrue,(1)because,asprovedinthefourteenthchapter,Christ'srighteousnessisthegroundofjustification.(2.)Becausefaith,whichincludestrustaswellas assent, from its essential nature, excludes thepossibility of its beingitself the ground upon which anything can rest, and renders it certainthatitstrueofficeistoapprehendasaninstrumenttherighteousnessofChrist upon which the trust terminates; which righteousness,consequently, must be the real ground upon which the justificationproceeds.(3.)ThelawofGod,whichcannotberelaxed,demandedatthebeginning,andmustcontinue todemandto theend,perfectobedience,which,obviouslyenough,transcendsthebestgraciousabilityofanysaint.Faith and evangelical obedience can never take its place. (4.) EveryChristianknows,inhisinmostheart,thathedeservesnothing,andthatthe adoption of sons and eternal life are given to him freely, and onidenticallythesametermsastheremissionofsinsitself.

(5.) The Scriptures everywhere set forth the truth, that the adoption ofsons,eternallife,&c.,aregiventothebelieverfreelyforChrist'ssake,aselements of that purchased possession of which the Holy Spirit is theearnest or first instalment. "In him also we have obtained aninheritance." "Inwhomalso, after that yebelieved, yewere sealedwith

theHolySpiritofpromise."Eph.1:11–13.TheSpiritoftheSoniscalled"the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry Abba, Father; and if children,thenheirs;heirsofGodandjointheirswithChrist."Rom.8:15,17."Whogavehimselfforoursins,thathemightdeliverusfromthispresentevilworld."Gal. 1:4. "Christ hath redeemedus from the curse of the law…thatwemightreceivethepromiseoftheSpiritthroughfaith."Gal.3:13,14. "Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and havingreceivedoftheFatherthepromiseoftheHolyGhost,hehathshedforththiswhichyenowseeandhear."Acts2:33.WearesaidtobeblessedwithallspiritualblessingsinChrist.Eph.1:3."HegavehimselffortheChurchthathemightsanctifyandcleanseit,thathemightpresentittohimselfagloriousChurch,nothavingspotorwrinkle,oranysuchthing;butthatitshould be holy and without blemish." Eph. 5:25–27. "Not by works ofrighteousnesswhichwehavedone,butaccordingtohismercyhesavedusbythewashingofregenerationandrenewingoftheHolyGhost,whichheshedonusabundantlythroughJesusChristourSaviour."Titus3:5,6."GodsentforthhisSon,madeofawoman,madeunderthelaw,that(ἵνα)he might redeem them that were under the law, that (ἵνα) we mightreceive the adoption of sons." Gal. 4:4, 5. We are told to ask foreverythingwe desire for Christ's sake alone. John 14:14, 15, and 15:16.Andinheavenalltheredeemedsaycontinually,"Untohimthatlovedus,andwashedusfromoursins inhisownblood,andhathmadeuskingsandpriestsuntoGodandhisFather; tohimbegloryanddominion foreverandever."Rev.1:5,6,and6:9,10.

II.TheScripturesexpresslydeclarethatChristsavesbyhisobedienceaswellasbyhissufferings."Therefore,asbytheoffenceofone, judgmentcameuponallmentocondemnation;evensobytherighteousnessofone,the free gift cameuponallmenunto justificationof life. For as by oneman'sdisobediencemanyweremadesinners;sobytheobedienceofone,shall many be made righteous." This is an explicit affirmation of theprincipleforwhichwearecontending.Thephrase"obedience"ofChrist,isevidentlytobeinterpretedinitsnaturalsense,becauseitisdirectlysetincontrastwiththe"disobedience"ofAdam.Inthesamesenseinwhichthe disobedience of the one is the ground of our condemnation, is theobedienceoftheotherthegroundofourjustification.

III.ChristwasadivineandeternalPerson,andassuchhewasundernoobligationtoobeythelaw.Hewashimself,intheessentialgroundofhisbeing,alawuntothewholemoraluniverse,andthereforecouldnotbe,asconcernshimself,conditionedbyanylawexteriortohimself.Thedivinenatureisthenormofallmoralprinciple,andthedivinewillisthegroundandmeasureofallthoserelationsfromwhichmanyoftheobligationsofhiscreaturesresult.Therefore,thedivineBeingcannotbehimselfsubjecttoanylawexceptthespontaneouslawofhisownbeing.AndChrist,who,thoughembracingahumannature,wasalwaysadivinePerson,ofcoursealways transcended the claims of law, because these claims necessarilyterminateuponpersons,andnotuponmerenaturesassuch.Yet,asourRepresentative,heboreintheunityofhisdivinepersonalityournatureimpersonally ("a true body and a reasonable soul"), in order that hemight thus be made vicariously under the law, to the end that by hispurelyvicariousobediencehemight "redeemthemthatwereunder thelaw,thatwemightreceivetheadoptionofsons."Gal.4:4,5.Thismeansnecessarily(a)thatChristwasmadeunderthelaw,thathedidnotbelongtherenaturally, butwas transferred to thatpositionby an act of divinesovereignty. (b.) That he was placed there, not for himself, but in ourstead.(c.)Thathewasmadeunderthelawforthepurposeofsecuringforus,notthemereremissionofsins,butalsotheadoptionofsons;wherebywebecame "heirsofGod throughChrist" (διὰΧριστοῦ),Gal.4:7; all ofwhich is conditioned, not upon suffering, but upon obedience. All thatChrist did on earth he did as our Mediator, and all that he did asMediator he did in the stead of those for whom he acted asMediator.Therefore he said (Matt. 3:15), "For thus it becometh us to fulfil allrighteousness(πᾶσανδικαιοσύνην),"thatis,allthatGodrequiresofhispeople.

IV. The inability of the law to justify resulted from the fact that itnecessarilydemandsperfectobedience,whichtheweaknessoftheflesh,becauseofsin,makesitimpossibleforthesinnertosatisfy.Rom.8:3,4.GodremediesthematterbysendinghisownSon,inthelikenessofsinfulflesh,andforsin,intoourlaw-place,andexecutingthepenaltyuponhim,and so condemning sin in the flesh, and also accepting his obedienceinstead of our obedience; that thus, through our Sponsor, theRIGHTEOUSNESSOFTHELAWMIGHTBEFULFILLEDINUS.Rom.

8:3,4.

The phrase δικαιοσύνη, or δικαίωμα τοῦ νόμου, is used in the NewTestament to express the totalityof thatwhich the lawdemandsas theconditionoffavour.InAdam,beforehefell,therighteousnessofthelawwasperfect obedience. In the caseof allhisdescendants, since the fall,therighteousnessofthelawisperfectobedienceplusthesufferingofthepenalty.To justify is topronounceaman tobe just, righteous,δίκαιος.Righteousness, δικαιοσύνη, is the character of the δίκαιος, that in himwhich satisfies the law. It is that, therefore, upon which justificationproceeds.Mosesdeclarestherighteousnesswhichisofthelawwhenhesays, "theman that doeth these things shall live by them." Rom. 10:5.Sincethelawdemandsofusperfectobedienceandtheenduranceofthepenalty, it isperfectly impossible forus toachievea legal righteousnessbyourownpersonalagency.Hence,intheScriptures,the"righteousnessof the law" isunfavourablycontrastedwith the"righteousnessof faith."Rom. 10:5, 6.That is, the attempted satisfactionof thedemandsof thelaw, made by the sinner in person, is contrasted with the vicarioussatisfaction of the same by Christ, which faith apprehends andappropriates.TothesameeffectourownrighteousnessiscontrastedwithGod'srighteousness.Rom.3:20–26,thatis,ourmethodofsatisfyingthelawwithGod'smethod."Todeclareatthistimehisrighteousness,thathemightbejustandthejustifierofhimthatbelievethinJesus.""Forthey,beingignorantofGod'srighteousness,andgoingabouttoestablishtheirown righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto therighteousnessofGod."Rom.10:3.Thegrandrequirementofthelawwasperfectobedienceas theconditionof favour.Obedience, therefore, isofthe essence of righteousness. But "Christ is the end of the law forrighteousness to every one that believeth."Rom. 10:4. Bymeans of hiswork "the righteousnessof the law is fulfilled inus."Rom.8:4.Wearesaid "to bemade the righteousness of God in him." 2 Cor. 5:21. He iscalled "the Lord our righteousness." Jer. 23:6. He is said to be "madeuntouswisdomandrighteousness."1Cor.1:30.Pauldeclareshisdesireto"befoundinhim,nothavingmyownrighteousnesswhichisofthelaw,butthatwhichisthroughthefaithofChrist,therighteousnesswhichisofGodbyfaith."Phil.3:9.

V. Piscator and Richard Watson object that the Calvinistic viewrepresents Christ as rendering two distinct satisfactions to the law inbehalf of his people. They maintain that obedience and penalty arealternatives, thepresenceofoneexcluding thedemand for theother. IfAdamhadrenderedperfectobedience,hewouldnothavebeenrequiredalso to satisfy,by suffering, thepenalty.Therefore, theyargue, ifChristhassatisfiedthelawbysufferingthepenaltyduethesinsofhispeople,hecannot be also required to render it in their stead the additionalsatisfactionofobedience.

Wehold this toevinceaveryconfusedviewof thecase.GodsurelydidnotgiveAdamthechoicebetweenobedienceanddeath,asbetweentwoequally legitimatealternatives.Thesimplefactsare(a),thatGodplacedAdamathis creation (and federally thewhole race inhim) in amiddleposition,withacharacterholy,yetliabletofall.Suchapositionisafairone. It has its advantages and also its terrible risks. (b.)GodpromisedAdamanadvancementfarabovethepositionintowhichhewascreated,onconditionofperfectobediencerenderedforadefiniteperiod.(c.)Hethreatenedhimwiththatpenaltywhichisinseparablefromallmorallaw,ofdeathincaseofdisobedience.Theenduranceofthepenalty,therefore,isrequiredofChrist'speopleinorderthattheirsinmaybeexpiated.Andperfectobedienceisrequiredforadefiniteperiod,inorderthattheymayberighteouslyadvancedtothegracewhichhad,fromthebeginning,beenoffered only on that condition. The active and passive obedience ofChrist, the suffering of the penalty for the remission of sin, and theobeyingof the lawfor life,donot thereforeconstitute twosatisfactions,butareonecompleteandperfect satisfactionof thewhole law inall itsrelations.

CHAPTERXIX:THEREFORMEDDOCTRINEASTOTHENATUREOFTHE

ATONEMENTPROVEDTOHAVEBEENTHEFAITHOFTHEENTIRECHRISTIAN

CHURCHTHROUGHALLAGES

INthischapterIproposetoprovethatthedoctrinewhichhasbeeninthepreceding chapters set forth, in connectionwith its scriptural evidence,has in its essential principles been the faith of the great body of God'speoplefromthebeginning;andespeciallythatthishasbeenthecase ineveryparticularageandsectionoftheChurchpreciselyinproportiontoits general orthodoxy and spiritual vitality. If truth be an essentialprerequisite inorder toholiness, thegeneral fact thatagivensystemofbeliefhasbeen found inassociationwithall thevitalgodliness thathaseverexisted, isstrongpresumptiveevidenceof thetruthof thatsystem.Andthispresumptionisverymuchstrengthenedifitcanbeshowntobehistoricallytruethat,asageneral fact, theevidencesofspiritual lifeareobscuredinproportionasthecentralandcharacteristicprinciplesofthesystemareignoredormisconceived,andthattheyhavenevercontinuedto exist at all where these principles have been intelligently denied. Inordertoapplythismethodofargumenttothesubjectwehaveinhand,Iwillattendtothefollowingpointsintheirorder.1.TostatepreciselytheseveralpositionswhichIbelievethatthehistoricalevidenceaccessibletous will fully prove. 2. To present, in as condensed a form as possible,quotations from representative theologians, and Church creeds whichestablishthepointsproposedtobeproved.And,3.ToapplythehistoricalfactsastothegeneralfaithoftheChurch,thusestablished,toourmainargument, indicatingwhat inferences from theuniversal consent of theChurchofChristtothetruthofdoctrineappeartobelegitimate.

I.Ihave,then,inthefirstplace,tostatethepointswhichIbelievecanbeestablishedwithreferenceto the faithofGod'speople,asageneralandcharacteristic fact, in all ages, with reference to the nature of Christ'sredeemingwork.

1. It is not pretended that the doctrine of Satisfaction as received incommonbytheLutheranandReformedChurcheswasconceivedofinallits elements or stated with scientific accuracy in the early ages of theChurch,or that inthiscompletesense it ispossessedbyallpartsof theChurch in modern times. Such a statement would not be true eitherhistorically or actually of any single doctrine embraced in the entire

systemofrevealed truth.All theelementsembracedunder theheadsofTheology and Anthropology, as well as Soteriology, were at firstconceived obscurely, stated vaguely, and mixed with incongruous andeveninconsistentelements,andhavereachedthematureforminwhichtheyareatpresentembracedbyallevangelicalChristiansonlythroughaprocessofgrowth.The fact isadmitted that theearly fatherswrote likechildreninthechildhoodoftheChurchonthisasuponallothersubjects.

But, 2.Wemaintain over against the advocates of theMoral InfluenceTheory that the following points are susceptible of historical proof. (1.)ThereisabundantevidencethatfromthefirstthefaithofthetrueChurchhasuniformly embracedChrist on the cross as a sacrifice expiating sinandpropitiatingGod.Itistruethatthiselementoftheirfaithisoftenlefttoaremarkabledegreeinthebackground,andmixedupconfusedlywithother elements of truth or superstition, but indubitable traces of anobjective bearing of the passion of Christ upon obstacles in theway ofman's deliverance exterior to himself are always visible. (2.) That thedoctrine that the central design of the Atonement is to produce asubjective effect upon the sinner has never prevailed among anyconsiderable number of people for any length of time. That, on thecontrary, even every false doctrine which has taken strong andpermanent hold upon the human mind has always embraced in itprecisely thatprinciplewhich the theory inquestionexcludes, viz., thatthe sufferings of Christ were necessary to remove obstacles to oursalvation existing exterior to ourselves. This fact is conspicuouslyillustrated in the prevalence of the eccentric idea that Christ wasdelivered up as a ransom-price to Satan for the purpose of redeemingsinfulmen from thepower of theusurper,which so long confused anddisfigured the ideas of ecclesiastical writers upon the subject ofRedemption. (3.)Wemaintain it can be proved that the doctrine thatChrist has redeemed men from the claims of divine justice by hisvicarious sufferings has always been more clearly conceived and morefrequentlyandemphaticallyinsisteduponintheexactproportionastheChurch has been faithful in the profession of other fundamental truthsand abundant in the fruits of the Spirit. The best of the earlierChurchteachersteachthetruthwecontendfor.ThosewhoweremosteminentinthedefenceofthetruthastothesupremedivinityofourblessedLord,as

AthanasiustheGreat;thosewhostoodtothelastfaithfulinresistingtheinroadsofPopery,asClaude,bishopofTurin(821–839);thebestoftheschoolmen, as Anselm, Hugh St. Victor, Bernard, Bonaventura andThomasAquinas;bothofthetwogreatsections(GreekandRoman)intowhich the Church divided; the great evangelical teachers who, in theimmediatelyprecedingcenturies,preparedthewayfortheReformation,as Wycliffe and John Wessel; the Vallenses who, isolated among themountains, preserved the primitive apostolic faith through all the darkcenturiesof thePapal supremacy;ZwingleandLutherandCalvin, eachindependentinhisorigin,drawingfromdifferentsources,andmarkedbymanyprofoundcharacteristicdifferencesfromtheothers;andwiththem,all the four great spontaneous movements of reform, in Switzerland,Germany, France and Britain, each of whichwas so truly original, andmarked by characteristic differences, which still survive after threecenturies of change; and finally, all of the great evangelicaldenominations into which the Churches of the Reformation have beendeveloped,whonow embrace the sum total of Christ's kingdomon theface of the earth;—all these, and whatsoever persons or bodies of thiskindhaveeverexisted,inwhateverelsetheyhavediffered,haveagreedinmaintaining that the virtue of the redemption of Christ resides in itspowertoexpiatesinandthustopropitiateGod.(4.)Wemaintainalso,inthe fourth place, that true religion has never flourished when thisdoctrine of expiationhas been explicitly denied, but that the invariablesequence, ifnotconsequence,of itsdenialmaybereadinthehistoryofthe ancient Gnostics and Arians, in that of such heretics as ScotusErigena and Abelard during the Middle Age, of the Socinians of thesixteenthcentury,andoftheirsuccessors,theUnitariansofEnglandandAmerica, and the Neologians of Germany, during the eighteenth andnineteenth.

3.WemaintainoveragainsttheadvocatesoftheGovernmentalTheoryofthe Atonement: (1.) That it is susceptible of proof that, with fewexceptions,thewholeChurchfromthebeginninghasheldthedoctrineofRedemptioninthesenseofaliteralpropitiationofGodbymeansoftheexpiationofsin.(2.)ThatthisviewofthenatureofRedemptionhasbeenheldmostdefinitelyandearnestly,asageneralfact,bythosemen,andinthose branches and ages of the Church which have exhibited themost

decidedevidenceoftheSaviour'spresenceandfavour.(3.)ThateachoneofthegreatsectionsintowhichtheChristianChurchhasbeendivided—the Greek and Roman, Lutheran and Reformed—unite in maintainingthatthegospelisfoundedupontheexpiationofguilt.(4.)Thatallofthelater and more perfect Confessions, both of the Lutheran and of theReformed Churches, agree in teaching in the fullest terms the strictlyvicariouscharacterofbothChrist'sactiveandpassiveobedience,andtheimputationofthatperfectobediencetothebelieverasthestrictlyjudicialgroundofhisjustification.And(5.)ThattheoriginoftheGovernmentalTheoryoftheAtonementamongthesemi-SocinianDutchRemonstrants,anditsaffiliationwiththespeculationsofthehereticalFrenchProfessorsofSaumur,givebutadoubtfulindicationastoitspossibleconnection,foraprotractedperiod,withspiritualhealthandfruitfulness.

II.Inowproceedtopresenttheevidencewhich,Ithink,provesthepointsabove stated.Let it be remembered that, as amatter of course, all thatcan be presented here is amere specimen ofmuchmore that remainsbehind.Letitberemembered,also,thatourposition,assumedinthefirststatementofourdoctrine,isnotthateitheroftheheterodoxtheorieswearehere combating is false,but that theyareeachessentiallydefective.Henceitwillinnowayweakentheforceofourargumentifitbeprovedthat the positive principlesmaintained by either or both of them havebeen taught generally or uniformly in the Church. If the principle ofliteral expiation be admitted at all in connection with those principlesspeciallysignalizedbyeachoftheotherviews,then,fromtheverynatureofthecase,thefactofexpiation,sinceitconcernsGod,mustbecentral;and the other principles, since they concern the creation, must besubordinate to it. Itwillbeabundantlysufficient forall thepurposesofmyagument,therefore,ifIsucceedintracingtheprincipleIcontendforasaconstantelement,moreor lessclearlydiscriminated,ofthefaithofGod'speople.*

The Rev. Dr. John Young, of Edinburgh, has recently gone over themonuments of Patristic theology, &c., for the purpose of tracing thehistoryoftheoriginandgrowthofthedoctrineofSatisfaction.HeclaimsthatthereisnotraceofthisdoctrineintheScripture;thatithasitsrootin the ignoranceanddepravityofhumannature; that itemerged in the

ChristianChurchasamanifestcorruption;andthatitwasdevelopedintoitspresentportentous formonlyslowlyandafter the lapseofcenturies.Hishistoricalargumentmaybereducedtotwoheads.(1.)Hedrawsthisconclusion from the comparative silence of the early writers on thissubject,evenwhentheyweretreatingoftopicswhichrenderedallusionstothisdoctrine,ifitwasinfactbelieved,apparentlyinevitable.(2.)Fromthe imputed character, intellectual or moral, of certain men to whoseagencyhe refers theoriginationanddiffusionof the corruption; as, forinstance,AthanasiusandCalvin.

Tothefirstofhispointswereplybyconfessingthattoanextraordinarydegree his allegation is true, but that (1) it is at best but a negativeargument, and avails nothing in opposition to the positive testimonypresentedontheotherhand.Aswehaveshownabove,fromtheessentialnature of the principle involved, if its presence can be traced, howeverfaintly,theconclusionwillbeinevitablethatitisanessentialpartofthefaith of the Church, and the central principle to which all others willultimately be subordinated when all the elements of that faith areaccurately discriminated and adjusted. And (2) that the force of hisobjectionisgreatlyabatedbytheconsiderationofthefewness,andofthefragmentarycondition,and the immaturityandconfusioncharacteristicofthewritingsoftheearlyFathers,andthecrudenessoftheirviewsuponmanyothersubjectsofChristiandoctrine.

Tohissecondpointweanswer,thatthepositionweassume,asdistinctlystated above, is not that certain men have taught the doctrine ofexpiation, but that it is the doctrine of all the representative Churchteachers of all ages; that it has again and again, with amazingcoincidence, been revived by great and good men acting entirelyindependently of each other; and that it has always been the moreemphasized themore true spiritual religionhas flourished;and, finally,that true spiritual religion has never flourished among thosewho haveexplicitly denied it. Very little light can be thrown upon the origin orvalue of such a doctrine by criticising the spirit or associations ofindividualmen. The broad factwould remain to be accounted for, thattheideatowhichAthanasius, forthefirsttime,givesa logicallydefinedexpressionhadappearedagainandagaininthewritingsofthebestmen

whoprecededhim,and in thedevotionalwritingsofAugustineandhisfollowers; thatClaude,Bernard,Wycliffe,Wessel, theVallenses, andallthebestsaintsoftheagesprecedingtheReformation,heldthesame;thatAnselm, in the Latin Church, and Nicolas of Methone, in the GreekChurch,thetwogreatsystematizersoftheChurch'sfaithonthissubject,wrought entirely independently of each other, although almostcotemporaneously;thatnotonlyLutherandCalvin,butZwinglealso,themost independent and rationalizing of the Reformers, and that all thebranches of the Church,Greek,Roman, Lutheran andReformed, in alltheirsubdivisions,holdthesamefaith.Anyattempttoaccountforsuchfacts as theseby reference to thepersonal character of individualmen,howevergreatornumerous,ismanifestlyabsurd.

[A.] The doctrine of Expiation was received, though in a crude,unscientificformandinconnectionwithmucherror,bytheante-Nicenefathers. With respect to the writers of this period, Young admits that"Injusticewouldbedone to them,unless it beunderstood thatmostofthemmakeuse, thoughnot frequently, of theNewTestament languagewithregardtothedeathoftheRedeemer,andalsothatinsomeinstancesthey apply passages of the Old Testament—such as the 53 chapter ofIsaiah, and the 22 Psalm—to that death. It is fully admitted that theultimate and real question goes back to the meaning of the NewTestament itself. No one could fairly dispute, that if the doctrine ofSatisfactionbethere,it isalsointhepost-apostolicwritings.Butif itbewantingthere,aswehavesoughttoshowthatitis,thenunquestionablyithasnoplaceinthem."*

Inanswertothisposition,thuscandidlyassumed,Ipresenttheargumenttothecontraryunderthefollowingheads.

1. It is unquestionably a strong presumptive evidence in favour of thetruth of our position, that the most learned, impartial and minutestudentsoftheoriginalsourcesofallknowledgeonthissubject,suchasNeander, Dorner, Faber,* Shedd, Schaff, &c., all in effect bearindependent testimony to the substantial truth of the judgmentpronouncedby the firstnamed inhisChurchhistory. "As it regards thework of Christ as the Redeemer of mankind, we find already in thelanguageusedby theChurch fathers on thispoint, in theperiodunder

consideration,all theelements that layat thebasisof thedoctrineas itafterwardscametobedefinedintheChurch."†

2.YoungconfessesthattheearlyFathersappliedtotheworkofChristtheordinary sacrificial language borrowed from the Old and NewTestaments. But in chapter viii. I showed that Outram has presentedevidencetosaturationthattheheathen,JewsandChristiansofthatageall agreed in understanding this sacrificial language as signifying, in astrictsense,thevicarioussufferingofpenalevilsonthepartofthevictiminbehalfofthetransgressor.Itwillsufficeforourpurpose,atpresent,tociteonlythetestimonyofthegreatMetropolitan,Cosmopolitan,learnedControversialistandChurchHistorian,Eusebius,BishopofCæsarea.Hiswordsareasfollows:"Anattentiveobservermaylearnthisverythingalsofromthelawrespectingsacrifices;whichenjoinseveryonewhooffersasacrifice,tolayhishandsontheheadofthevictim,andholdingitbythehead tobring it to thepriest, as offering the animal insteadofhis ownhead.Wherefore its language respecting every victim is, Let the offererpresent it before theLord, layhishandsupon theheadofhis offering;and thiswasobserved inevery sacrifice,novictimbeingoffered inanyotherway;whenceitisconcludedthatthelivesofthevictimsweregiveninstead of the lives of the offerers.… For as pious persons, who werefamiliarwithGod,andhadtheirmindsenlightenedbytheDivineSpirit,sawthattheyneededagreatremedyfortheexpiationofdeadlysins,theyconcludedthataransomfortheirsalvationoughttobepresentedtoGod,the disposer of life and death.… As long asmen had no better victim,none thatwas great, valuable andworthy of God, it behooved them toofferhimanimalsacrificesinransomfortheirownlife,andassubstitutesfortheirownnature."*

3. Iproved,also, inchapterviii.,byargumentsdrawndirectly fromtheScriptures,thattheOldTestamentsacrificesdidactuallyexpiateoffencesby means of vicarious penal sufferings, and that they, by God'sappointment,wereeminenttypesandsymbolsoftheredemptiveworkofChrist.IthencefollowsthattheconditionaladmissionofYoung,that"ifthe doctrine of Satisfaction be there [in the sacrificial institutions andlanguageoftheOldTestament],itisalsointhepost-apostolicwritings,"becomesasimplestatementofunquestionablefact.

4. In connection with and in addition to the foregoing evidence, ourallegation is conclusively proved by the positive statements ofmany ofthese earlywriters,which, aswill be seen, involve in explicit terms theessentialelementsofthedoctrineofexpiation.

Polycarp(apupilofJohn), inhisEpistle to thePhilippians,*quotedbyShedd, says: "Christ isourSaviour; for throughgracearewe righteous,not by works; for our sins he has even taken death upon himself, hasbecometheservantofusall,and,throughhisdeathforus,ourhopeandthepledgeofourrighteousness.TheheaviestsinisunbeliefinChrist;hisbloodwillbedemandedofunbelievers;fortothosetowhomthedeathofChrist,whichobtainstheforgivenessofsins,doesnotprovethegroundof justification, it proves a ground of condemnation. Our Lord JesusChristsufferedhimselftobebroughteventodeathforoursins;…letus,therefore,withoutceasing,holdsteadfastly tohimwho isourhopeandtheearnestofourrighteousness,evenJesusChrist,'whobareoursinsinhisownbodyonthetree.'"†

Clement Romanus, a disciple of Paul, died circum A. D. 100. In hisEpistolaadCorinthos(quotedbyDorner),hewritesthus:"Hisbloodhasbeenshedforus,foroursalvation;hehas,accordingtoGod'swill,givenhisbodyforourbody,hissoulforoursoul.""Everyinterpretationofthispassage,"saysDorner,"isforcedwhichdoesnotrecognizeinittheideaofsubstitution,and thataswell subjective,Christ's substitutionarydesign,asobjective,theactualfulfilmentofthatdesign,anditsobjectiveresults.ThereisconnectedtherewiththefactthatwithClement,asintheEpistletotheHebrews,thename'HighPriest'isfrequentlyappliedtoChrist."

Justin Martyr (A. D. 114–168), quoted by Neander, says: "The lawpronounced on allmen the curse, because noman could fulfil it in itswholeextent.Deut.27:26.Christdeliveredusfromthiscurseinbearingitforus."*

Theauthorof theEpistle toDiognetus,which isadmittedbyall todatefromtheearlypartofthesecondcentury,consequently,inthegenerationimmediately succeeding the death of the Apostle John, and which isusuallypublishedamongtheworksofJustinMartyr,says,asquotedbyDorner:"ThusGoddelayed,thatwemightbemadeconsciousofourown

guilt and impotency. But as that was filled up, and it was renderedmanifest that punishment and death duly awaited us, the one lovecontinuedtrue.Ithatednot,itdepartednot,itrememberednotevil;butwaslong-sufferingandbore;nay,itselftookonoursins.ItgavehisonlySonasaransomforus;theholyfortheunholy,thesinlessforthewicked,the pure for the vile, the immortal for themortal. Forwhat else couldcoveroursinsthantherighteousnessofhim?WherebycouldtheunholyandungodlybejustifiedbutbytheSonofGod?Oh!sweetsubstitution!Oh! what an unsearchable device, what unexpected blessing! Theunrighteousnessof themany tobehidby the righteousof theOne; therighteousnessoftheOnetojustifymanysinners!"

[B.]ThedoctrineofvicariousexpiationaccomplishedbythesufferingsofChristwasprofessedyetmoreexplicitly,thoughstillinacrudeformandmixedwithmucherror,bytheNiceneFathersandtheirsuccessorsuptothetimeoftheSchoolmen.Fromthecommencementofthisperioditiswellknownthatastrangefancy,entertainedbyOrigen(A.D.185–254)and Irenæus (200), to the effect that Christ was provided by God toransomhispeopleoutofthehandsofSatan,ascaptivesareransomedbyfriendsfromthehandsofpirates,continuedforalongtimetotingethemeditations of Christian writers upon the subject of Redemption. Thisfact, both curious and lamentable, is, of course, made much of by allthose whose interest, for any reason, it is to show that the Church ofChrist has never been committed to any fixed view as to the nature ofRedemption, but has always drifted among various opinions of humanorigin,moreorlessrational.WithrespecttothisviewIwouldremark(a)that there is no evidence that it represented the definite and totalconceptionofanyoneoftheancientFathersastothenatureofChrist'swork. Itwas a general and indeterminate form inwhich thatworkwasconceivedof inoneof itsaspects,suggestedbysuchscripturalpassagesasCol.2:15,andHeb.2:14;andhoweverinconsistentasamatteroflogic,neverthelesscoexistinginthesamemindalsowithvagueconceptionsofthe very viewswhich are common to themodern evangelicalChurches.(b.)Thisview,grotesqueasitis,involves,incommonwiththeorthodoxSatisfaction Theory, a principle which is utterly inconsistent with theMoralInfluenceTheory,andthatprincipleis,thatthedirectdesignandeffectofthesufferingsofChristweretoredeemsinnersfromanobstacle

to their salvation exterior to themselves. The prevalence of this fancy,therefore, in connection with more correct views as to the nature ofRedemption, contributes to prove the truth of our allegation that allChristians have from the beginning,without exception, felt the need ofbeing ransomed from a power underwhich theywere held, andwhichtheywereimpotenttoresist.Thefollowingwitnessesalsomakeitevidentthat,inspiteofthegeneralprevalenceofthisformoferrorforatime,thetruedoctrineof theneedofpropitiatingdivine justicewasneverabsentfromthefaithoftheChurch.

Irenæus(202)says:"WewereGod'senemiesanddebtors,asChristinhispriestlyworkfulfilledthelaw."*Andagain,"Andonaccountofthisinthelast times the Lord, through his own incarnation, restored us intofriendship, having been made Mediator between God and man; trulypropitiatingtheFather,againstwhomwehadsinned,inourbehalf."

EusebiusofCæsarea(A.D.270–340),quotedbyShedd,says:"Howthendidhemakeoursinstobehisown,andhowdidhebearouriniquities?…The Lamb of God did not only these things for us, but he underwenttorments,andwaspunishedforus;thatwhichhewasnowaysexposedtoforhimself,butweweresobythemultitudeofoursins;andtherebyhebecame the cause of the pardon of our sins; namely, because heunderwent death, stripes, reproaches, transferring the thing which wehaddeservedtohimself;andwasmadeacurseforus,takingtohimselfthecursethatwasduetous;forwhatwashebutapriceofredemptionforoursouls?"

AthanasiustheGreat—championoftheabsolutedivinityofChrist(A.D.278–373), leading and representing aChurch party very different fromthat represented by the former witness, the compromising Eusebius ofCæsarea (as quotedbyDorner)—says: "Thedeath,which is termedhis,thedeathoftheLogos,wasaransomforthesinsofmen,andadeathofdeath."*"Ladenwithguilt,theworldlayunderthecondemnationofthelaw; but the Logos took the judgment (krima) up into himself, andsuffering in the flesh forall,hebestowedsalvationuponall." "The firstand principal ground of the Logos' becoming man was that thecondemnation of the law, by which we are burdened with guilt andeternalpunishment,mightberemovedbythepaymentofthepenalty."‡

CyrilofJerusalem(386),quotedbyShedd,says:"Christtooksinuponhisownbody.Hewhodied foruswasno insignificant creature,hewasnomere animal victim,hewasnomereman,hewasnot an angel; buthewas God incarnate. The iniquity of us sinners was not so great as therighteousnessofhimwhodiedforus;thesinswehavecommittedarenotequaltotheAtonementmadebyhimwholaiddownhislifeforus."§

Chrysostom (A. D. 354–407), quoted byMilner, says: "What a saying?Whatmindcancomprehendit?Hemadea justpersonasinnerthathemightmakesinners just.But theapostle's language is still stronger.Hedothnotsayhemadehimasinner,butsin,thatwemightbemade,notrighteous,butrighteousness,eventherighteousnessofGod."

The great and good Augustine (A. D. 354–430), spending his wholestrengthuponthedefenceofthetruthrevealedinScriptureastohumansinanddivinegrace,againstableandactiveopponents,wasundeniably,toagreatextent,inthedarkastothetruenatureofthepiacularworkofChrist. He generally uses the term justification in the general andindefinite sense in which it is now used by the Roman Catholictheologians,asincludingtheremissionofsinsandtheinfusionofgrace.Nevertheless,asYoungcandidlyacknowledges,"wefind,especiallyinhisConfessions, and in the touchingutterances of his religious experience,that which plainly involves the idea, though the distinctive term is notemployed,ofa satisfaction todivine justiceonaccountofhumansin."*AsquotedbyMilner:"Hewasmadesin,aswearemaderighteousness,notourown,butofGod;norinourselves,butinhim,ashewasmadesin,nothisown,butours,norwasheappointedsoinhimself,butinus."†

"ButChristwithoutguilt (personal) tookuponhimselfourpunishment,in order that he might thus expiate our guilt, and do away with ourpunishment."

"Allmen are separated fromGod by sin.Hence they can be reconciledwith him only through the remission of sin, and this only through thegrace of amostmerciful Saviour, and this grace through the one onlyVictimofthemosttrueandonlyPriest."

Gregory the Great (604), the most distinguished and influentialrepresentativeof theLatinChurchofhisage inhisMoralia inJobum,*quotedbyShedd,says:"Guiltcanbeextinguishedonlybyapenalofferingto justice.But itwould contradict the idea of justice if, for the sin of arational being like man, the death of an irrational animal should beacceptedasasufficientatonement.Henceamanmustbeofferedasthesacrifice for man; so that a rational victimmay be slain for a rationalcriminal.Buthowcouldaman,himself stainedwithsin,beanofferingforsin?Henceasinlessmanmustbeoffered.Butwhatmandescendingin the ordinary coursewould be free from sin?Hence, the Son of Godmust be born of a virgin, and became a man for us. He assumed ournaturewithoutourcorruption.Hemadehimselfasacrificeforus,andsetforthforsinnershisownbody,avictimwithoutsin,andablebothtodieby virtue of its humanity, and to cleanse the guilty upon grounds ofjustice."

JohnofDamascus(750),thegreatestrepresentativeoftheGreekChurchin his age, in his Expositio Fidei, quoted by Shedd, says: "He whoassumeddeathforus,died,andofferedhimselfasacrificetotheFather;forwehadcommittedwrongtowardshim,anditwasnecessaryforhimtoreceiveourransom,andwethusbedeliveredfromcondemnation.ForGodforbidthatthebloodoftheLordshouldbeofferedtothetyrant."

[C.]ThedoctrineofRedemptionbytheexpiatorysufferingsofChristwasheld in common by all the prominent witnesses for pure Christianityduring the Dark Ages, including the Vallenses of Piedmont, and theimmediate forerunners of theReformers; and itwas positively rejectedonlybysuchopenhereticsasScotusErigenaandAbelard.Claude,BishopofTurin(A.D.821–839),thefaithfulchampionofthetruthagainsttheinroads of the ever-growing Papal superstitions and doctrinal andritualistic corruptions, is a witness of special interest, because he issupposed to have been immediately associated with those heroicmountaineers (the Vallenses) who profess to have preserved theirdoctrineunchanged from thedaysofprimitiveChristianity.He says, inhis Commentary upon the Epistle to the Galatians,* as quoted byNeander:"Christunderwentthepenaltydesignedforthosewhofailedtoobey the law, that hemight liberate those believing upon him from all

fearofsuchpenalty." "Gal.3:16.Theyare forced toconfess thatman isjustifiednot byworks of the law, but by faith." "Gal. 5:4.Nowhe," theapostle, "comprehends thewhole lawgenerally,by saying that theywillprofitnothingbytheworkofChristwhobelievethemselvestobejustifiedbyanykindoflegalobservancewhatsoever."

TheVallenses,whom this faithfulBishopofTurin inhisdaynourishedand encouraged, existed as a small but precious body of evangelicalwitnesses long before, and they continue essentially unchanged to thepresenttime,withtheirhead-quartersinthesamemountaincity.Intheyear 1530 their teachers sent a deputation toŒcolampadius, at Basle,making, in their Confession, presented on that occasion, the. followingdeclaration:"Inall thingsweagreewithyou,and fromthevery timeoftheapostles,oursentimentsrespectingthesamehavebeenthesameasyourown."In1544theypresentedaConfessionoftheirFaithtoFrancisI.,KingofFrance, throughCardinalSadolet.Concerning it, theyaffirm,that"thisConfessionisthatwhichwehavereceivedfromourancestors,evenfromhandtohand,accordingastheirpredecessorsinalltimesandin every age have taught and delivered." As to the nature of theAtonement, they say: "We believe and confess that there is a freeremissionofsins,proceedingfromthemercyandmeregoodnessofourLordJesusChrist;whodiedonceforoursins,thejustfortheunjust,whotook away our sins in his own body on the cross;who is our Advocatewith God, the price of our reconciliation; whose blood cleanses ourconsciences fromdeadworks, thatweshouldserve the livingGod;whoalonemadesatisfactionforthefaithful,sothattheirsinsarenotimputedtothem,astotheunbelievingandtothereprobate."

The first attempts to develop the doctrine of Redemption in amannerscientificallyaccurateandcompleteweremadealmostatthesametime,yet in entire independence of each other, in each of the two greatdivisions of the Church, by Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, in theWest;andNicholas,BishopofMethone, inMessenia, intheEast.FromthefactthattheessentialprinciplesinvolvedinChrist'sworkofvicariousexpiationwere,bythesemenandtheirsuccessorsduringtheentireeraofScholasticism, made the subjects of a more thorough and systematicinvestigation than ever before, the enemies of the truth have often

pretended to believe that these principles were inventions of theSchoolmen, and have disparagingly designated our doctrine the"Scholastic Theory of Satisfaction." This notorious fact makes itunnecessaryformetoquotethewordsoftherepresentativetheologiansofthoseagestoprovethattheyunderstoodtheworkofChristinthesamesenseasourselves.AnselmofCanterburyandNicholasofMethoneactedas the organs of a spontaneous movement of the whole Church. It isundeniable, also, that the advocates of the doctrine of the literalsatisfactionofdivinejusticebyChrist,suchasAnselm,Bernard,HughSt.Victor,* Bonaventura, Thomas Aquinas, &c., were, with all their faults,the best, in every Christian sense, of the Schoolmen. It was thePantheisticJohnScotusErigena (circum860)whodenied this truth. Itwas the semi-PelagianDunsScotus (A.D. 1265–1308)whodepreciatedthevalueofChrist'svicarioussufferings,andthenecessityforsatisfaction—placing that necessity in the optional will instead of the immutablejusticeofGod,andmakingthesatisfactionofChristbutputativeonly—asatisfaction(socalled)oflove,andnotofjustice.AnditwastheinfamousAbelard (A. D. 1142) who taught in precise terms the Moral InfluenceTheory of Socinus and Bushnell and Young, and others. As we mightexpect, the latterwas earnestly combatedon this, asuponotherpointsinvolvingdeadlyerror,bythedeeplyreligiousBernardofClairvaux(A.D.1153), quoted by Milner and by Hagenbach. After noticing Abelard'sMoral Influence Theory, he says: "Is this the whole then of the greatmysteryofgodliness—thiswhichanyuncircumcisedanduncleanpersonmayeasilypenetrate?Whatisthereinthisbeyondthecommonlightofnature?""Forifonediedforall,thenwerealldead,thatthesatisfactionofonemightbeimputedtoall,ashealoneborethesinsofall;andnowbewhooffended,andhewhosatisfieddivinejustice,arefoundthesame,becausetheheadandthebodyisoneChrist."

Of such "Reformers before the Reformation" as Wycliffe (A. D. 1324–1384) and Weasel (A. D. 1419–1489) Hagenbach* testifies "that theyattachedimportancetothetheoryofSatisfactioninitspracticalbearingupon evangelical piety, and thus introduced the period of theReformation."Wycliffe†(quotedbyBaur)says:"Andsince,accordingtothe third supposition, it behooves that satisfaction should bemade forsin,therefore,itbehoovesthatthesamenatureofmanshouldsatisfyfor

asmuchasithadbecomeindebtedinitsgreatprogenitor,whichnomanwasabletodo,unlesshewasatthesametimebothGodandman.""ItisalightwordtosaythatGodmight,ofhispower,forgivethissin(Adam's)withouttheaseeth(satisfaction)whichwasmadeforit,forGodmightdosoifhewould;buthisjusticewouldnotsufferit,butrequiresthateachtrespassbepunishedeitheronearthorinhell.AndGodmaynotacceptaperson to forgivehimwithoutsatisfaction."Milnerquotes the followingsentences from anApology forWycliffe, preserved in the library of theCathedralofYork,byDr.ThomasJames,sometimelibrarianatOxford,the contents of which are chiefly extracts from Wycliffe's ownmanuscripts: "He persuaded men to trust wholly to Christ, to relyaltogetheruponhissufferings,andnottoseektobejustifiedinanyotherway thanbyhis justice." "Thatunbelievers, though theymightperformworks apparently good in their matter, still were not to be accountedrighteousmen;thatallwhofollowedChristbecamerighteousthroughtheparticipationofhisrighteousness,andwouldbesaved."

JohnWessel,ofGroningen(quotedbyUllman),says:"Accordingto thesecondorservantform,theLordJesusisnotonlyMediatorbetweenGodandman,butisratherMediatorforman,betweentheGodofjusticeandtheGodofmercy;foritbehoovedthatthewholelawofjusticeshouldbefulfilled without failure of one jot or tittle; and as this has now beenachievedbyJesus,itiseasytofindthewayinwhichmercycanflowforthinstreamsofcompassion.ThewisdomoftheFather,however,madethiswaybythedeviceofaMediator."*"Amongallthemiracles,nottheleastis the same justicewhich isarmedwithdivineandeternal lawsagainstman,notonlyrestrainstheswordinjudgment,butalsothesentence,andnotonlyabsolvesthecriminalwhomithaddeterminedtocondemn,butordershim tobe exalted todignity, honour andglory.Who isnotheresurprised tomark how the truth of the threatenings has been changedinto the truth of the promises, and upon both sides the truth secured?Thesethings,socontrarytoeachother,thegentlenessoftheLambalonehasblended.ForChrist,beinghimselfGod,andPriest,andSacrifice,hassatisfied himself, for himself and by himself."† "Our loving Father haswilledtheehislovingSontobeaSurety,Sponsor,Bailsman,forthefullyobeying and the fully suffering (satisfaciendo et satispatiendo), by anequalpledgeonaccountofallmydisobedienceandmisery."*

[D.] At the opening of the Reformation, Zwingle, Luther, Calvin, Knoxand Cranmer, the organs of independent movements of reform in fivedifferentnationalities,differingamong themselves in almost everythingnotessentialtotheintegrityofChristianity,all,withoutexception,agreeinteachingthedoctrineofvicariousexpiation.Andasfarasthisprincipleis concerned, the Greek and Roman Churches agreed, with theProtestant.

There is no need of illustrating the truth of this position by quotationsfrom thewritingsofLuther,CalvinorKnox.Their opinionswill notbequestioned, and it will fully answer our present purpose to show thatZwingleandCranmeraccuratelyagreewiththemonthequestion.

Zwingle(A.D.1484–1531)wasthefirst,ashewasintellectuallythemostindependent and rationalistic, of all the Reformers. In his ExpositioChristianæFideiDeChristoDomino, he says: "But he suffered, for thepurposeof expiatingour crimes, amosthumiliating formof suffering.""Whereversinis,deathofnecessityfollows.Christwaswithoutsin,andguile was not found in his mouth.… And yet he died this death, hesuffered inourstead.Hewaswilling todie, thathemight restoreus tolife; andashehadno sinsofhisown, theall-mercifulFather laidoursuponhim."‡"He is thesacrificeandvictim,satisfying for thesinsofalltheworldforever."

Archbishop Cranmer (A. D. 1489–1554), in his Defence of the TrueDoctrineoftheSacraments,*says:"Onekindofsacrificethereiswhichiscalledapropitiatoryormercifulsacrifice;thatistosay,suchasacrificeaspacifiesGod'swrathandindignation,andobtainsmercyandforgivenessfor all our sins, and is the ransom for the redemption from everlastingdamnation.… There is but one such sacrifice, whereby our sins arepardonedandGod'smercyandfavourobtained,whichisthedeathoftheSonofGod,ourLordJesusChrist."

The "Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic EasternChurch"—composed by Petrus Mogilas, Metropolitan of Kiew (A. D.1642),andsanctionedbytheSynodofJerusalem(A.D.1672)—says:"Thedeath of Christ was of a very different kind from that of othermen intheserespects:first,becauseoftheweightofoursins;secondly,because

hewhollyfulfilledthepriesthoodevenuntothecross:heofferedhimselftoGodand theFather for the ransomingof thehuman race.ThereforeeventothecrosshefulfilledthemediationbetweenGodandmen."

"JesusChrist,who,whenwewereenemies,onaccountofhisgreat lovewherewith he loved us, merited justification for us by his most sacredpassiononthe tree,andsatisfiedGodtheFather forus.""The firstandmostexcellentsatisfactionisthatbywhichwhateverisduebyustoGod,on account of our sins, has been paid abundantly, although he shoulddealwithusaccordingtothestrictestrigourofhisjustice.Thisissaidtobe that satisfactionwhichwe say has appeasedGod and rendered himpropitioustous;andforitweareindebtedtoChristtheLordalone,who,havingpaidthepriceofoursinsonthecross,mostfullysatisfiedGod."*

[E.]LutherandCalvin,andthefullypronouncedCreedsoftheLutheranand Reformed Churches, all teach the full doctrine embraced in thestatementgiveninthesecondchapterofthisbook,totheeffectthattheSatisfaction renderedbyChrist includesbothhis active andhispassiveobedience, and infallibly secures for the believer alike remission of thepenalty incurred by his sins and a title to the covenanted rewards ofobedience.

"Another principal part of our reconciliation with God was, that man,who had lost himself by his disobedience, should by way of remedyopposetoitobedience,satisfythejusticeofGod,andpaythepenaltyofsin. Therefore our Lord came forth veryman, adopted the person, andassumedhis name, that hemight in his stead obey the Father; that hemightpresentourfleshasthepriceofsatisfactiontothejustjudgmentofGod,andinthesamefleshpaythepenaltywhichhehadincurred."

"Whenitisasked,then,howChristbyabolishingsinremovedtheenmitybetween God and us, and purchased a righteousness which made himfavourable and kind to us, it may be answered generally, that heaccomplishedthisbythewholecourseofhisobedience.…Inshort,fromthemomentinwhichheassumedtheformofservant,hebegan,inorderto redeem us, to pay the price of deliverance. Scripture, however, themorecertainlytodefinethemodeofsalvation,ascribesitpeculiarlyandspecially to thedeathofChrist.…Still there isnoexclusionof theother

partofobediencewhichheperformedinlife."*

"Amanwillbejustifiedbyfaithwhen,excludedfromtherighteousnessofworks,hebyfaithlaysholdoftherighteousnessofChrist,and,clothedinit,appearsinthesightofGod,notasasinner,butasrighteous.Thuswesimply interpret justificationas theacceptancewithwhichGodreceivesus into his favour as if we were righteous, and we say that thisjustificationconsistsintheforgivenessofsins,andtheimputationoftherighteousness of Christ." "Hence when God justifies us through theintercession of Christ, he does not acquit us on a proof of our owninnocence, but by an imputation of righteousness, so that, though notrighteousinourselves,wearedeemedrighteousinChrist."‡

"Bywhichtheapostlemeansthatweareacceptedinhis(Christ's)nameby God, because he has expiated our sins by his own death, and hisobedienceisimputedtousforrighteousness.Forsincetherighteousnessof faith consists in the remission of sin, and gratuitous acceptance, weattainboththroughChrist."

TheHeidelbergCatechism—oneofthemostgenerallyadoptedofall theReformedConfessions,composedin1563byUrsinusandOlevianus—inanswertoQuestion60,"HowartthoujustifiedinthesightofGod?"says:"OnlybyatruefaithinJesusChrist;sothatthoughmyconscienceaccuseme,thatIhavegrosslytransgressedallthecommandmentsofGod,andkeptnoneofthem,andamstillinclinedtoallevil;notwithstandingGod,withoutanymeritofmine,butonlyofmeregrace,grantsandimputestometheperfectsatisfaction,righteousnessandholinessofChrist;evenso,as if I never had had, nor committed, any sin; yea, as if I had fullyaccomplishedallthatobediencewhichChristhathaccomplishedforme;inasmuchasIembracesuchbenefitwithabelievingheart."

TheSecondHelveticConfession—composedbyBullingerin1564,andofvery high authority among the Reformed Churches—says:* "For Christhas taken upon himself and borne our sins, and satisfied the divinejustice.God,therefore,onaccountofChristashavingsufferedandrisen,ispropitiatedwithreferencetooursins,neitherdoesheimputethemtous,but reckons the righteousnessofChrist as ours, so thatwearenownotonly cleansedandpurged,or renderedpure fromsins,but are also

endowedwiththerighteousnessofChrist,so thatweareabsolvedfromsins,deathorcondemnation;and,infine,righteousandheirsofeternallife. Properly speaking, therefore, God alone justifies us, and he onlyjustifiesusonaccountofChrist,not imputingoursins,but imputingtoushisrighteousness."

TheGallicConfession(A.D.1559),Article18,says:"Thereforeweutterlyrepudiate all the other grounds upon which men think they may bejustified before God; and every thought of virtues ormerits being castaside,andentirelyrelyupontheobedienceofJesusChristalone,whichisindeedimputedtous,sothatbotharealloursinscovered,andalsoweattaintofavourbeforeGod."

TheBelgicConfessionwasdrawnupbyVonBres,in1561."In1571,itwasrevised and adopted by the entire Church of Holland in the sixteenthcentury.Afteranotherrevisionofthetext,itwaspubliclyapprovedbytheSynodofDort,1618."Article22:"Butwebynomeansunderstandthatitisfaithitself,properlyspeaking,whichjustifiesus,orthatwearejustifiedon account of faith, for that (faith) is only an instrument by whichweapprehendChristourrighteousness.ThereChrist,imputingtoushisownmerits,andverymanymostholyworks,whichheaccomplishedforus,isourrighteousness."

The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, produced in theirpresentformin1562,Article2:…"OneChrist,veryGodandveryman;whotrulysuffered,wascrucified,deadandburied,toreconcilehisFatherto us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt (non tantumproculpa originis), but also for all actual sins of men." Article 31: "TheofferingofChristoncemadeisthatperfectredemption,propitiationandsatisfactionforall thesinsof thewholeworld,bothoriginalandactual;andthereisnoneothersatisfactionforsin,butthatalone."

TheFormulaConcordiæ—drawnupbyAndreaandothers (A.D. 1577),the most scientific of all the Lutheran Confessions—says: "ThatrighteousnesswhichbeforeGodisofmeregrace imputedto faith,or tothe believer, is the obedience, suffering and resurrection of Christ, bywhichheforoursakessatisfiedthelaw,andexpiatedoursins.ForsinceChristwasnotonlyman,butGodandmaninoneundividedperson,so

hewasnotsubjecttothelaw,norobnoxioustosufferinganddeath(suæpersonæ) because he was Lord of the law. On which account hisobedience (not merely in respect that he obeyed the Father in hissufferingsanddeath,butalsothatheforoursakeswillinglymadehimselfsubject to the lawand fulfilled itbyhisobedience) is imputed tous, sothatGod,onaccountofthatwholeobedience(whichChristbyhisactingandbyhissuffering,inhislifeandinhisdeath,foroursakerenderedtohisFatherwhoisinheaven),remitsoursins,reputesusasgoodandjust,andgivesuseternalsalvation."*"Wearepronouncedandreputedgoodand just on account of the obedience of Christ, which Christ from hisnativityuntilhisignominiousdeathuponthecrossaccomplishedfortheFatherinourbehalf."†

TheWestminsterConfession—(A.D.1648)whichallthePresbyteriansofScotland,IrelandandAmericaprofesstoembracesacredlyandcandidlyastheConfessionoftheirownpersonalfaith—says:"TheLordJesus,byhis perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he through theeternalSpiritonceoffereduptoGod,hathfullysatisfiedthejusticeoftheFather; and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlastinginheritanceinthekingdomofheaven,forallthosewhomtheFatherhathgiven unto him." "Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freelyjustifieth;notbyinfusingrighteousnessintothem,butbypardoningtheirsins, and by accounting and accepting their person as righteous,…notimputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelicalobediencetothemastheirrighteousness;butbyimputingtheobedienceandsatisfactionofChristuntothem."*

TheFormulaConsensusHelvetica—"composedinZurich(A.D.1675)byHeidegger,assistedbyFrancisTurretinofGeneva,andGerelerofBasle,"and designed to rebuke the errors introduced by the Professors of theFrenchTheologicalSeminaryatSaumur,whotaughtamixedsystem,ingeneral character the same with that system among us styled "NewEngland Theology"—says: "But by the obedience of his death, Christ,instead of his elect, so satisfied God the Father, that in the estimate,nevertheless,ofhisvicariousrighteousnessandof thatobedience,allofthatwhichhe rendered to the law,as its just servant,during thewholecourse of his life, whether by doing or by suffering, ought to be called

obedience. For Christ's life, according to the apostle's testimony (Phil.2:7, 8)was nothing but a continuous emptying of self, submission andhumiliation,descendingstepbysteptotheverylowestextreme,eventhedeathofthecross;andtheSpiritofGodplainlydeclaresthatChristinoursteadsatisfiedthelawanddivinejusticebyhismostholylife,andmakesthat ransom, with which God has redeemed us, to consist not in hissufferingsonly,butinhiswholelifeconformedtothelaw."

When the name of EDWARDS is spoken, all men think of one man—President Edwards, Sr., the great writer on theWill and Original Sin.Surelyallhonestuseoflanguagedemandsthatifanydoctrinebestyledthe"EdwardeanTheoryoftheAtonement,"itshouldbehis.He,asallhisreadersknow,maintainedonthispointpreciselythedoctrineofLuther,and Calvin, and Turretin. Yet the prestige of his great name hasuncandidlybeenpervertedintothesupportoftheGovernmentalTheory,whichhenevertaught."AsthereisthesameneedthatChrist'sobedienceshouldbereckonedtoouraccount,asthathisatonementshould;sothereis the same reason why it should. As, if Adam had persevered andfinishedhiscourseofobedience,weshouldhavereceivedthebenefitofhisobedience,asmuchasnowwehavethemischiefofhisdisobedience;soinlikemanner,thereisreasonthatweshouldreceivethebenefitofthesecond Adam's obedience, as of his atonement of our disobedience.BelieversarerepresentedinScriptureasbeingsoinChrist,asthattheyare legally one, or accepted as one, by the supreme Judge: Christ hasassumedournature,andhassoassumedallinthatnature,thatbelongstohim,intosuchaunionwithhimself,thatheisbecometheirheadandhastakenthemtobehismembers.And,therefore,whatChristhasdoneinournature,wherebyhedidhonourtothelawandauthorityofGodbyhis acts, as well as the reparation to the honour of the law by hissufferings,isreckonedtothebeliever'saccount."*

III.Itremainsforusnowonlytoindicatetheconclusionsastothetruthof the doctrine we advocate, which the historical facts, now approved,appeartosustain.

Wehavealreadyconcededtoouropponentsthatthefactsshowthatthemind of the Church advanced more slowly in the development of thedoctrine of the Atonement than in the case of any other of the great

fundamental doctrines of Revelation. But we claim that the men andconfessionsquotedabovetrulyrepresentedtheChurchoftheirrespectiveages,andthat in theircharacterasrepresentatives they fullyprove thatthe Church of Christ had, as a general fact, always understood theredemptiveworkoftheLordtobeavicariousexpiationofsininordertopropitiateajustly-incensedthoughlovingGodinbehalfofsinners.Ifthisbeso,weargueagainstallwhodenythisgreattruth,thatitisimpossiblethatChristians should thushavemistakenChristianity. Thequestion isnot whether grave, or even fatal, errors have prevailed in the visibleChurch, norwhether true Christiansmay ormay not fall into grievousmisconceptionas to important truths.But therealquestion involved is,whetheritispossiblethatthewholeChurchinallages,asageneralandcharacteristic fact—and whether with especial uniformity the morespiritual and fruitful portion of the Church—should have entirelymistaken thenature of that foundationuponwhich their trust reposes,andofthatredemptionofwhichtheyhavebeenthesubjects.

As far as the Moral Influence Theory is concerned, the adversepresumption raised by the history of opinion on this subject isoverwhelming. The spiritual followers of Christ have always lived a lifethe conscious principle of which was faith in a sin-expiating sacrifice.Socinians and Rationalists have believed in the Moral InfluenceHypothesiswhentheyhaveseenfittobelieveanything.Letthedoctrinesbejudgedbytheirfruits,andbythesealoftheHolyGhostontheheartsoftheirrespectiveprofessors.

Young says of theEvangelicalChurches from theReformationdown tothe present hour: "If there has been success anywhere in the spread ofChristianity, if there has beenmanifest power, power for highest good,anywhere,ithasbeeninconnectionwiththem.UndeniablyGodhasbeeninthemandwiththem,andtheSpiritofGodhasmarvellouslywrought,throughthem,fortheconversionandmoralregenerationoftheworld."*Yet he continues a few paragraphs after: "That wild and daringtranscendentalismwhich, in a greater or less degree, essentially affectsevangelicaltheologyatthishour,isnotbyanymeansthemostfatalevil.Thedoctrineofsatisfactiontodivinejusticeisimmeasurablyworseinitsmoral tendency.…This,beyondall comparison, is thedeadliest error."†

Thisisasheerabsurdity.ThefaithintheworkofChristasanexpiationofguilt has been a constant element in the living Church. The partialprevalence of the doctrine advocated by Young has been a constantsymptomof thedecayof spiritual life and fruitfulnesswhen thesehavereachedthecrisisofdeath.Younghatesthedoctrineofthesatisfactionofjustice.Hewillhavenoneof it.Buthiswill, like thePope'sbullagainstthecomet,isimpotent,aswelltoexpungeitfromthepageofhistoryasfromthepageofrevelation.

Theadversebearingof thishistorical reviewupon thepositionof thosewho advocate the Governmental Hypothesis is not less evident. TheGovernmental, aswell as theMoral Theory, necessarily denies that theeffect of Christ's death was to expiate the guilt intrinsic in sin, or topropitiate the justice intrinsic in God. Both these theories agree inmaking the direct and essential effect of the Atonement to be simplyexemplaryandmoral;adisplayofprinciples,notaveritableexerciseofdivineattributes.Onthecontrary,thehistoryprovesbeyondquestion(1)thattheonepointheldincommonbyallthepeopleofGodinallagesispreciselythis,thatlikethefunctionoftheancientpriestandthevirtueofthe ancient sacrifice, the effect of Christ's death terminates, not on thesinnernorontheuniverse,butonGod.Thesimplestandconstantformof the Confession is, that Christ, by his sacrifice, has expiated sin andpropitiatedGod.This theory of Satisfaction, as thus generally stated, isthe faith of theGreek andRoman, of the Lutheran andReformed andArminianChurchesinalltheirbranches;andwhatistrueoftheChurchto-dayhasbeentrueoftheChurchfromthebeginning.(2.)Allthecreedsof the Lutheran and Reformed Churches teach the full doctrine statedand advocated in this book, and they can, by no amount of ingenuity,however able or unscrupulous, be explained away into even a plausibleconformity with the characteristic positions of the GovernmentalHypothesis. Nor can its advocates truly claim thatwhile accepting andconserving all that is essential and valuable in the older faith of theChurch, their doctrine is simply to be regarded as an "improvement intheology"inthelineoflegitimateprogress.Webelieveinsuchprogress.WethankGodthatithasbeenmadebytheChurchinitscomprehensionofthisverydoctrineinthepast.Weacknowledgethatthereisbothroomandneedformoresuchprogressjusthere.WehopethattheSpiritmay

soon lead us to more truth in this direction as in all others. But it isabsurd topropose thatasan improvementwhichessentiallyconsists inthedenialoftheoriginalanduniformfaithoftheChurchinthepremises.

WhenGrotius, inhiscelebratedwork,writtenprofessedly todefendthecommondoctrineof theChurch from the attacksof theSocinians, firstdeveloped theGovernmental Theory, and admitted that theAtonementwasnotdesigned to satisfyan immutabledemandof thedivinenature,but toproduce a sin-deterring effectupon theuniverse, all saw thathehadbetrayedtheverylifeofthecausehehadprofessedtodefend.Eventhe great Arminian theologian, Limborch, saw clearly that this was so,andsaid,incriticisingtheworkofGrotius,"thatthegistofthematterinrespecttothedoctrineoftheAtonementliesinthequestion,'AnChristusmortesua,circaDeumaliquideffecerit?'"*Thisisindeedtheheartofthequestion. The whole Christian Church, Apostolic Fathers, Schoolmen,Reformers,Greek,Roman,Lutheran,Reformed,andeventheArminianChurches, all answer in one voice in the affirmative. The Arians,Socinians,Rationalists, andadvocatesof theGovernmentalHypothesis,answer together in the negative. Let them not pretend, therefore, thattheirdoctrineisanimprovementofthatoldtheologytherootofwhichitdestroys.TheirdoctrineisasstrangetothehistoryoftheChurchasitistothepageofRevelation.

CHAPTERXX:THEPRINCIPALOBJECTIONSTOTHECHURCHDOCTRINE

STATEDANDANSWERED

MYoriginalschemeembracedthepurposeofdevotingaseparatechaptertothediscussionandsolutionofthevariousobjectionswhichhavebeenbrought against the Church doctrine of the Satisfaction rendered by

Christ to divine justice, and another chapter to the discussion andrefutationoftheseveralerroneousviewsheldinoppositiontothetruth.Ihave,however,foundittobeimpossibletoavoidnoticingandansweringthese objections, and stating, contrasting and refuting these rivaltheories,as theywereseverallybrought tonotice in thedevelopmentofthetruedoctrineatthedifferentpointsuponwhichtheyseverallybear.Icould not define the true doctrine without excluding the false doctrinecoterminous with it at each several point. I could not prove the truedoctrinewithout,eoipso,disprovingthefalsealternative,andsolvingtheobjections which were made to the doctrine we advocate or to theevidencesbywhichit issubstantiated.Iwill inthisplace,consequently,donothingmorethanrepeat—forthesakeofperspicuityandimpression—very briefly, the principal objections made against the doctrine ofSatisfaction,andtheanswerstothem.Iwish,however,inthefirstplacetorepeat,withemphasis,thesecondofthethreeconditionsofargumentwhichIlaiddownintheIntroductoryChapterofthisbook:"Reasonableobjectionsagainsttheevidencesbywhichadoctrine isestablishedhaveforce and should be duly considered. But rational objections to anyprinciple fairly established by the language of Scripture have no forcewhatever unless they amount to a palpable contradiction to otherprinciples certainly known. And whenever this can be shown, thereasonable inference is, not that the teaching of Scripture is to bemodifiedinconformitythereto,butthattheScripturesthemselvesaretoberejectedasfalse.Nothingismoresenselessthantheattempttomodifythe results of the inspiration of JEHOVAH in conformity with humanreason."

WemaintainthatitisprovedbeyondgainsayingthatthedoctrineoftheChristianChurchastothenatureofthesatisfactionofChristisexplicitlytaught inScripture.Ouropponentshaveonlyoneof three things todo:(a) show that the Scriptures do not teach our doctrine; (b) accept thatdoctrine themselves; or (c) reject the Scriptures. We notice theirobjections to the doctrine, not for the purpose of erecting thedemonstrationofitstruthuponthedemonstrationoftheirinsufficiencyor total falsehood, but simply for the purpose of showing that theteachings of God'sword do not contradict the teachings of that reasonwithwhichhehasendowedus.

1.Allouropponentsdenythatjusticeinourstrictandabsolutesenseofthewordisavirtue.Hencetheydenythatitisadivineattribute.Hencethey object that our doctrine revolts their moral sense by ascribingvindictivenesstoGod.

(1.) The advocates of the Moral Influence Theory deny that thedisposition to punish every sin irrespective of any ulterior object is anabsoluteperfectionofthedivinenature.Socinussaid,"Ifwecouldbutgetridof this justice, even ifwehadnootherproof, that fictionofChrist'ssatisfaction would be thoroughly exposed and would vanish."* Priestlysaysthat"justiceintheDeitycanbenomorethanamodificationofthatgoodnessorbenevolencewhich ishis solegoverningprinciple."†Youngdenies that there is any such thingas rectilineal justice inone sense inGodatall.HeadmitsthatGodisjustinthesenseofneverdefraudinganyoneofanygood thingdue tohim,buthedeniesutterly thatanymoralexcellencedemandstheinflictionofeviluponarepentantsinner.InlikemannerBushnell,§throughallhisdishonouringcaricaturesofthefaithofthe Church, denies that there is any excellence in the divine naturedetermininghimtotreatsinaccordingtoitsintrinsicill-desert,andthatthepunishmentwhichGodinflictsuponsinisinanywaydifferentfrompaternalchastisementdesignedforthegoodoftheoffender.

(2.) All the advocates of the Governmental Theory of the Atonement,althoughtheytalkofjusticeinamannerverydifferentfromtheclassjustreferred to, yet hold an opinionwhich in its last analysis comes to thesamething.Theybothdenythatthedispositiontotreatsinasitdeserves,because of its own intrinsic evil, is an excellence, or that it belongs toGod.Theybothholdthatthesolemotiveforthepenalevilsattachedtotheviolationsofthedivinelawisthatsimplebenevolence"which,"inthewordsofPriestly,"isGod'ssolegoverningprinciple."Theonlydifferenceis that the advocate of the Moral Influence or Socinian view of theAtonementmakes the good of the individual concerned, in every givencase, the absolute end of the benevolence of God in his chastisement,while the Governmental Atonement Theory makes the good of thesubjects of God'smoral government in general the the absolute end ofthatbenevolence.Dr.N.W.Taylorsays:*"Justice,onthepartofaperfectmoralGovernor,isabenevolentdispositiontomaintain,bytherequisite

means,hisauthorityasthenecessaryconditionofthehighesthappinessof his kingdom." "Justice always implies a correspondent rightsomewheretosomegoodorbenefitwhichistheobjectoftheright.…Aspunishment is in no respect a good to the transgressor, it can in norespectbetheobjectofarightonhispart,andthereforecannot,inthisrespect, be an act of justice to him, nor an act of justice to him in anysense,exceptthathe,byhisactoftransgression,hascreatedarighttohispunishmenton thepart of thepublic;" that is, becausehispunishmentwilldirectlyorindirectlycontributetothehappinessofthepublic.

Thatis,bothofthesefalsetheoriesoftheAtonementresolvejusticeintobenevolence.Weholdthistobeametaphysicalabsurdity.Wechallengetheworld either (a) toprove thatmankindaredestitute of the ideas of"right,"of"oughtness,"of"justice,"&c.,or(b)totracethegenerationofeither one or all of these ideas from the ideas of benevolence or ofhappiness.Weagree thatbenevolence respects thehappinessofothers,and thatbenevolence is amoral excellencewhichornaments thedivinenature,andwhichmenoughttopossessandtoexercise.Buttheideaofoughtnessismoreelementalthantheideaofbenevolence,anditcannotbe analyzed into anything more elemental. It is an independent andultimateideawhichstandsbyitself.Butiftheideaofmoralobligationisultimate and independent, it follows, from its very nature, that it isintrinsically supremeandabsolute. Itsdictatesmaycoincidewith thoseofbenevolence,butifnot,theymusttakeprecedenceofthem.Themanwouldprovehimselftobeamoralidiotwhocouldquestionwhetherthatwhichisrightoughttobedoneinpreferencetothatwhichisthecauseofhappiness,nomatter towhom.Besides this fact, thatnometaphysicianhas ever been able to trace the genesis of the ideas of "rightness,""oughtness," "justice" out of either of the ideas of 'benevolence" or"happiness," every sane man in the spontaneous judgments of his lifedistinguishes between benevolence and justice as things genericallydistinct. Every human being judges practically of sin in himself andothers that it is intrinsically ill-deserving. A repentant sinner woulddeservepunishmentasmuchifhewastheonlycreatureintheuniverseashewouldinathrongedworld.

Theforminwhichtheprincipleuponwhichthisobjectiontoourdoctrine

rests,asentertainedbytheadvocatesoftheGovernmentalTheory,isbadenough, but it is much worse as it is pressed by the advocates of theMoral Influence Theory. Their sickly sentiments are in obviouscontradictiontoall thesacredandprofanehistoryofGod'sprovidentialdealings with men from the beginning until now, to all the moraljudgmentsofmen,totheprinciplesofallhumanlawsandreligions,andtoalltherevealedprinciplesoftheScriptures.ThatGoddoesnotdoallwithin his power to save allmen; that all the penal consequenceswithwhichhe follows sin arenotdesigned tobenefit theoffender; thatGoddoespunishsomesinnerseternally,andthateternalpunishmentscannotbe designed to benefit the victims upon whom it is inflicted, are factsabsolutelycertain,andunquestionablyinconsistentwiththefundamentalprinciples uponwhich Socinus, Priestly, and Young and Bushnell pushtheirobjectionstothevenerablefaithof theChurch.Vindictiveness isamiserablevicefesteringintheheartofasinfulcreature,cherishedagainsta fellow-creature because of a personal injury. But an inexorabledetermination to treat all sin according to its intrinsic ill-desert is apeerless excellence crowning all the other moral attributes of a wise,righteousandbenevolentRuler.

2.Inthesamespiritwiththelastobjectionouropponentsinsistthatthetheory of Satisfaction excludes the element of grace from having anyshareinthesalvationofmen.Socinusinsistedthatpenalsatisfactionandremission or forgiveness mutually exclude each other. If a sin ispunished, it is not forgiven; if it is forgiven, it is not punished. This isevidently a miserable quibble, founded upon that very confusion ofpersonsandthingsthattheyfalselychargeuponus.Thesinisneverthatwhich is forgiven,but thesinner is forgivenandthepenaltyduehissinnotexecuteduponhim.Asfarasthesinnerispersonallyconcerned,hisforgivenessisnolessfreeandtheremissionofthepenaltyisnonethelessperfectbecausethepenaltyisexecuteduponavoluntarySubstitutethanifitwassovereignlyabrogatedaltogether.

Our unfriendly critics are very much in the habit of charging us withregardingtheAtonementasamerecommercialtransaction,andthenintheircriticismsfallingintothesamemiserablemistakethemselves.Thus,theyarguethatifChristbyhisobedienceandsufferingsfullysatisfiedall

thefederaldemandsofthelawinthesteadofhispeople,thenthereisnograceexercised in the forgivenessofmen.Theyassert thatourdoctrineputs theFatherand theSon inveryoppositeattitudes in respect to thesalvationofmankind.TheFatherinexorablydemandsthepaymentoftheuttermost farthingof thedebtdue tohim,andwill relaxhis claimsnotoneiotainordertosparehishelplesscreaturesorhissufferingSon.TheSon,inordertopropitiatetheinexorableFatherinbehalfofthehelplessobjectsofhisdispleasure,takespityuponthemandpaystheirdebtwithhisownblood.

Thiswhole talk foolishlyorwilfullyconfoundsapecuniarywithapenalsatisfaction.WedidnotoweGodmoney.Godisnotvindictive,bentuponfining us for a personal injury. God is infinite inmoral perfection andmust do right. We are sinners and ought to be punished. The claimterminates not upon the thing done, but upon the person sinning.Vicarioussatisfactiondoesnot,ipsofacto,liberate,butcanbeadmitted,ifat all, only as a matter of sovereign grace. Christ is not of a differentnaturefromtheFather,but isofoneessence,nature, feeling,mindandpurposewith him from all eternity.He did not die tomake the Fatherceasetohateus,butwasgivenbecauseGodSOLOVEDTHEWORLD,inorder to reconcile that infinite love with his infinite justice in theirconcurrentexerciseswithregardtotheircommonobjects—thatis,thosewhom the Father had given the Son. God would of necessity have tosacrificeeitherhiselect,orhisSon,ormoralprinciples.Itisself-evidentthat God shows immeasurably more grace in saving his elect at theexpenseofhis"BELOVEDSON"thanhecoulddoeitherbyasacrificeofmoralprinciple,or, incase ithadbeenpossible tosaveus,withoutanysacrificeatall.Noexhibitionofhumandepravitythathaseverdisgracedthe earth ismore amazing than this denial, that the self-assumption ofthepenaltyofthebrokenlawofGodinthesteadofhiselectisanexerciseofsovereignanddisinterested love.Christ is theonesatisfiedaswellastheonesatisfying,theonepunishingaswellastheonepunished;buthelovesus enough topunishhimself inourplace.This isTHEwonderofeternity. This is the inexhaustible theme of the heavenly song ofadorationandgratitudeforever.

3.By far themostplausibleobjection that isbrought toourdoctrine is

thatthedemandsofjusticeforpenalsatisfactionareessentiallypersonal.The Church argues that there is an immutable principle in the divinenature, lying back of, not determined by, but itself determining, theoptionalwillofGoddemandingthejustpunishmentofallsin,andhencetheabsolutenecessityofapenalsolutionoftheclaimsofthe lawinthecaseofeverysinner.Butthisdemandis thattheagentsinning,andnotanother person, shall suffer therefor. If God is able, in the exercise ofsovereignprerogative,tosubstitutepersonforperson,theobjectorsurge,why is he not able, by the same prerogative, to dispense with thepunishmentaltogether?Itisasserted,thatintheviewofthemoralsenseofallmenthereisandcanbenoconnectionbetweenthepunishmentofthesinofonemanandthesufferingsofadifferentperson.Thatvicariouspunishment, in the strict judicial sense of those terms, is a simpleabsurdity. How can the demands of the divine nature be satisfied bypains inflicted upon a person arbitrarily substituted in the place of thecriminalbythedivinewill?

There is force in thisobjection,and, I think, itmustbeconcededbyallthatjusticecannotdemandandexecutethepunishmentofasinuponanypartythatisnottrulyandreallyresponsibleforit,andthatthesinofonepersoncannotbe really expiatedbymeansof the sufferingsof another,unlesstheybeinsuchasenselegallyonethatinthejudgmentofthelawthe suffering of the one is the suffering of the other. The Realisticdoctrineofthenumericalonenessoftherace,andtheactualcoagencyofalltheraceinAdamandofalltheelectinChrist,wasexcogitatedtomeetthisdifficulty.Weobjecttoitbecauseitmakestheonenesstobephysicaland notmoral.Now, the eternal Logos, in councilwith the Father andHolyGhost,assumedtheresponsibilityofthefederalrelationsofhiselecttothelawfromalleternity.TheywerecreatedandpermittedtofalltotheendoftheirredemptioninChrist.AllGod'sdealingwiththem,fromthevery beginning, has had reference to their relation to Christ, and toChrist's covenant responsibility for them. The conditions are allabsolutely unique. The case iswithout parallel except in that of Adam,whowasmade the representative and agent of thewhole race for theirbenefit in those transactions upon which their eternal confirmation inholiness and happiness or everlasting loss depended. Surely in a caseembracing conditions sounparalleled, it is absurd forhuman reason to

decidethattheGod-manwasnot,intheeyeofomniscientjustice,reallyand truly penally responsible for the sins of his people, and in such asensemorallyonewiththem;thatis,hissufferingthepenaltyduetotheirsins is in full legal effect equivalent to the execution of the penalty onthem.

InthebodyofthisbookIhaveshownthatiftheScripturesaretrue,thenChrist does sustain this unique relation to his people. The negativedecisionofreasoninthecaseoughttobeverydirectandcertainifitistobe admitted as of sufficient force tobalance reasonably all the externaland internal, natural and supernatural, historical, moral and spiritualevidencesoftheChristianreligion.

4. Socinus objected that the temporal sufferings of Christ were in nosense an equivalent for the execution of the penalty of the law in thepersonsofallsinners.Eachandeverysinnerhadincurredthepenaltyofeternal death for himself severally. But Christ did not suffer eternaldeath, andhis temporal death is only one.Forboth reasons, therefore,becauseitwastemporal,andbecauseitwasbutthedeathofoneman,itcouldnotbeintendedtobeasatisfactiontodivinejusticeinthesteadofthe eternal death of an incalculablemultitude. On this ground SocinusconsistentlyrejectedtheatonementofChristaltogether.DunsScotus(A.D. 1308), Grotius, the great author of the Governmental AtonementTheory, and the Arminian theologians Episcopius, Limborch andCurcellæus, all admitted the fact that the single and temporal death ofChristwasno equivalent for the eternal death of allmen severally, butthey refused to admit the inevitable conclusion that therefore theforgivenessof sinswasbasedultimatelyupona simpleactof sovereignprerogative,andthat justicewas innosensepropitiated,because itwasnot instrict rigoursatisfied.Scotusheld thatGodgraciously"accepted"the single and temporal death of Christ as a sufficient satisfaction.Grotius held that the demands of the law were so far sovereignly"relaxed"byGodthattheintrinsicallyinferiorworkofChristwasfoundsufficient. The Arminians said that God graciously "estimated" Christ'sworkformorethanitsintrinsicvalue.

The principle upon which this objection proceeds is both rational andconclusive if the Socinian view of Christ's person is true, but it is both

preposterous and insufferable from themouthof anyoneprofessing tobelieve inthesupremedivinityofourLord.Christsufferedsolely inhishuman nature. But his person is infinite and divine. All legal relationsandobligationswhatsoever,whetheroriginalorvicarious,arenecessarilypersonal. We cannot of course explain psychologically the relationbetween the two natures and their concurrent experiences andinteractionsintheunityofthetheanthropicPerson.Butthismuchwedoknow—thehumanitywasnecessarilyimpersonal.Itbeganandcontinuedto exist only within the eternal personality of the Logos. The eternal,august, supreme,secondPersonof theGodheadobeyedandsuffered inthesteadofsinners.Theheavensdarkenedandtheearthtrembledinthepresence of the amazing fact. Awaywith all blasphemous impertinencewithrespecttothe"relaxation"ofthelawinordertolowerittothetermsof such a satisfaction, or of the gracious "estimation" of such asatisfaction inorder toraise it toequalitywith thedemandsof the law!Onthecontrary,thelawis"magnified"bysuchanobedienceandbysuchapenalsuffering,asitcouldnotbebytheseveraleternalsufferingsofallcreaturesactualorpossible;andjusticeisnotonlysatisfied,butglorified,bornealoftandsetablazeinthecrownofGod.

5. It is constantly objected by the advocates of the GovernmentalAtonement Theory that the Church doctrine necessarily involves anabsurdtheoryofimputation.Theyinsistthatthe"SatisfactionTheory,"asthey call it, has always been associated with the doctrine that thepersonal,sinfulcharacterofhispeoplewastransferredtoChrist,andthatthe personal good character of Christ was transferred to them. Thisobjection would be crushing indeed if it happened to contain a singlegrain of truth. But since it is utterly false as a matter of history, andabsurdas amatterof criticism, its effect is tobe seenonly in its recoiluponitsoriginators.TheChurchdoctrinealwayshasbeensimplythatthelegal responsibilities (penaland federal)ofhispeoplewerebycovenanttransferredtoChrist,andthathe,asMediator,wasregardedandtreatedaccordingly.Thesinfulactandthesinfulnatureareinalienable.Theguiltorjustliabilitytopunishmentisalienable,ornosinnercanbesaved.OurevilnatureremainsinalienablyourownuntilwearechangedbytheHolyGhost inregenerationandsanctification.Theobligationtopunishment,accordingtothetermsoftheeternalcovenant,hasbeentakenfromthe

electandfullydischargedinthesufferingsofourSubstitute.

TheyobjectthatalthoughChristdidnotowepunishmentforhimself,yetlikeeveryothercreatednaturehishumanitywasconformedtothelawofmoralperfectionastheconditionofitsownexcellence,andhencethatitwas incapableofanyworksof supererogation,andhencehemusthavebeen incapable of rendering a vicarious obedience in the stead of hispeople.

These objectors should, however, remember that that obedience whichChristrendered inoursteadwasnot thatwhichthe lawdemandsofallmoral agents, unchangeably and inalienably in its natural relation, butprecisely that obediencewhichGod, as Sovereign,moralGovernor andGuardianof all human souls, requiredas theprobationary conditionoftheir being confirmed in a holy character for ever, and being endowedwith"theadoptionofsons."Christ,inhisdivinenature,isfrometernitytheessentialembodimentofthislawofabsolutemoralperfection.Inhishuman nature he was generated by the Holy Ghost into perfectconformitytothislaw,andeversincesustainedtherein.Astohisperson,however,heisabsolutelydivineandsovereign.Thefederalclaimsoflawallnecessarilyterminateuponpersonsandnotuponnatures.Thelawcanclaimnothingofhisdivinity,becausehisnature is itself the fountainofall law,andhiswill itsruleandexpressiontotheentirecreation.Whenhe,therefore,condescendstobe"bornofawoman,tobemadeunderthelaw," and under the conditions of human life thus "to fulfil allrighteousness,"surelysuchobedience,performedwithsuchdesign,is,asfarashisdivinePerson is concerned,aworkof supererogation; that is,demandedbynolaw,exceptthefree-willlawofelectinglove;andhencesuchanobediencemay,bythetermsofthecovenantbetweentheFatherand the Son, be rendered vicariously by him in the stead and for thebenefitofhispeople.

CHAPTERXXI:THEMORALINFLUENCEANDTHEGOVERNMENTALTHEORIESOF

THENATUREOFTHEATONEMENTDISCUSSEDANDREFUTED

ALL the theories of theAtonementwhichmen in this age of theworldhave any interest to consider may, as I have already several timesdeclared,begroupedunderoneorotherofthefollowingheads.(a)Thosewhich regard the sufferings and death of Christ as designed solely toproduce an effect terminating as a moral impression in the subjectiveconditionof the individual sinner. (b)Thosewhich,while including thepreceding idea, regard them as chiefly designed to produce an effectterminatingasamoral impression in thepublicmindof thesubjectsofthemoralgovernmentofGod. (c)Thosewhich,while includingbothoftheprecedingideasintheirorder,regardChrist'ssufferingsanddeathasa vicarious penalty, designed to produce a justice-propitiating effect,terminatinguponGod.ThelastoftheseviewsisthattaughtinScripture,professed by theChurch of Christ in all its branches, and advocated inthisvolume.TheothertwoIwillnowverybrieflydiscussintheirorder.

I. The general view that the great end of the death of Christ was toproduceamoralimpressionupontheheartsofsinners,andthusleadtotheirmoralandspiritual reformation,hasbeen taught invarious formsbymanysuccessiveteachers,andhasbeenuniformlyrejectedasaheresyby the Church. Hagenbach* says that "Socinus defined the object ofChrist's death positively as follows: (1.) The death of Christ was anexample set before men for their imitation. (2.) It was designed toconfirm the promises made by God, thus giving assurance of theforgiveness of sins. (3.) Itwas the necessarymeans, preparatory to hisresurrection, by which he entered into glory. 'Christ died that throughdeath he might attain to resurrection, from which arises the strongestconfirmation of the divine will and themost certain persuasion of ourown resurrection and attainment to eternal life.' "† Thus, according toSocinus, the designed effect of Christ's death is wholly a subjective

impressionuponthemindsofsinners,tostimulatethemtoemulatehisheroic virtue; to prove and to illustrate the love of God and hiswillingness to forgive sinupon the repentanceof thesinner; toconfirmthe truth of all the doctrines he had taught and of the promiseswhichGodhadmade through theprophets or throughhimself; andby givingopportunityforhisresurrectionfromthedeadtodemonstratethefactofa future life, and to prove and illustrate the future resurrection of hispeople. Themodern theories of Jowett,Maurice, Bushnell, Young, &c.,differ from thatofSocinusonly inbeing rhetoricalwherehis is logical,confused where his is clear, and narrow and partial where his iscomprehensive. The lines between truth and error with regard to thiscentral doctrine of the gospelwere alreadydefinitely drawn in the firsthalfofthetwelfthcentury,attheveryopeningoftheScholasticera.Astotheentireessenceofthedoctrine,AnselmthenstoodpreciselywherethewholeChurchofChrist inall itsbrancheshaseversincestood;andtheinfamous Abelard taught in every essential respect the doctrinemaintainedbySocinus,andbyMaurice,Bushnell,andYoung,inourownday.Baur,asquotedbyHagenbach,*says:"Thusthetworepresentativesof Scholasticism in its first period, when it developed itself in all itsyouthfulvigor,AnselmandAbelard,weredirectlyopposedtoeachotherwith respect to the doctrines of redemption and atonement. The oneconsidered the last ground of it to be the divine justice, requiring aninfiniteequivalentfortheinfiniteguiltofsin;thatis,anecessityfoundedinthenatureofGod.TheotherheldittobethefreegraceofGod,which,bykindlingloveinthebreastofman,blotsoutsin,andwithsinitsguilt."

To the same effect Bushnell says: "The true and simple account of his(Christ's)sufferingsis,thathehadsuchaheartaswouldnotsufferhimtobeturnedawayfromus,andthathesufferedforusevenaslovemustwillinglysufferforitsenemy.""VicarioussacrificewasinnowaypeculiartoChrist save indegree."‡ "TheHolySpiritworks in loveasChristdid,and suffers all the incidents of love—compassion, wounded feeling,sorrow, concern, burdened sympathy, violated patience—taking menuponhim,tobearthemandtheirsins,preciselyasChristhimselfdidinhissacrifice."He"simplycameintothecorporatestateofevil(sumtotalofnaturalconsequencesofsin),andboreitwithus—faithfuluntodeathforourrecovery."*He"camesimplytobethemanifestedloveofGod."†

"Christbecameincarnatetoobtainmoralpower"(thatwhichbelongstoadevelopedcharacter). 'Theunderstanding is toobtain throughhim,andthefactsandprocessesofhislife,anewkindofpower;viz.,moralpower—thesamethatisobtainedbyhumanconductunderhumanmethods.Itwillbedivinepowerstill,only itwillnotbeattributepower.That isthepowerofhis idea(that isoriginalpower, intrinsic to thedivinenature).Thisnewpoweristobethepowercumulative,gainedbyhimamongmenastrulyastheygainitwitheachother.Onlyitwillturnoutintheendtobethegrandest,closesttofeeling,mostimpressive,mostsoul-renovating,andspirituallysublimepowerthatwaseverobtainedinthisoranyotherworld."

To the same effect, also, Young writes over and over again in manypassages exquisitely beautiful, and true also when accepted as anexpression of one side of the truth—an inestimably precious side too."The infinite Father in boundless pity looked down upon his undutifulchildren, and yearned to rescue them by regaining their hearts anddrawing themback to allegiance and topeace.WithGod-likemercyheunveiledallthatwaspossibleofdivinepurity,andtruth,andbeauty,andsweetness, and lovingness, and compassion. He humbled himself,descendedtothe levelofhiscreatures,walkedamongthem,spokewiththemface to face,andappealed,ashestill continues toappeal, to theirheartsthroughthegentleness,thetenderness,thewisdom,themeekness,thepatience, the sufferings, the tears, thebloodand thedeathofJesusChrist.

"The distinction here is radical and fundamental. The sacrificewas notofferedupbymenatallorbyasubstituteintheirroom;anditwasnotrequiredtoappeaseGod'sanger,ortosatisfyhisjustice,ortorenderhimpropitious.ThesacrificewasnotofferedbymentoGod,butwasmadebyGodformenandforsin,inorderthatsinmightbeforeverputdownandrootedoutofhumannature.ThisstupendousactofdivinesacrificewasGod's instrument of reconciliation and redemption, God's method ofconquering the human heart, and of subduing a revolted world andattachingittohisthrone—purelove,self-sacrificinglove,crucified,dyinglove."*

Theobjectionstothisviewareconclusive.

1.TheprecioustruthwhichitundeniablycontainshasalwaysbeenheldbytheChurchasanintegralpartoftheorthodoxdoctrineofthepiacularsacrifice ofChrist.All that is negative in theMoral InfluenceTheory isrefutedbytheoverwhelmingevidencewehaverecitedinestablishingtheChurchdoctrineastodivine justiceandvicariouspunishment,whileallthat ispositive in that theory ismaintainedwith fargreaterconsistencyandillustratedwithfargreaterforceonourviewofthenature,necessity,anddesignofhissacrificethanontheirs.WebelievethatGodcouldhavechangedman'ssubjectivemoralconditionbythedirectactionofhisHolySpirituponthehumansoul,without theobjectiveexhibitionofhis lovebymeansofsuchasacrificeas thatmade in thepersonofhisSon.Theposition that this is impossible is unreasonably presumptuous andentirely unsusceptible of proof. If, then, there remains the conceivablehypothesis that God might have attained his end in the moralregenerationofhumansoulsinsomeotherandlessexpensivewaythanthe one chosen, it follows that the infinite love of God forman is lessluminouslyexhibited,uponthesuppositionthatthenecessityofhisdyingwas only as one of two ormore alternative instrumentalities to subduethe distrust and alienation of the human heart, than it is upon thesuppositionthathediedbecausehisdeathwastheabsolutelynecessarymeans of removing obstacles to the salvation of men posited in theunchangeable nature of God. It is all the greater love, because thesacrificewasabsolutelynecessarytoattainitsobject.Itisallthesweeterand holier love, because, while making such entire sacrifice of self, itrefusesallsacrificeofprinciple.Asamatterofpracticalexperience,thatview of the sacrifice of Christ which maintains its strictly piacularcharacterhas inspired all thehymnsof theChurch andhasmelted theheartsof all themultitudeseither inChristianor inheathen landswhohave been won by the story of redeeming love to the discipleship ofChrist. It is the Church doctrine, and not the Moral Influenceunderstanding of the character of Christ's death, which has beenpreached in all revivals and been carried forth by allmissionaries, andwhichhaskindledtheflameintheheartsoftheLollardsandVallenses,Lutherans,Puritans,Moravians,andMethodists;while it is theboastedMoral Influence Theory which has just claim to whatever of moralregenerationandspirituallifedistinguishthehistoryofAbelardandhis

disciples, of Socinians, Unitarians, Rationalists, and whatever other ofthissortYoungandBushnellmayplease.

Bushnell,withsingularsimplicity,afterhavingwrittenavolumetoprovethatthedoctrineofpiacularsacrificeasheldbytheChurchisrevoltingtothe moral sense and dishonoring to God; after insisting through fivehundredpagesthatChrist'sdeathwasasimplemartyrdom,anditssoleeffectamoraloneontheheartsofmen,concludesbyacknowledgingthatthe Moral Influence Theory is unable of itself to produce a moralinfluence result, and hence the Church doctrine must in idea besubstitutedinitsplace.Thatis,heconfessesthathisdoctrine,onitsowngroundofsubjectivemoral influence, isnotonlynomoreeffective thanthe repudiated doctrine of Christ's Church, nor merely that it is lesseffective, but that it is in fact, when brought to the test, absolutelyimpotent,andmustbepracticallysupplantedbytheother."Inthefacts,outwardly regarded, there is no sacrifice, or oblation, or atonement, orpropitiation,but simply a livinganddying thusand thus.The facts areimpressive; the person is clad in a wonderful dignity and beauty; theagony is eloquent of love, and the cross is a very shocking murdertriumphantlymet;andifthenthequestionriseshowwearetousesuchahistorysoastobereconciledbyit,wehardlyknowinwhatwaytobegin.HowshallwecomeuntoGodbyhelpof thismartyrdom?HowshallweturnitorturnourselvesunderitsoastobejustifiedandsetatpeacewithGod? Plainly, there is a want here, and this want is met by giving athought-formtothefactswhicharenotinthefactsthemselves.Theyareputdirectlyintothemouldsofthealtar,andwearecalledtoacceptthecrucified God-man as our Sacrifice, an offering or oblation for us, ourPropitiation;sotobesprinkledfromourevilconscience,washed,purged,purified,cleansedfromsin.Insteadofleavingthematterofthefactsjustastheyoccurred,&c.…Andsomuchisthereinthisthat,withouttheseformsofthealtar,weshouldbeutterlyatalossinmakinganyuseoftheChristianfactsthatwouldsetusinaconditionofpracticalreconciliationwithGod.…Wewant, inshort, touse thesealtar-terms justas freelyasthey are used by those who accept the formula of expiation or judicialsatisfactionforsin; in just theirmanner, too,whentheyareusingthemmost practically. We cannot afford to lose these sacred forms of thealtar."*

Ourfirstargument,then,isthataccordingtotheconfessionofitsablestexpounders, thatmoraleffectwhichthetheory inquestionmaintains isthesoleaimoftheredemptiveworkofChristisatleastaswellproducedbyourviewoftheworkofChristasbytheirs.

2. We go further in our second argument, and affirm that upon theirconception of its nature the work of Christ is in no sense adapted toaccomplish even that effect which they represent to be its sole design.Upon their theory there is utter incongruity between the attempt toproducesucheffectsbysuchmeansandtheordinaryandunchangeableprinciples of human nature. This can be shown to be true both withrespect to thework itselfobjectively consideredandwith respect to theprocesswherebythemindoftheindividualsinnermustappropriatethatworkintheaspectpresented,forthesakeofthemoralimpressionitwasdesignedtoeffect.

(1.)With respect to thenatureof thework itself, it isunquestionably alaw of human nature thatwhile tragic suffering voluntarily incurred infidelitytohighprincipleandoutofunquenchableloveforus,inordertoremoveobstaclestoourwell-beingexteriortoourselves,hasmorepowerover the depths of the heart than any other conceivable thing; on theother hand, such suffering, intentionally gotten up with the design ofproducingapatheticeffectuponus,notasanecessaryincidenttoaworkforus,butasacalculatedpartofaworkuponus,necessarilydefeatsitselfand excites disgust. IfChrist had come, as Socinuswaswise enough toinsisthedid,solelyinthecharacterofaprophettorevealthewillofGodtoman, and to afford an example of eminent virtue, and if his painfulmartyrdomwasanundesignedendincidentalsolelytohispersistenceinhis labourof love, in spite of the fierceoppositionofhis enemies, thenindeedthatheroicexhibitionoftruthandlovewouldhavebeeneffectiveinmaking adeepmoral impressionon every susceptibleheart.But theScriptures explicitly assert that Christ came into the world for thepurposeofsufferinganddying.Thefact, thetime,manyof thedetailedcircumstancesandhorrorsofhisdeath,werenotonlyforeseen,butwereforeordained.Matt.26:24,54,56,and27:9, 10,35.ThedeathofChristwasGod'sact:"Him,beingdeliveredupbythedeterminatecounselandforeknowledgeofGod,yehavetakenandbywickedhandshavecrucified

andslain."Acts2:23."Butthosethings,whichGodbeforehadshowedbythe mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath sofulfilled."Acts 3:18. "For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus,whomthouhastanointed,bothHerodandPontiusPilate,withtheGentilesandthe people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thyhand and thy counsel determined before (προώρισε) to be done." Act4:27 and 28. If the sole design of the redemptive work of Christ is toproduceamoraleffectuponthesinner,asthesemeninsist,theglorioustransactions of Gethsemane and Calvary, which the Church has alwaysregarded as infinitely real, intense with divine attributes in action, arereduced to the poor level of scenes deliberately contrived for effect,finding their sole end in their effect as scenes. If theMoral viewof theAtonementshouldprovetrue,ourastonishmentandindignationinviewof the stolid indifferenceofmen to themoralpowerof the crosswouldneedtobemateriallyabated.

(2.)TheutterinappropriatenessoftheworkofChristuponhypothesisofthetruthoftheMoralTheorytoeffecttheendforwhichitwasdesignedismademoreclearwhenwecometoconsidertheprocessbywhich,uponthatviewof thecase, thesinnermustproceed toappropriate thatworkfor his own benefit. This difficulty is very effectively exhibited byBushnell, towhomtheChurch is thus indebted for themost conclusiverefutationofhisowntheorywhichthisagehasproduced."TheprincipalreasonforsettingforththematterofChrist'slifeanddeathasanoblation(piacular sacrifice) remains tobe stated, viz., thenecessity of somehowpreventing anover-conscious state in the receiver. Itwas going to be agreat fault in the use, that the disciple, looking for a power on hischaracter, would keep himself too entirely in this attitude ofconsciousnessorvoluntaryself-application.Hewouldbehangingaroundeach factandscene toget someeloquentmovingeffect from it.Andhewouldnotonlystudyhowtogetimpressions,but,almostbeforehewasawareofit,tomakethem.JusthereaccordinglyitwasthattheScripturesymbols, and especially those of the altar-service, were to come to ouraid,puttingusintoauseofthegospelsoentirelyobjectiveastoscarcelysuffer a recoil on our consciousness at all.… Doubtless there will be apowerinit—allthegreaterpowerthatIamnotlookingafterpower,andthat nothing putsme thinking of effects uponmyself.…Our subjective

applicationsofChristgetconfusedandgrowinefficacious."*Thusweseethat it is confessedly theMoral InfluenceTheory of thedeath ofChristwhich fails utterly to produce amoral impression, and that itmust bedisguisedundertheidealformsoftheoppositeandinconsistenttheoryofsin-expiating,God-propitiatingsacrificebeforeanycorrespondingeffectcan be attained. It is a singular case, indeed, if a false view of theAtonement canproduce abettermoral effect thana true view, and if adivineprovisionforthesalvationofmencanattaintheendGoddesignedittoeffectonlybymeansofapracticalandvoluntarymisconceptionastoitsnature.

3. Our third argument is that this view of the nature of Christ's worknecessarily proceeds upon the denial of those great fundamentalprinciplesastolawandjustice,astothenatureandeffectoftheJewishsacrifices, as to the nature of justification, &c., which we have so fullyestablishedfromScriptureintheprecedingchaptersofthisvolume.Theestablishment of the doctrine of theChristianChurch is, of course, thevirtualrefutationofallinconsistenttheories.

4.TheScriptures explicitlydeclare thatChristwas theSaviourof thosewho died before his advent in the flesh as well as those who cameafterward. If Christ did suffer the penalty due to his people, and soexpiatetheirsins, it isclearwhat ismeantwhenhe iscalled"theLambslain from the foundation of the world," Rev. 13:8, and when he isdeclaredtobesetforthbyGodtobeapropitiation,throughfaithinhisblood,todeclarehis(God's)righteousnessinrespecttothepassingoverthesinsthatwerepast(previoustohisadvent)throughtheforbearanceof God. Rom. 3:25. The eternal God assuredlymay as well act upon afutureasuponapresentorapastexpiation.Butuponthehypothesisthatthe sufferings of Christ were designed simply for a moral effect uponmen,itisself-evidentthathecouldbeaSaviouronlyafterhisadventandthefulfilmentofhistragedytothosewhowitnessedit,oratbesttothosetowhomanadequately graphic account of it hadbeen reported. Itwillnotbepretendedthatamancanbesavedbyamoralinfluencebeforeitisexerted,northattheinfluencecanbeexertedbeforethatexistswhichistoexertit.Henceitfollows,iftheMoralHypothesisbetrue,thatallwhodiedbefore thepassionofChristperished,orweresaved insomeother

way.

5.ThistheoryofYoungandBushnell isnonovelty—innosense,eveniftrue,"animprovement intheology."Ithasappearedagainandagain.Ithas been rejected uniformly in every age by the immense majority ofnominal Christians. It has always been associated with Pelagian andSocinian heresies and incipient infidelity. It has never been associatedamong a single body of men for a measurable period of time with arespectabledegreeofspirituallifeandfruitfulness.Theprincipleswhichitdenieshave,on thecontrary,been invital connectionwith theentirecurrentofspirituallifeissuingfromthepersonofChristalongitsentirecourse.Itshistorycondemnsit,andoughttoputitsabettorstoshame.

II.TheGovernmentalTheory "places thenecessityof theAtonementofChristintheexigenciesofGod'smoralgovernment;notinthedemandsofaninvoluntaryorganicemotionofretributivejustice,commontoGodandman.TheAtonementwasnecessary for the samereason,precisely,that the penalty annexed to the divine law was necessary; it takes theplace of that penalty, in respect to those who repent and are forgiven;answersthesameendaswouldhavebeenansweredbythe inflictionofthe penalty; viz., it maintains the law and authority of God, and bymaintaining that law and authority promotes those great interests forwhich moral government exists. Hugo Grotius was, probably, the firstmanwhodistinctlystatedanddefendedthefundamentalprincipleofthistheory. His design was to defend the Satisfaction Theory against theSocinians, his work being entitled 'Defensio fidei Catholicæ deSatisfactioneChristi.' The result, however,was thathe actually rejectedthefoundationprincipleofthattheory,andarguedthatthesatisfactionofChrist was rendered, not to the distributive but to the governmentaljustice of God.… He did not develop a complete and consistentGovernmental Theory of the Atonement; nor, after him, does thereappear to have been any material progress made towards the fulldevelopment of such a theory formore than a century and a half. TheCatholic view upon the one hand, and the Socinian view on the other,generally prevailed. Itwas reserved for certainNewEnglanddivines ofthelastcentury,firstclearlytostateanddefendasawholewhathasbeenvariouslycalledtheNewSchoolTheory,theEdwardean,theHopkinsian

Theory,theConsistentTheory,ormorecommonlyandappropriatelytheGovernmentalTheory.ToJonathanEdwards,Jr.,morethantoanyotherman, belongs the honour of giving to theworld this new theory of theAtonement. His three celebrated sermons on the subject, published in1785, which marked an era in the history of this doctrine, contain,perhaps,themostthoroughexpositionanddefenceofthisdoctrinewhichhasyetbeenmade.TheelderEdwards,andhisintimatefriendsBellamyand Hopkins, by their suggestive discussions of the subject, whileretainingthegeneralfeaturesoftheoldview,yetcontributednotalittleto thedevelopmentof thenewview.Amongthoseeminentdivineswhoearly accepted the Governmental Theory, and helped give it currency,were Smalley,Maxey, Burge, Dwight, Emmons and Spring, who, whiledifferingonminorpoints,wereyetagreedinholdingandadvocatingtheessentialprinciplesonwhichthetheoryrests.Itnowholdsarecognizedplace in that doctrinal system which is distinctively called the 'NewEnglandTheology.'"*

Themainpointsof this theoryare, 1.Allmoral excellence isultimatelyreducible to benevolence. " 'The attributes of God are not so manydistinct qualities, but one perfection of excellence, diversified in ourconceptions by the diversity of the objects towards which it ismanifested.' This is a felicitous statement of the truth, provided thatLOVEORBENEVOLENCEbethat 'oneperfectionofexcellence.'"*"Allthe moral perfections of the Deity are comprised in the pure love ofbenevolence."†2.Godisawiseandbenevolentruler.Theoriginandendofthemorallawlieinthedivinepurposetopromotebymeansofitthegoodoftheuniverse.Theultimategroundofthedivinegovernmentasawhole,andofboththepreceptandthepenaltyofthelawtherefore,istobe found in the benevolence of God. The law is a product of purebenevolence, designed to effect the highest good of all its subjectsregarded as a whole. The annexed penalty is for the purpose ofvindicatingandmaintainingthelaw.Henceitfollows(a)Thatthemotiveandendofthelawisalsothemotiveandendofthepenalty;thatis,thepenalty also is a product of benevolence, designed to effect the highestgood of the subjects of moral law as a whole; and (b) that "the solefunctionof penalty is that of a legal sanction;" that is, a violentmotiveaddressed to the intelligent self-love of all the subjects of the law,

inducingthemtoobserveitforthegeneralgood.3."ThatthesufferingsofChrist (the atonement)werenot, literally and strictly, the penalty ofthe law,butasubstitute for it,andanequivalent; that is,had thesameefficacyinrespecttothedivinelawandgovernmentthatthepenaltywasdesigned to have, and would have if inflicted in cases where it isremitted." 4. The atonement renders the salvation of all men possible,anditbears,fromitsverynature,preciselythesamerelationtothenon-electthatitdoestotheelect.Itssoledesignandeffectistoremovelegalobstacles out of the way of the salvation of all men indifferently. Itsecuresnothingmorethanthisforanyman.Theprincipleswhichsecureits actual application to individualmen,whether these lie ultimately inthe free-will ofmen or in the sovereign election of God, in either casehavenoplaceintheatonementitself.Emmons*strivestoprovethattheonlythingChristpurchasesformankindispardononconditionoffaith,andthatafterwebelievewearerewardedforourowngoodness,onthesameprinciplethatAdamwouldhavebeenifhehadcontinuedobedient.

This theory has, upon the whole, many practical advantages over theSocinian view. (a.) Because it includes and exhibits with far morepractical effect all the elements of truth which the Socinian viewembraces. (b.) Because in addition to those elements, the positiveprinciples signalized in the Governmental Theory with respect to thebearingof theatonementupontheadministrativerighteousnessofGodand the general interests of his moral government are unquestionablytruthsoftheveryhighestimportance.(c.)Becausethistheory,althoughwhen viewed in reference to a better standard, it is itself deplorablydefectiveintheserespects,yetmuchexcelstheMoralviewintakinghighgroundwithregardtotheill-desertofsin,thepunitivejusticeofGod,andofthenecessityoftheatonementaparteDeiinordertotheremissionofsin. (d.)Because it yields a farmorenatural interpretationof Scriptureuponthissubject,recognizingtheobjectivebearingoftheatonementasthe one to which its subjective bearing is necessarily subordinate andincidental.

Ontheotherhand,theobjectionstothistheoryareverymanyandveryconclusive.

1. All the positive truth which this theory signalizes is far more

profoundlytaughtandeffectivelypresentedinthegeneraldoctrineoftheChurch. According to the Governmental Theory, penalty is merely asanctionofthelaw,designedtoactasaviolentmotiveuponthemindsofthe subjects of the divine government, inclining them to obey the law.According to this theory, theAtonement is a substitute for thepenalty,designedto take theplaceof thepenalty,andtoproduce theverysameeffectasthepenaltywoulddoifexecutedinthecaseofthosewhosesinsare forgiven, andwhosepunishment is remitted.Now, it is self-evidentthat nothing can possibly so exactly take the place of the penalty andeffectthepreciseendforwhichthepenaltywasdesignedasthepenaltyitself.Nothing in theuniversecansoexpressGod'shatredof sinas theveritable visible exercise of his justwrath upon the sinner's Substitute.Nothing else possible can so effectively demonstrate the inflexibility ofthelawasitsliteralfulfilmentinpreceptandpenalty.Nothingcansoactasasin-deterringmotiveasthedemonstrationthatsinshallbepunishedin every case without exception; and nothing can so thoroughlydemonstrate that sin shall be punished without exception as its actualandvicariouspunishmentinthepersonoftheeternalSon.Asweshowedthat the orthodox doctrine far excelled the Moral Influence view inproducing the very moral influence sought, so now we show that theorthodox doctrine just as far surpasses the Governmental Atonementview in effecting, as a governmental expedient, the law-vindicating andsin-deterringimpressionsoughttobeeffected.

2. It is utterly impossible for the advocates of this theory to show theconnectionbetween the sufferings ofChrist and the effectswhich, theysay,flowfromit.Theyinsistthatitisoftheessenceofpenaltythatitbeinflicteduponthesinnerinperson.FiskeinsiststhatGod'sjusticecannomore be satisfied by the vicarious suffering of another than the sinfulagent, than a man's thirst can be slaked by another man's vicariouslydrinkingwaterforhim.Wehaveadmittedthatthisistheprecisepointinwhich the scriptural doctrine of the Atonement transcends humanreason.But thewhole difficulty lies in our inability to discern fully thegroundsuponwhichthelegalonenessofChristandhispeopledepends.ButtheadvocatesoftheGovernmentalTheorydenythatthesacrificeofChrist is a pœna vicaria. They say it is a substitute for a penalty—somethingintheplaceofthepenaltytoeffectthesamepurpose.But(a)

how can anything that is not of the nature of penalty effect the samepurposeaspenalty?And(b)howcansufferingsofonepersonsustainanyrelation to the sins of another person if the legal relations andresponsibilities of the two persons are not identical? Suffering hasrelation to sin or it has not. If it has relation to sin, it must either bedesigned as chastisement or as penalty. The sufferings of Christ hadrelation to sin, and they were not personal chastisement; they must,therefore, have been penalty; of the genus penalty and of the speciesvicariouspenalty.Ifthisbedenied,letsomeonestatedefinitelywhattheywere,andletitbeshownpreciselyhowhissuffering,whichbyhypothesisis not penalty, takes the place and secures the end of the literalpunishmentofpersonswhoseidenticallegalobligationsdonotrestuponthe person suffering.How in the name of reason is it possible that theundeservedsufferingsofChrist,whichwerenotthepenaltywhichthelawdemanded,shouldmakeitconsistentwithGod'srectoraljusticetorelaxthelaw,andomitthepenaltyaltogetherinthecaseofrepentantsinners?If God's abhorrence of sin is really and adequately expressed in thesufferings of Christ, how is it that his distributive justice is not strictlysatisfied therein? and how could he truly and really express hisabhorrence of our sins bymeans of the sufferings of Christ, unless thereallegalresponsibilityforoursinswerefirstlaiduponChrist,andtheywerethenstrictlypunishedinhim?

Thetruth is, that thisGovernmentalTheory isan inventiondesignedtoescape the pressure of Socinian objections levelled against the truedoctrineoftheAtonement.ThepointatwhichrationalobjectionstothetruedoctrineoftheAtonementaremostefficientisthatwhichconcernsthesatisfactionof strict justice in thepersonsubstituted in theplaceoftheactualcriminal.Inordertoavoidthisobjection,theadvocatesoftheGovernmentalHypothesisadmititsforce,denythatChristwaspunishedin the place of sinners, or that he satisfies the demands of distributivejusticeatall,andclaimthatthedeathofChristwasacontrivancetotaketheplaceofthepenaltyofthelaw,andtomakeitconsistentwithGod'srectoral righteousness to omit the penalty in the case of believersaltogether.ButJowettsays truly: "Thissecondtheoryhasnoadvantageover the preceding (orthodox), except that which the more shadowystatement must ever have in rendering difficulties themselves more

shadowy."*Whenevertheyattemptaprecisestatement,inoppositiontothe Socinians, of their positive belief as to the manner in which thesufferings of Christ are related to the sins of his people, and of themanner in which his sufferings, which are no penalty, avail to expressGod'sabhorrenceofsin,ortomakeitconsistentwithhisrectoraljusticetoomitthepenaltyaltogether,theyalwaysnecessarilyfallbackuponthefundamentalprinciplesof theSatisfactionDoctrine.Andagain, theverymomenttheyturntodistinguishtheirpositionfromthatChurchdoctrinewhich includes their special theory as one of its provinces, they alwaysnecessarilyfallbackintheirnegationsuponSocinianground.Theythusceaselessly oscillate between the two—orthodox in all they affirm, andSocinianinalltheydeny.Theirchampionsputoneinmindofalandlesslaird straddling the line-fence between two farms. He is always foundstandinguponthatlegwhichistheothersideofthefence.

3. The fundamental principle which distinguishes this theory, namely,that in its last analysis, all virtuemay be resolved into benevolence, isboth false and pernicious. To resolve all colour into sound would betheoretically to annihilate colour, and so to resolve all virtue intobenevolence is theoretically to annihilate virtue. The idea of moralobligation is simple, unresolvable, ultimate, because it is utterlyimpossible analytically to resolve it into any elementsmore simple, orsyntheticallytocomposeitoutofsuchelements.Itisplainthatneitheradesire for our own well-being springing out of self-love, nor adisinteresteddesireforthewell-beingofothersbyitself,yieldstheideaofmoralobligation. It is true that these statesofmindareobligatory,butthe moral obligation which attaches to them is something which isindependentoftheself-loveorthebenevolence.Ifthequestionbeaskedwhyweoughttodoright,nootheranswercanbegiventhanthatmoralobligationisanultimatefactofconsciousness,having itsownreasoninitself,andfromitsverynaturenecessarilysupreme.

Taylor,Fiske,andtheadvocatesof their theorygenerally,maintain: (1.)That the orthodox view represents the justice of God as pursuing itsgratificationblindlylikeaphysicalappetite.Theirdoctrineisthatdivinejusticedemandsthepunishmentofthesinneronlyasameanstoanend;thatis,inordertomaintaindivinegovernment,thesoleendandpurpose

of which is the attainment of the best interests of the subjects of thatgovernment.Butitisveryplainthattheirviewonlyremovestheultimateend inwhich justice "blindly" terminates one step further.We say thatGod punishes sin, because it is an ultimate fact that moral excellencedemandsthatsinmustbepunished;becauseitisanultimatefactthatsinis intrinsically in obligation to punishment. They say that sin must bepunishedinordertomaintainmoralgovernment,andmoralgovernmentisnecessaryinordertothebestinterestsofthemoraluniverse;anditisanultimatefactthatthebestinterestsofthemoraluniverseoughttobesought as a paramount end. The fact is, that intelligence, moral andpersonal agency are inconceivable without ultimate, unresolvableprinciplesofactionandofthoughtforwhichnoreasoncanbegiven.Itisjust as certain and as intelligent and self-luminous a proposition thatrightisintrinsicallybinding,andthatsinmustbepunishedbecauseofitsintrinsic ill-desert,as that thebest interestsof theuniverseought tobesecured at any cost. If benevolence is the sum of all virtue, thisbenevolence must regard either the happiness or the excellence of itsobjects as its ultimate end. Hence it follows necessarily that eitherhappinessormoralexcellencemustbe theultimateend,andhence theultimatemotive, ofmoral action. If the last is true, itmust be becausevirtue is for its own sake intrinsically the highest good and viceintrinsically evil.Virtuemusthave, therefore, theultimate reasonof itsattracting divine approbation, and vice the ultimate reason of itsattractingdivinedispleasureinitself.Inthatcasetheorthodoxtheoryofthe Atonement follows. But if the first is true, and ultimately there is"nothing good," as Taylor says, "but happiness and the means ofhappiness,andnothingevilbutmiseryandthemeansofmisery,"*thenthedistinctionbetweenmenandswineisonlyoneofdegree.

(2.) Feeling the force of this infallible result of their system, thesegentlemenareveryfondofcoveringitsnakednesswiththecomelytermsproper to the fundamental principles of the Church doctrine, and ofinsistingthattheyalsomaintainthatvirtueisintrinsicallyagoodforitsown sake, and that sin deserves punishment as an ultimate fact. Fiskesays:"Sinisintrinsicallyhatefulandill-deserving;itisanevilperse,andnotmerelyonaccountofitstendenciesandconsequences.Thisweholdto be a fundamental point in all our ethical and theological inquiries."

"The preceptive part of the law must require of all creatures perfectholiness, forbidding all sin; because perfect holiness is inherently rightandexcellent;andbeinginherentlyrightandexcellentisindispensabletothehighestgood;andbecausesinisinherentlywrongandevil,andbeinginherentlywrongandevil,tendstointerferewiththehighestgoodoftheuniverse.""Thesolefunctionofpenaltyisthatofalegalsanction.Itssolevalueisitsefficacytoenforcethelawandmaintainitsauthority,andsoultimatelyhelppromotethegreatbenevolentendsofmoralgovernment."Thistheory"harmonizeswitha justconceptionof theoriginandendoflaw(includingpreceptandpenalty),asemanatingfromadivinepurposeto promote, bymeans of it, the highest good of the universe."* This isvery astonishing. It seems that the ultimate, that is, real end ofcommanding at all is certain consequences to be secured by thecommands, andyet that virtue is commandedbecause it is intrinsicallygood,anditisintrinsicallygoodbecausecertainofitsconsequencesaregood.Therealendofforbiddingistoattaincertainconsequences,andyetvice is forbiddenbecause it is intrinsicallywrong, and it is intrinsicallywrongbecausesomeof itsconsequencesare injurious.Vice ispunishedbecause it is intrinsically ill-deserving, and yet the ultimate end of allpunishmentistobefoundincertainconsequencesitisdesignedtoeffect.

The ultimate end of law, precept and penalty is the good of themoraluniverse. The sole function of punishment is, as a sanction to law, topromote the benevolent ends of moral government. All virtue isbenevolence;thatis,adesirethatallothersshallbehappyandvirtuous—that is,behappyandwishallothershappy.Punishment, therefore, isaviolentmotiveaddressedtotheself-loveofthesubjectsoflawtoinducethem to wish all others to be happy. Atonement is a substitute for thepenalty, to take its place and to produce precisely the same effect.Thereforeitfollows,accordingtothisboastedGovernmentalTheory,thehighestlessonofthecrucifixionoftheeternalSonofGodisthat"honestyisthebestpolicy!!!"

4. This theory is utterly intolerable, because it represents the sacredtragedyofGethsemaneandCalvaryasanillusiveexampleofpunishmentwheretherewasnorealpunishment—an"expression"ofdivineattributeswhichwerenotreallyexercisedinthecase.Theorthodoxdoctrineisthat

ChristreallysatisfiedthejusticeofGodbyreallysufferingthepenaltyofsininourstead.TheGovernmentalTheoryisthatthesufferingsofChristwerenot thepunishment of sin, not the exercise of divine justiceuponChrist, but an example of punishment and an expression of God's justwrath."Grotius,aswellasSocinus,attachedprincipalimportancetothemoralimpressionwhichthedeathofChristiscalculatedtoproduce,withthisdifferenceonly,thatGrotiustakesthisprinciplenegatively,Socinuspositively;forintheopinionofGrotius,themoraleffectofChrist'sdeathconsists in the exhibition of the punishment due to sin; according toSocinus,inthemoralcouragewhichChristmanifestedinhisdeath."Itisvery grievous that the sacred death of our Lord should be thuscharacterizedasanattemptuponGod'spart,unveiledandrenderedforever impossible by these very theorists, to impose upon the moraluniverse an "expression" of attributes not actually in exercise, an"exhibitionofpunishment"where there isnopunishment,and tomakeanexample inwhich sin isdealtwithwithoutpunishmentanemphaticdemonstrationofhispurposealwaystopunishit.Jowettsaystruly:"Thisdoctrine(Governmental)isthesurfaceorshadowofthepreceding,withthe substance or foundation cut away." "If this scheme avoids thedifficulty of offering an unworthy satisfaction to God, and so doingviolencetohisattributes,wecanscarcelyfreeitfromtheequaldifficultyofinterposingapainfulfictionbetweenGodandman.WasthespectaclerealwhichwaspresentedbeforeGodandtheangelsonMountCalvary?Thistheoryavoidsthephysicalillusionoftheoldheretics,andintroducesamoralillusionofaworsekind."*

"There is certainly nomanifestation of the excellence and perfection ofthedivinelaw,orofthenecessityofmaintainingandhonouringit,if,intheprovisionmadeforpardoningsinners,itwasrelaxedandsetaside—ifitspenaltywasnotinflicted,iftherewasnofulfilmentofitsexactions,nocompliance with its demands." The law was either literally fulfilled orrelaxed.Sinwaseitherreallypunishedorthepunishmentwasremitted.God either poured out his wrath really and truly upon Christ as avicariousvictim,orhedidnot.Andwemaybemostsurethatiftherewasno exercise of justice, there was no expression of it; if there was nopunishment,therewasnoexampleofit;iftherewasnowrathfelt,therewasnomanifestationofit.Whateveritmaynothavebeen,weknowthat

itwasthemostintenselyrealtransactionthisearthhaseverwitnessed.

5.Thisdoctrineisfalse,becauseitinvolvesthedenialofthosescripturalprinciplesastothenatureofdivinejustice,astotheimmutabilityofthelaw and the absolute necessity of the Atonement, as to the nature anddesignof thetypicalsacrificesandpriesthood,astothefull forceof thelanguagewhich teaches that Christ came in our stead, as our Ransom,and that he bore our sins, &c., which have been so fully proved in thepreviouschaptersofthisvolume.

6. This theory is untrue, because it teaches necessarily thatChrist diedindifferently for all men, and that the only effect of his death was toremovelegalobstaclesoutofthewayofthegratuitousforgivenessofallmen on condition of repentance. It necessarily teaches that all whichChrist purchased for any was that pardon which he purchasedconditionally forall,while theapplicationof thebenefitsofhiswork tothe individual is left undetermined by the Atonement itself. This is, ofcourse, disproved by all those scriptural arguments by which we haveproved that Christ purchased for those for whom he died faith andrepentance,theadoptionofsons,andaneternalinheritance.

7.Itisfalse,becauseitisessentialtoitthatjustificationshouldbemerepardon and that faith should be the divinely-accepted condition uponwhichthepardonproceedsforChrist'ssake,whileallotherspiritualgiftsare given us as the gracious rewards of our own holy obedience. Thisleadstothattheoryofco-operativejustificationwhichisthefundamentalviceoftheRomishsystemanditisdisprovedveryplainlybyallthatwehaveprovedfromScriptureastothenatureofjustification,offaithandofunionwithChrist.

8.Ifnotdisproveditisgreatlydiscreditedbythefact,notonlyconfessedbut paraded, that it is the "New Theory" of the Atonement. We haveproved sufficiently (a) that the doctrine which maintains that thesufferingsofChristwereatruepœnavicariahasbeenattheheartofthefaithof theChurch fromthebeginning;and(b) that thisGovernmentalTheory is inno intelligible senseadevelopmentor improvementof theother. It is a different faith. If then it is "new" in this day, it mustwithstandthetremendousweightofthepresumptionthatallGod'sdear

children could not have continued under a delusionwith regard to themeaning of Christ's death and the nature of the gospel, which theybelievedandpreachedforseventeenhundredyears.

9.ThistheoryisdiscreditedbythefactthatitisnotdevelopedinthefirstinstancebyacarefulexpositionofandstrictinductionfromScripture.ItsadvocatesdonotpretendthattheygenerateitoutofScripture;themosttheyclaim is, thathavingdeveloped itasaproductof speculation, theyare able to show that it harmonizeswith all the facts of Scripture. Theargument is, of course, treated very variously by different writers. Butupon thewhole, itmaybe fairly said that themainsources fromwhichtheyattempt todraw thematerialsofwhich to constructa theoryas tothenature, thedesignandtheeffectsof theatonement fallasageneralfactunderthesetwoclasses.(1.)AprioriideasastothenatureofGod,ofhis essential attributes, and of the nature and ends of his moralgovernment, founded upon original,moral and spiritual intuitions andfeelings. This is supposed to afford us an adequate ground fordeterminingaprioriwhatGodwilldoandwhathewillnotdo—whatheought to do and what he ought not to do under given conditions. (2.)Analogiesdrawn(a) fromourobservationsof thecourseofprovidentialdealingswithindividualsandcommunities,generalandspecial;and(b)from the principles upon which and the methods by which humangovernmentsareadministeredandsocietyconserved.Ontheotherhand,IhaveaimedtoshowwhattheChurchhasalwaysbelieved,thatthetruetheoryof theAtonement is inseparable from the factsofScripture, andthereforejustasmuchinScriptureasthefactsthemselves—justasmuchas the Copernican system has always been with the stars in the sky.Intelligent observation and accurate interpretation is the limit oflegitimatehumanagencyinbothcases.TheAtonementcanbeknownbyusonlyasitisrevealed.Thehumble,patientinductionofthelawfromallthe data given in Scripture is the only method which in suchinvestigationscanforonemomentbeallowed.Andthepursuitofsuchamethod certainly never issued in the Governmental Theory of theAtonement.

10.Thereisnodoubtwhateverthatinthegreatmajorityofinstancesthereal predisposing cause, giving force and currency to this view of the

Atonement, isaprejudice,notunnatural,butcertainlynotenlightened,against what is often though erroneously called a limited Atonement."Thelastobjectionwewillhereurgeagainstthistheory(Satisfaction)is,that it leads, by a logical necessity, either to the doctrine of a limitedAtonement,ontheonehand,ortothedoctrineofuniversalsalvation,ontheother."*

Now, as will be seen in the following chapters, I show that, whenthoroughlyanalyzedandaccuratelydefined,thetruedoctrine,thatChristsatisfiedtheretributivejusticeofGodbybearingtheverypenaltyofthelaw,doesnotlogicallyleadtoanyconsequenceswhichcanbeaccuratelyexpressedbythephraselimitedAtonement.TheexpiatoryworkofChristis(a)exactlyadaptedindifferentlytoeachandeveryman;(b)issufficientforall;(c)isofferedingoodfaithtoeachmantowhomthegospelcomes;(d)itremovesalllegalobstaclesoutofGod'swaytothesalvationofanyoneindifferentlywhomhepleases;(e)itmakessalvationinanobjectivesensepossibletoeveryonetowhomitisoffered,ifhehas,orassoonasheobtains,thenecessarysubjectivecondition,faith.ButGod'spleasureiseternal;thereforehepleasestosavenowpreciselythosewhomhepleasedtosavewhenhegaveChrist;thereforehegaveChristwiththedesignofsavingthosewhomhedoessave,inotherwords,theelect;andthereforethe expiatory work of Christ was, not in respect to the sufferings inthemselves considered, but in respect to Christ's intention in suffering,definite and not indefinite in its relation to persons. The questionconcerningthepersonalbearingoftheAtonement,whenanalyzed,yieldsbut five elements: (a.) Its adaptibility—which is unlimited; (b) itssufficiency—which isunlimited; (c) itsoffer—which isunlimited; (d) itsintendedapplication—whicheveryCalvinistmustadmitispeculiartotheelect; (e) its actual application—which is peculiar to thosewho are notlost. If anyCalvinist disagreeswith the above statement, let him eitherstatewhereinitfailstoexhaustthewholecase,orlethimshowhowthedenial that the "intended application" of theAtonement relates only totheelectisconsistentwiththedoctrineofunconditionalelection.

Itisveryplain,therefore,(1)thatthedoctrineofthedefinitedesignoftheAtonement is not so revolting as its opponents imagine. I have shownthat the doctrine presented in the little work entitled "Gethsemane"*

never was the accepted doctrine of the Reformed Churches. And it isprecisely against this perversion or caricature of the oldCalvinism thatthe objections in question are directed. (2.) That the doctrine of thedefinite design of theAtonement is farmore inseparably inlockedwiththe fundamental doctrine of Calvinism, viz., the unconditional eternalelection of individuals to eternal life, foundedupon the sovereign goodpleasure of God, than it is with any peculiar views as to the strictvicarious and penal character of Christ's sufferings. (3.) That it is notnecessaryformentoadoptfalseviewsastothenatureoftheAtonementin order to support them in their prejudiced preference for confusedviewsasitsextent.LetthemprefertooccupythegroundoftheLutherans—anhonourable company of scholars and saints,whohold at once thestrictest views as to the sin-expiating, justice-satisfying nature of theAtonement, and the broadest views as to its indefinite and universaldesign.

11. The origin, history and logical development of this doctrinedemonstrate that it is radically and necessarily inconsistent with thesystemofCalvinism.TheideaofanintegralelementofCalvinismbeinggenerated out of the speculative development of Arminianism is asabsurd as that of looking for figs from thistles, or, if you please, forthistles from figs.Thegermof theGovernmentalTheorywas furnishedby Hugo Grotius. Coleridge says of what is called Arminianism that,"taken as a complete and explicit scheme of belief, it would be bothhistorically and theologically more accurate to call it Grotianism, orChristianityaccordingtoGrotius."*

WehaveshownthatthistheoryleadstoessentiallyArminianviews;(1)asto thenatureof justification inchaptersxiv.andxviii.;and(2)as toanindefiniteandgeneralAtonementinPartII.,chapteriii.ItissufficientlyplainthattheadoptionofArminianismonthesepointsinvolveslogicallythe definite adoption of Arminianism as a whole, as the immediatetendencyandultimateresult.Wearegladtobelievethattheconvictionisbecoming very general among thosewhohavebeen foremost in testingthe "improvements" that the Calvinism of the Reformed Churches is aself-contained system which must be either received or rejected as awhole.ThedoctrinesofSatisfaction,Imputation,&c.,arefoundnottobe

excrescences,butinsuchasenseintegralandinseparablethatthesystembecomesuntenabletothosewhowillnotadmitthem.

PARTII:THEDESIGNORINTENDEDAPPLICATIONOFTHEATONEMENT

CHAPTERI:INTRODUCTORY

THEDesign or Intended Application of the Atonement. Did Christ diewith the design ofmaking satisfaction to divine justice in behalf of allmen, indiscriminately, or in behalf of his elect seed personally anddefinitely?

Weconsiderthisaquestionwhoseinterestislessessentialandintrinsicthan derived from its relation to principles which are intrinsicallyimportant,andfundamentaltothesystemoffaithknownasevangelical.Iclaim to have established, on its own independent evidence, the greatquestion concerning the Nature of the Atonement, which is the realinterestforthesakeofwhichthisbookiswritten.There,andnotunderthe present head, lie the principles which are the true cause of debatebetweenusandourpresentopponents.ItakeupthisquestionastothedesignandpersonalreferenceoftheatoningworkofChristonlyas it issubsidiary to the former, and for the purpose chiefly of analyzing thequestion and defining its real elements, and of showing the necessaryrelationswhichtheysustaintotheotherelementsofthesystemoffaith;as,forinstance,tothenatureoftheAtonement,andtothesovereigntyofthedivinedecrees.

ItisevidentthattheopinionthattheAtonementisgeneralandindefinitemust be held and defended by the Calvinistic Universalist underconditionsverydifferentfromthoseunderwhichitiscomprehendedandvindicatedbythefarmoreconsistentArminians.Ipropose,therefore,inorder to clear the way for the accurate understanding of the elementsinvolvedinthisquestioninall theirbearings, toconsiderforamomentthedesignoftheAtonement;(a)asitisinvolvedinourcontroversywiththe Arminians; and (b) as it is involved in our controversies with the

abettorsofthevariousmodificationsofCalvinism.

1.Asfar,then,asthisquestionis involvedintheArminiancontroversy,we are ready to admit the reality of the great importance which theyattribute to it. If theycouldprove that the lovewhichpromptedGodtogivehisSontodie,asasin-offering,onthecross,hadfor itsobjectsallmenindiscriminately,andthatChristactuallysacrificedhislifewiththepurpose of saving all indifferently on the condition of faith, then itappears that their inference is irresistible that the central principle ofArminianismistrue;thatis,theprinciplewhichmakesthedestinyoftheindividualtodependuponhisownuseofdivinegrace,andnotuponthesovereigngoodpleasureofGod.Itisatthispoint,verywiselyaswethink,theArminianerectshismaincitadel.Wefreelyadmit that justheretheadvocatesofthatsystemareabletopresentagreaternumberandvarietyof texts which appear to favour the distinguishing principles of theirsystem than they are able to gather in vindication of any other of theirmainpositions.Onthetopicsofdivinedecrees,ofunconditionalelectionofcertainpersonstofaith,andthroughfaithtoeternalsalvation,andofefficacious as distinguished from common grace, the Scriptures are soobviouslyaswell asoverwhelminglyCalvinistic, thatouropponentsarereduced to the defensive, and are able to do little else than appeal toreasonandhumanconceptionsof justice,andattempt indetail toshowthat the passages of Scripture to which we appeal may possibly meansomething less thantheyappear tosay.ThusalongagreaterportionofhislineofdefencesthenecessarytacticsoftheArminianareasnegative,aspurelydefensive,andasmuchconfinedtoaskirmishindetail,asistheenforced policy of the Socinian along his line when the Scriptures areappealed to as the medium of proof; while the Calvinist carries on anaggressivewaruponboth.Atthispoint,however,supposingthistobetheweakestpointoftheCalvinisticdefences,withtheirunwontedaccessionof scriptural texts, they turn the tables upon us, and force us to thedefenceofshowing,inourturn,whythephrases"all"or"world"intheirseveralproof-textsmaynotorcannotbe intendedby theHolySpirit toincludeallandeverymanindiscriminately.Thengatheringtogethertheirscriptural evidence for the general and indefinite design of theAtonement, they proceed with great appearance of force to argueinferentiallyagainsttheout-flankedCalvinisticpositionsofunconditional

election and efficacious grace. In thismannerRichardWatson in effectputs the strainofhis entireargumentupon thisoneposition.Hestartsfromthedemonstrationof the indefiniteuniversalityof theAtonement,andbuildsupsubsequentlyfromthatfoundation;thuspracticallyrestingtheweightofhiswholesystemuponit.We,ontheotherhand,claimthatitisoneevidenceofthesuperiorbiblicalcharacterofoursystemthatweareable tobringpositiveanddirectproof inevidenceofeverydoctrineseparately,withoutrestingtheweightofoneuponitslogicalbearingsonothers.The truedoctrineas to thedesignofChrist indying isperfectlyconsistent with the true doctrines as to election and grace, and everyother theory as to the formerwill be found to be logically inconsistentwith the true doctrine as to the latter; and these consistent doctrinesmust, in virtue of that very consistency, yield mutual support to oneanother.Nevertheless, thedoctrineof theSatisfactionofChrist,bothasto its nature and design, is a perfectwhole in itself, and is abundantlyestablishedbydirect scriptural evidence, independentof any relation itmaysustaintoanyotherdoctrine.Atpresent,however,itisnopartofthetaskIhaveassumedtoshowthetruthoftheCalvinisticorthefalsityoftheArminiansystems,exceptinsofarasthefateofthesesystemsmaybeinvolved in the establishment of the true doctrine as to the nature anddesignof theAtonement. I have theunquestionable right, as far as thepresent discussion is concerned, to assume the truth of those greatscripturalprincipleswhicharecharacteristicoftheCalvinisticsystemasawhole.

2. This will necessarily confine the discussion to that form which thequestionassumeswhenbrought indebatebetweenthosewhohold thatChristdiedtosecurethesalvationoftheelectpersonally,andthosewho,while maintaining that the design of his death was general andimpersonal, nevertheless more or less fully adhere to the othercharacteristic positions of Calvinism. These last again fall into twoclasses, whose distinguishing characteristics materially modify theirrelations to us in the matter at present in hand. (a.) Those, who likeAmyraldusofSaumur, in thesixteenthcentury,andWardlaw,*Balmer,and JohnBrown, JamesRichards† ofAuburnTheological Seminary, oftheagejustpast,holdthetruedoctrineastothenatureoftheAtonementwith great accuracy, and whose divergence from the theology of the

Reformed Churches is confined to the single point of the pretendedgeneralreferenceoftheAtonement.(b.)Those,wholikeJenkyn,Taylor,Fiske,andothers,invariousdegrees,yetmaterially,departfromthetruefaith as to the nature of the Atonement, and whose views as to itsindefinite universality is a necessary corollary of their views as to itsnature.

As far as the former of these parties is concerned, I think that theirexceptional position as to the design or intended application of theAtonementistobereferredtoahardlyconsciousdissatisfactionwiththepeculiarities of Calvinism, giving rise to these first movements of anundevelopedandhenceunconsciousArminianism;or,asIhopeistrueinamajorityofcases,andascanbeshowntobecertainlytrueinsomeofthem,theirdivergenceonthispointistobereferredsolelytoanabsenceofclearnessofthought,andconsequentinaccuracyintheuseofterms.Ibelieve itought tobea recognizedprinciple thatwhen it is certain thatmenintelligentlyandhonestlyagreeinmaintainingallotherpeculiaritiesof Calvinism, and especially accurate views as to the nature of theAtonement,anyquestionastoitsdesignwhichcanpossiblyariseamongsuchmenmustberegardedandshouldbe treatedasameredisputeofwords.Theuseofillegitimatelanguageheremaymarkatendency,butitcannot,undertheconditionsIsuppose,markanhereticalopinion,foratthis point and under such conditions there is no room for a possiblethinkable peculiarity to come in. This, however, does not justifycarelessnessindefiningeitherinthoughtorwordsourownpositionnorindifferencetotheconfusionofothers.Thisconsiderationshouldallthemore enforce upon us the necessity of clear views, of exact use oflanguageandoftechnicaldefinitionsuponacentralpointfromwhichsomany roads diverge, which, springing up in apparently unessentialdiscriminations,instantlyleadtoirreconcilableconclusions.

AstothelatterofthetwospeciesofCalvinisticUniversalists,withwhomour argument in the preceding part of this volume has been chieflyconcerned, we charge that their position as to the design of Christ indying isonlyanecessarycorollary,dependentuponandsubordinate totheirdoctrineastothenatureofhiswork.Thedoctrineastothedesignof theAtonement isasnecessarilyandasessentially subordinate to the

doctrineastoitsnature,withthemasitiswithus.Theattemptwhichisoften made to exalt the question as to its design into a distinct andindependentheadofdoctrine,thevarioussolutionsofwhichdistinguishoneschoolofCalvinistictheologiansfromanother,indubitablyprovesthewanteitherofcandourorofcompetentknowlegeas to the truestateofthe controversy.Wewithout doubt intend to hold all thosewho in anyway pervert or obscure the true doctrine as to the nature of Christ'sredeemingworktotherealpointatissue.ThisinvolvestheveryessenceofsalvationbyChrist.Allmencanseethatthedifferenceswhichdivideushereareofavitalinterest.Weinsist,moreover,thathonourrequiresthat each champion shall define the cause in which he appears bothexactly and openly. None can be allowed to bring in surreptitiously adefectiveviewastothenatureoftheAtonement,underpretencethatheisbringinginonlyanunimportantdistinctionastoitsgeneralreference.Atpresentwehavenothingtodowiththeevidenceestablishingthetruedoctrineastoitsnature.WeassumethatthestricttheoryofSatisfaction,as taught in the symbols of the Lutheran andReformed Churches, hasbeenproved in theprecedingportionof this volume to be thedoctrinetaughtinScripture.

WhatIhavetosayonthepresentsubjectofthedesignoftheAtonementwillbegroupedunderthefollowingheads:(1.)Theexactstatementofthereal question in debate, excluding all irrelevant issues, and sharplydefiningtheonlypointaboutwhichmencandifferonthissubject.(2.)AdiscussionofthetruerelationwhichthequestionastothedesignoftheAtonement necessarily sustains to the previous and more importantquestionas to itsnature. (3.)Abrief sketch inoutlineof thehistoryofopiniononthissubject,especiallythedifferentformsthecontroversyhasassumedamongCalvinists. (4.)Ananswer to thequestions,WhatwerethepersonalviewsofCalvin?WhatisCalvinism?WhatisthestandardofthatsystemoffaithheldbycommonconsentbytheReformedChurches?and especially, What doctrine is solemnly professed by all those whoadopt theWestminster Confession, exanimo, as the confession of theirfaith?(5.)Anexhibitionofthescripturalevidencereliedupontoestablishthe doctrine of the Reformed Churches as to the personal and definitedesignoftheAtonement.(6.)Anexaminationandsolutionoftheseveralarguments presented by the advocates of general and indefinite

redemptionas refutationsofourdoctrineandasevidencesestablishingthetruthoftheirs.

CHAPTERII:THETRUEDOCTRINEASTOTHEDESIGNOFTHEATONEMENT

ACCURATELYSTATED

IPROPOSE,then,togiveanexactstatementofthetruequestionatissuebetween those who maintain the definite and personal and those whomaintainthegeneralandindefinitedesignofthevicariousworkofChrist.Whatever may be the subject in debate, it is evident that the exactdiscriminationof thepoint inquestion is the first thing tobedone, thewell-doingofwhichisoftheveryhighestimportance.Butthisisfarmorethanordinarily true in thepresent instance, because it sohappens thatamongthosewhoagreeastothenatureoftheAtonementandastothesovereignty of the divine decrees there is no thinkable difference herepossible. The bare statement of the question will, itself, therefore,dissipateas irrelevantthevastmassofobjectionsmadetotheorthodoxdoctrineby itsadversaries, andmanifestly reduces toamere contestofwords the only issue which can possibly be debated by intelligent andhonestCalvinists.

The question, then, (1) does not relate to the SUFFICIENCY of thesatisfaction rendered by Christ to secure the salvation of all men. TheReformed Churches have uniformly taught that no man has ever yetperished, or ever will perish, for want of an atonement. All Calvinistsagree in maintaining earnestly that Christ's obedience and sufferingswereof infinite intrinsic value in the eye of law, and that therewasno

need forhim toobeyor to sufferan iotamorenoramoment longer inordertosecure,ifGodsowilled,thesalvationofeveryman,woman,andchild that ever lived. No man can have a moment's doubt upon thesubjectwhoacknowledgesthesupremedivinityofthegloriousVictim.ItisinsisteduponbyTurretin,Witsius,andbyJohnOwen,*asearnestlyasit is by Jenkyn or any other. Not one of the advocates of generalredemption,ArminianorCalvinistic,hasevergivenstrongerexpressionto the great truth of the infinite fulness, freeness and sufficiency ofChrist's expiatory work. We all heartily believe that after eighteenhundredyearsthestreamofAtonementisfoundunexhaustedalikeinitsvolumeanditsvirtues.Surely,thisisevenlessthantheglorioustruth.Itwill be none the less true after eighteen millions of years. But thisquestion has never been debated by the Reformed Churches.We unitewith all other Christians in glorying in the infinite sufficiency of thesatisfactionofChristtoreachandtosaveallmenwhohavebeenorwhowillbecreatedorcreatable.

2.ThequestiondoesnotrelatetotheAPPLICABILITYofthesatisfactionrendered byChrist to the exact legal relations and to the necessities inorder to the salvation of every lost sinner in theworld. Christ did andsufferedpreciselywhatthelawdemandedofeachmanpersonallyandofevery man indiscriminately, and it may be at any time applied to theredemption of oneman aswell as to another, as far as the satisfactionitself is concerned. Putting these two things together, therefore, thesufficiencyforallandtheexactadaptationtoeach,itisplainasthesunintheheavensthatthedeathofChristdidremovealllegalobstaclesoutofthewayofGod'ssavinganymanhepleases.Inthissense,ifyouplease,Christ didmake the salvation of allmen indifferently possible, a parteDei.Hecanapplyittoanywhomsoeverhewill;butsincehiswillneverchanges, there can be no distinction between his present will and hiseternaldesign.

3. The question does not relate to the ACTUAL APPLICATION of thesavingbenefitsofChrist'sworktoeachandeveryman.Allwhostopshortofmaintaininguniversalsalvationagreewithusthatallthosewhodonotcordially accept and appropriate the salvation freely offered to them inthegospelmustbelost.Thedoctrineofuniversalredemptioncannotbe

shown,afterall theirparadeof itssuperior liberality, toextendtherealbenefits of redemption to one single soul beyond those embraced by adefinite Atonement. We believe that Christ died with the intention ofsaving all those whom he actually does save. They hold that the largemajorityof thosewhosesalvationChristdesigned toeffectbyhisdeathfinallyperish.Thiscertainly fails toconveyanyadvantage to those thatperish,while itmateriallydetracts from the valueofChrist's deathandfromtheefficacyofhispurposetosave.

4. The question does not relate to the UNIVERSAL OFFER in perfectgoodfaithofasavinginterestinChrist'sworkontheconditionoffaith.Thisisadmittedbyall.Since,then,theworkofChristisexactlyadaptedto the legal relations and need of each, and since it is abundantlysufficientforall,andsince, inperfectgoodfaith, it isofferedtoallmenindiscriminately, it necessarily follows that whosoever believes on him,non-elect (if that were subjectively possible) just as truly as the elect,wouldfindaperfectatonementandcordialwelcomereadyforhimwhenhe comes. In this sense we joyfully acknowledge that not only is thesalvationofeachandeverysinnerrenderedlegallyandmorallypossibletoGod,ifhewills,buttheAtonementofChrist is itselfobjectivelymostcertainly and freely available to each and every sinner to whom it isoffered,uponconditionthathebelieves.

5.NordoesthequestionrelatetothedesignofChristindyingasitstandsrelatedtoallthebenefitssecuredtomankindbyhisdeath.Itisveryplainthatanyplandesignedtosecurethesalvationofanelectportionofaracepropagated by generation, and living in association, as is the casewithmankind, cannot secure its end without greatly affecting, for better orworse, the character and destiny of all the rest of the race not elected.Indeed it is impossible for us to know what would have happened toAdamandEveifthatgracioussystem,themeritoriousgroundofwhichisthe Atonement of Christ, had not been introduced. The instantdamnation of the heads of the race, or the introduction of a schemeofredemption,appeartobetheonlypossiblealternatives.Buttheschemeof redemption is conditioned exclusively upon the expiatory work ofChrist.Henceallthathappenstothehumanraceotherthanthatwhichisincidental to the instant damnation of Adam and Eve is part of the

consequencesofChrist's satisfactionas thesecondAdam.Foraughtweknowthepropagationoftheraceinallofitssuccessivegenerationsmaybe in consequence of that work. The entire history of the human race,from the apostasy to the final judgment, is, as Candlish says, "adispensationofforbearance"inrespecttothereprobate, inwhichmanyblessings,physicalandmoral,affectingtheircharactersanddestiniesforever, accrue even to the heathen, andmanymore to the educated andrefined citizensofChristian communities.These come to them throughthemediationofChrist,andcomingto themnow, theymusthavebeendesigned for them from the beginning.* We maintain the simple andapparently self-evident proposition that Christ, in dying, designed toeffect by his death all in every particular which he has actuallyaccomplished. If he be God, there can be no discrepancy between hisdesignandhisaccomplishment.Hemustaccomplishpreciselythatwhichhedesigned,andhemusthavedesignedtoeffectpreciselythatwhichinfacthedoeseffect.

6.ButthequestiondoestrulyandonlyrelatetothedesignoftheFatherandoftheSoninrespecttothepersonsforwhosebenefittheAtonementwasmade;thatis,towhominthemakingofittheyintendeditshouldbeapplied.We contend that the following heads absolutely exhaust everypossiblequestionastowhatiscalledtheextentoftheAtonement:(a.)Itsessential nature, involving its exact adaption to the legal relations andnecessities of each and every man indifferently; (b) its intrinsicsufficiency for all; (c) its honest and authoritative offer to all; (d) itsactualapplication;(e)itsintendedapplication.Wedefyouropponentstoshow that this statement does not exhaust the case. The first three, allagree,arewithoutanylimit,thankGod;thefourth,allagree,islimitedtobelievers; the fifth all Calvinistsmust believe to be limited to the elect.Now the advocates of universal and indefinite redemption hold thatChristdiedwiththedesignandeffectofmakingthesalvationofallmenpossible, and nothingmore. TheReformedChurches hold that he diedwith thedesignofactuallyandcertainlysavinghiselectpeople; that is,forthepurposeofactuallysavingthosewhomhedoesactuallysave.

Amyraldus make a distinction between objective and subjective grace.Theformer,renderingsalvationobjectivelyavailabletoallmen,heheld

was universal. The latter,which gives the gracious ability to accept thegospel,headmittedwasdesignedfortheelectalone.Webelievethatasfar as the heathen are concerned, to whom Christ is never offered,salvationisnomoreobjectivelyavailablethansubjectivelypossible.Itistrue that Christ didmake salvation, as an objective fact, possible to allmentowhomitisoffered,iftheywillbelieve.ButtheReformedChurchesmaintainthatapurposetomakesalvationobjectivelyavailable to thosewhowerenever intended toenjoy itmust, in theverynatureof things,notbeanindependentpurposeinitself,butonepurelysubsidiarytothemaindesignof actually andentirely effecting the salvationof allwhosesalvationwasintendedtobeinfactrealized.

The Schoolmenwere accustomed to affirm that Christ died sufficienterpro omnibus, efficienter pro electis, and this form of expression wasadoptedbyCalvin*andbytheearlyReformedtheologiansprevioustothethorough sifting of this subject occasioned by the speculations of theFrenchtheologiansCameron,Amyraldus,Testardus,&c.ThisScholasticexpressionisinaccurateandinadequateratherthanfalse.Christdiddiesufficienterproomnibus,butasanelementofhisdesignthisotherwiseinoperativeandfutilepurposemusthavebeeninthought,preciselyasitis inexecution,altogethersubsidiaryasameans toanend tohis real—becauseactuallyaccomplished—purposeofeffecting thesalvationofhiselect. Inotherwords, the actual ends effected are the exactmeasureoftherealendsdesigned.

Thisquestioniscapableofbeingstatedinseveraldifferentforms,whilethe identity of the essential principle involved is preserved and placedmoredistinctlyinview.

Thus,(1)wasitthedesignoftheredemptiveworkofChristthatitcarryintoeffectthepurposeofelection,orwasitthedesignofGod'ssovereignelection that it should carry into effect, in part, the general purpose ofredemption? The theology of the Reformed Churches was broadlycharacterized by its subordination of redemption to election. Theirhabitual mode of representation is that God, having of his mere goodpleasureelectedsomementoeverlastinglifeandtoallthemeansthereof,senthisSon toeffect thatpurposebyhisobedienceuntodeath.All theadvocates of indefinite redemption, on the other hand, must agree in

maintaining that God provided the Atonement for the good of allmenindiscriminately,andthatelectioncomesinsubordinatelytoredemption,eitherconditionedonforeseenfaith(sotheArminians),orasasovereignpurpose,uponthepartofGod,tomakecertainthesuccessofthegeneralpurposeofredemptionatleastinthecaseofthepersonselected(sotheCalvinisticUniversalists).

Jenkyn* represents the dispensation of sovereign electing grace assupervening to prevent the failure of redemption, so far at least as theelect are concerned. "Theentire failureof theEdendispensationwouldhave clouded the divine character if it had not been rescued by theintroduction of a compensative Atonement; … the entire failure of theSinaiexperimentwouldhavereflecteddishonouruponthedivineglory,but itwasredeemedbytheestablishmentofabetterhope.…ThewholemediatorialworkofJesusChrist issoworthyandsomeritoriousthat itdeservesthatmeasuresshouldbetakentoensureitfromentirefailure."Theitalicsarehis.Onthistheory,sincesomanyofGod's"experiments""entirelyfail,"andsinceeventheawfulsacrificeofhisownSonisbarelyprevented fromentire failureby special intervention,andafterall is anutterfailureastothelargerpartofallitwassettodo,whoshallensureusthatheavenshallnotfail,orthatthesalvationofthesaintsmaynotbeatlastconfounded?Beholdalsowhatthisredemption,whichthesemensoglory in, isworth. It savesnosingle soul. It isprevented frombeinganabsolute failurebyadivine intervention.Thisviewgivesall thegloryofsalvation to election. Themeasure of the virtue of redemptionmay beseeninthefateofthenon-elect.

(2.)WasthemotivewhichpromptedGodtogivehisSontodieformen,and which prompted Christ to die, the highest conceivable love whichGodcanhaveforacreature,makingitcertainthathewillalsowithhimfreelygivetheobjectsofthatloveallthings,andwasitapersonalloveofcertain definite individuals foreknown from eternity, or, on the otherhand,wasitageneralandimpersonalphilanthropy,orloveofmankindingeneral,coexistingwithagoodpleasuretoallowthemajorityofthoseso lovedtoperish,somewithouteventheknowledgeof theredemptionprovidedatsuchcost,andotherswithoutanysavinginterestinit?AlltheReformed Churches believe that the former of these alternatives is the

true statement of themotive prompting the Father and the Son in theworkof redemption;while all the advocates of a general and indefiniteAtonementnecessarilymaintainthatthelatteristhetruestatement.

(3.)DidChristdiewiththedesignandeffectofmakingthesalvationofallmenindifferentlypossible,andthesalvationofnonecertain,ordidhedieinpursuanceofaneternalcovenantbetweentheFatherandhimself forthepurposeaswellaswiththeresultofeffectingthesalvationofhisownpeople?

(4.)Istheimpetration(sacrificialpurchase—meritoriousprocurement)ofsalvation so connected in the plan of salvation with its graciousapplicationthattheyrespectspecificallythesamepersons,andthelatterfollows certainly upon the first, or is the impetration general andindefinite, while the application is personal and limited? This is thepreciseforminwhichthequestionwasdebatedbyTestardus,Amyraldus,Daillé, Spanheim,Rivetus,DeMoulin,RichardBaxter and JohnOwen.HencethisisthepreciseissuemetbythedeliveranceoftheWestminsterAssembly in the very midst of these controversies: "To ALL those forwhom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly andeffectuallyapplyandcommunicatethesame,&c."*

(5.) And finally, did the Lord Jesus Christ impetrate or purchase thegracious influencesof theHolyGhostandall the fruitsof theSpirit forthoseforwhomhedied?Ordidheeffect,byhissacrifice,nothingmorethantheremovalof legal impedimentsoutofthewayoftheirsalvation,either leaving them to provide their own faith and repentance, orsovereignlyprovidingforanexceptionalfew,selectedoutofthemassofthoseforwhomhedied,outofabenevolentprinciplealtogetherdifferentfrom that exercised in the gift of redemption? TheReformedChurchesuniformlyhold the former,while theadvocatesofuniversal redemptionnecessarilyholdthelatterofthesealternatives.

CHAPTERIII:THEQUESTION,WHATISTHETRUERELATIONWHICHTHE

PROBLEMASTOTHENATUREOFTHEATONEMENTSUSTAINSTOTHATASTO

ITSDESIGN,EXAMINED

HAVING thus presented an accurate and, as I hope, clear statement ofthe real question in debate, between the representatives of differentschools of theology, upon the topic in hand, I now proceed to discussbriefly the true relation which this question as to the design of theAtonement necessarily sustains to the previous and more importantquestionastoitsnature.It issuposedbymanythatthereisnecessarilysucha connectionbetween the two that theviewsentertainedas to theone must, in every case, determine those entertained as to the other.Thereisindeedagooddealofgroundforthisopinion,yet,inorderthatwemayknowexactlyhowthematterstands,wemustexamineindetailthe bearing which each separate doctrine as to the nature of theAtonementhasuponthequestionastoitsdesign.

1. It is very obvious that upon the hypothesis that Christ's work wasdesignedtoeffectitsendsimplybyexertingamoralinfluenceuponmen,itmusthavebeendesigned for allmen indiscriminately, at least for allindifferently,towhomitispresented.ThewholeeffectoftheAtonement,according to this view, ismoral and subjective.And the question of itssuccess, in every given case, is determined by the spontaneousacquiescence,orthereverse,ofthesinnerhimself.

2.Again,thematterisnolessplainfromthepointofviewentertainedbythe advocates of the Governmental Theory as to the nature of Christ'swork. IfChristdiedonlyasanexampleofpunishment, ifhissufferingsweremade a governmental expedient bymeansofwhich it is renderedconsistentwiththegeneralinterestsofthedivinegovernmentforGodtoremitthepunishmentofallthosewhoeitherelecttobelieveorarebyhim

sovereignly elected to believe, then it necessarily follows that thisworkcanhavenospecialreferencetoonemanmorethananother.All that itcandoforanyithasdoneforall.Ithasremovedlegalobstaclesoutofthewayofall,andhencehasindifferentlyrenderedpossiblethesalvationofeach.

3.Iftheviewpresentedinalittleworkentitled"Gethsemane,"publishedin England, and republished in Philadelphia early in this century, isaccepted as true—that is, if the vicariousworkofChrist is conceivedofstrictly as a commercial transaction—then, of course, the doctrine thatthe Atonement is limited in the proper sense of that word necessarilyfollows.IfthesufferingsofChristwereinexactproportiontothenumberofhiselectandtotheamountofheinousnessoftheirsins;ifChristwouldhavesufferedlesshadheexpiatedthesinsofasmallernumber,andifhewouldhaveneededtosuffermoreinordertoatoneformore,*thenitisplainenoughthattheAtonementislimitedastoitsveryessence,justasin a commercial contract between men the purchasing power of ahundreddollarsislimitedtoonehundreddollars'worth.Ithasbeenveryconvenient for our opponents to charge this view upon the ReformedChurches. That this is altogether a false representation I have shownabove by reference to chapter and section of the testimony of suchrepresentatives of Calvinism as Turretin, Witsius, John Owen andWilliamCunningham.

4.TheentireLutheranChurchagreeswiththeReformedastothenatureof the Atonement. They hold that Christ by his active and passiveobedience fully satisfied all the demands of law upon those in whoseplaceheacted,andthathepurchasedforthemtheoperationsoftheHolySpirit,andallthefruitsthereof;*andyettheyholdthatChristdiedinthissense indiscriminately in behalf of allmen. There is no doubt that thegreatmassoflearnedandableLutherantheologianshaveexplicitlyheldbothof theseviews.This iscertainlyapracticalproof thatbothsidesoftheirdoctrinemaybe intelligentlyheldas true in thesamemindat thesametime.Andyetitisnolessplainthattheseveralpositionstheyadoptas to sin, human ability, divine grace, foreknowledge, predestination,redemption, &c., are obviously incapable of being reduced even to theappearanceoflogicalconsistency.TheyteachthatChristpurchasedfaith

andrepentanceforallforwhomhedied.Ifanymanrepentsandbelieves,they deny his co-operation with grace previous or in order to hisregeneration,andtheyattributetheresultsolelytothegraceofGodgivenforChrist'ssake.Ifanymandoesnotrepentandbelieve,theydenythatChristhasdoneanylessforhim,andattributetheresultsolelytohisownsin. But the questionmust be answered,Whomakes the difference? IfbothhavefromAdamthesameabsoluteinability,andifbothhaveasthepurchaseofChristthesamegrace,whatisthedifferentiatingfactorinthecase?Whatdeterminestheinfidelityoftheoneandthefaithoftheother?TheArminiangrantstoallmensufficientabilitytoco-operatewithgrace,andhenceconsistentlymakesthefreeself-determinationof thesinner'sownwilltheseatofdifferencebetweenthebelieverandnon-believer.TheCalvinist, denying the ability to co-operate with grace alike to allmen,consistently makes a sovereign discriminating grace the seat of thedifference between them. The Lutheran holds that all men are alikeimpotent;thatallmenhavealikethesamegrace;thatthecauseoffaith,wherever it exists, iswholly to be attributed to grace, and the cause ofunbelief to sin; yet, while there is such difference between faith andunbelief,thereisnodifferenceamongmeneitherastosinorgrace.Butweanswer,Ifitbegracealonethatmakesonebelieve,thentheotherhasnot the same grace or he also would believe. And if Christ purchasedspiritualgracesforallthoseforwhomhedied,hecouldnothavediedforthosewhofailtoreceivethegrace.

5. The doctrine of the Reformed Church is that there is no limitwhatsoever in the Redemption of the Lord Jesus except that whichresidesintheeternalpurposeofGodtosavetherebytheelectandnoneothers. A divine person suffered the penalty due to human sin, andobeyed that law obedience to which was made the condition of man'swell-being.Hedid thisbecauseofhisdivinityexhaustivelyandwithoutlimitastointrinsicsin-expiatingandJustice-satisfyingsufficiency.Iftheworkitself,therefore,beviewedseparatelyfromtheintentionwithwhichit was undertaken, it plainly stands indifferently related to the case ofeach and every man that ever lived and sinned. It is not a pecuniarysolutionof debt,which, ipso facto, liberatesupon themerepayment ofthemoney.It isavicariouspenalsatisfaction,whichcanbeadmittedinanycaseonlyatthearbitrarydiscretionofthesovereign;andwhichmay

havearedemptivebearinguponthecaseofnone,offew,ofmany,orofall;anduponthecaseofoneandnotofanother,anduponthatelectcaseatwhatsoever time anduponwhatsoever conditions arepredeterminedby the mutual understanding of the Sovereign and of the voluntarysubstitute.TherelationsoftheAtonementasimpersonalandgeneraloraspersonalanddefinitedonotspringfromconsiderationsofthedegree,durationorkindofsufferingoractsofvicariousobediencewhichChristrendered,butsolelyfromthepurposehehadinrenderingthem.

TheArminianholdsconsistentlythatthepurposeofChristwastosatisfydivine justice in behalf of all men for the violation of the rule ofrighteousnessembodiedintheoldCovenantofWorks,andsoenableGodtointroduceanewcovenant,offeringsalvationupontheloweredtermsoffaith and evangelical obedience—conditions to be provided by menthemselves with the assistance of that common grace furnishedindifferently unto all. This is a perfectly self-consistent scheme. Christdesignedtosecurethesalvationofallmenindifferently.Itisthefreewillofeachmanalonethatmakesthedifference.

Calvinists,ontheotherhand,believethatanabsoluteSovereign,inthateternity which is without beginning, end or succession, foreordainswhatsoevercomes topass.Theyacknowledge that if thedecreesofGodare eternal, they must be one, single, changeless, all-comprehendingintention.TheyprofesstobelievethatasofhismeregoodpleasureGodhas chosen out of the greatmass ofmen, equally guilty, somemen toeternal salvation, "so hath he foreordained all the means thereunto.Wherefore,theywhoareelected,beingfalleninAdam,areredeemedinChrist,&c."*Redemptionmustbeinordertoaccomplishthepurposeofpredestination,because,asamatteroffact,itdoespreciselyaccomplishthatpurpose.Onthecontrary,asovereignelectionofsomecannotbeinorder to accomplish the purpose of the general redemption of all,because, as a matter of fact, it does not at all accomplish it. If, then,redemption be in order to accomplish the purpose of the sovereignelectionofsome,thenitiscertainthatChristdiedinordertosecurethesalvationof theelect,andnot inorder tomakethesalvationofallmenpossible.St.AugustineandallconsistentAugustinians,CalvinandalltheReformed Churches, held that REDEMPTION IS IN ORDER TO

ACCOMPLISHTHEPURPOSEOFELECTION.

CHAPTERIV:HISTORYOFOPINIONAMONGCALVINISTSUPONTHEQUESTIONASTOTHEDESIGNOFTHEATONEMENT

IPROPOSEnowtogiveaverybriefandgeneralsketchofthehistoryofopinionuponthissubject,preparatorytoamoreparticularinquiryastothe opinions of Calvin, and the general consensus and authoritativestandardofdoctrineamongtheReformedChurches.

Let the fact, already carefully noticed, be remembered that all partiesagree—(1.) That the Scriptures use general and indefinite terms whenspeakingofthedesignofChrist'sdeath,aswellaspersonalanddefiniteones. John said "that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of theworld,"1John4:14;andChristsaid,"I laydownmylife forthesheep."John 10:15. (2.) That Christ died with the design as well as effect ofsecuringmanybenefits,shortofsalvation,forthenon-electaswellasfortheelect.(3.)Thatsincehisworkissufficientforall,exactlyadaptedtotheneedsofeach,andofferedindiscriminatelytoall,itfollows—(a.)ThatallthelegalobstaclesinGod'swayofsavinganyareremoved,andhencethe salvation of all is now legally possible, a parte Dei. (b.) That in astrictly objective sense the Atonement is as freely available, on theconditionoffaith,tothegospel-hearingnon-electasitistotheelect.(4.)Hence it followsthat ifwe lookdownthe lineofpurposeandcausationfromGodtowardmankind,itisplainthatChristcouldhavehadnootherpurposeindyingthantosavethosewhomheactuallydoessave.Butifwelookupwardsfromthepositionofthesinner,towhomtheuniversaloffer

ofapersonalinterestintheAtonementofChristisbrought,itisevidentthatChristdidsodieforthesinsofthewholeworldthatifanymanhearstheofferandiswillingtoacceptit,afreeandperfectAtonementishisforthe taking. Hence it follows, that in all ages many of the most rigidpredestinarians have said, in the words of Calvin himself, "Passus estChristus pro peccatis totius mundi," while it has been only verysuperficial criticswhohave inferred therefromthat thesemen intendedtodecide against the doctrine of theReformedChurches,which is thatChrist designed in his death to secure the salvation of his elect, and ofnone others. The phrase that Christ died for the whole world may betakeninthreesenses:(a.)ThathediedforJewsaswellasGentiles,forapeopleelectoutofallnationsandgenerations.(b.)ThathediedtosecuremanyadvantagesforallmenfromAdamtothelastgeneration,especiallyforallcitizensinChristianlands.(c.)Thathediedtosecurethesalvationofeachandeveryman thatever lived; that is, thathedied in thesamesenseforthenon-electasfortheelect.Thefirsttwoweaffirm;thelatterwedeny.Andwemaintainthatthemeaningintendedbymenintheuseof general expressions, like that above quoted from Calvin, can bedeterminedonlybymeansofacomparisonofalltheirexpressedopinionsonthesubject.

AllArians,Pelagians, semi-Pelagians,SociniansandArminians,have inperfect consistency with their several systems, maintained the generaland indefinite referenceof theAtonement,while,on theotherhand,aswastobeexpected,alltrueAugustiniansandCalvinistshavenecessarilyheldthatChristdieddefinitelyandpersonallyfortheelect.JenkynclaimsthatBishopDavenanthastriumphantlyprovedthatthegreatAugustinehimself,"themasterlychampionofpredestinationagainstPelagius,"wasan advocate of an indefinite Atonement. ButWiggers, one of themostcapableandimpartialwitnessesthatevenGermanyhasproducedinthiscentury, in his "Historical Presentation of Augustinianism andPelagianism,"* says: "As by the predestination theory, only a definitenumberofelectwouldobtainsalvation,Christ'sredemptioncouldextendonly to those whom God had destined to salvation.… According toAugustine, therefore, redemption was not universal. God sent his Sonintotheworld,nottoredeemthewholesinfulraceofmen,butonlytheelect.Augustinesays:"BythisMediatorGodshowedthatthosewhomhe

redeemedbyhis bloodhemakes frombeing evil to be eternally good.""Every one that has been redeemed by the blood of Christ is a man,thoughnoteveryone that isamanhasbeen redeemedby thebloodofChrist."‡ "No one perishes of those for whom Christ died." SometimesAugustine uses indefinite language after the familiar example ofScripture, but no inference, drawn from that fact, can for onemomentwithstandtheforceofsuchclearandprecisestatementsofhisopinionasthosegivenabovebyWiggers.

Those of the Schoolmen who followed Augustine were in the habit ofsayingthatChristdiedforallmen,butinasenseverydifferentfromthatin which he died for his elect. Their formula was "Christus passus estsufficienter pro omnibus, efficienter pro electis." This we regard as astatement inaccurate in terms, andmore likely to confuse than to clearthe question, yet as very near the truth, and very different from thepositively falsepositionof thosewhohold thatChristdied indifferentlyforeachandeveryman.

AtthetimeoftheReformationtheattentionofthegreatReformerswasabsorbed by questions fundamental to the very life of the Church, andthey were thence precluded from the deliberate consideration ofsecondarymatters involvedrather in thesymmetryandperfection thanin the integrity of the evangelical system. Zwingle and Calvin, thefoundersoftheReformedChurches,whiletheynevermadethequestionastothedesignoftheAtonementasubjectofspecialstudy,neverthelesshabituallytaught,throughthespiritandformoftheirentiresystem,thatredemptionwassubordinateasameanstoanendtotheeternaldecreeofelection,andtherefore,ofcourse,hadthesameobjectsandthesameend.The same characteristicsmark also the earlier ReformedConfessions—redemption is habitually subordinated to election; but no explicitdeliverance is given as to the design of the Atonement. In all the laterReformed Confessions, however—viz., in the Gallic (A. D. 1576) andBelgic (A.D. 1571)Confessions, theCanonsof theSynodofDort (A.D.1618,1619),theCanonsoftheFrenchSynodsofAlez(A.D.1620)andofCharenton (A. D. 1623), theWestminster Confession (A. D. 1648), theFormulaConsensusHelvetica (A.D 1675), the SavoyConfession (A.D.1658),and theBostonConfession (A.D. 1680)—allexplicitly taught the

definiteandpersonaldesignofthevicariousworkofChrist.

During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries there appeared twoprominentattempts toengraft thenotionofageneralredemptionupontheCalvinisticsystembythosewhoretainedneverthelessorthodoxviewsastothenatureoftheAtonement.

1.ThefirstofthesewastheproductofthespeculationsofCameronandofhispupilsAmyraldusandTestardus,inconnectionwiththetheologicalschoolofSaumur,France,duringthefirsthalfoftheseventeenthcentury.Thetwolatter,inwhosewritingsthispeculiaritywasspeciallydevelopedand made public, over and over again professed their cordialacquiescence with the rigidly Calvinistic deliverances of the Synod ofDort, and their irreconcilable opposition to Arminianism. Their ownsystemwasgenerallystyledUniversalismusHypotheticus,anhypotheticor conditional universalism. They taught that there were two wills orpurposesinGodinrespecttoman'ssalvation.Theonewillisapurposetoprovide,atthecostofthesacrificeofhisownSon,salvationforeachand every human being without exception if they believe—a conditionforeknowed tobeuniversallyandcertainly impossible.Theotherwill isan absolute purpose, depending only upon his own sovereign goodpleasure, to secure the certain salvation of a definite number, and tograntthemallthegiftsandgracesnecessarytothatend."Thissynthesisofarealparticularismwithamerelyidealuniversalism(notreallysavingasingleindividual),thatis,theadditionofamerelyidealuniversalismtotheorthodoxacknowledgedCalvinisticDordrecht systemofdoctrine, isthepeculiarityofAmyraldism."*

In the controversies consequent upon the appearance of these views itwas customary to contrast the different conceptions entertained by thetwopartiesas to thedivinepurpose in the followingmanner:Thegreatbodyof theReformedtheologiansconceivedthat theeternalpurposeofGod as to man's salvationmight be represented thus: He purposed tocreateman;thentopermithimtofall;thenoutofthegreatmassoffallenand equally guilty and helpless men, he, moved by an unparalleledpersonal love,outofthemeregoodpleasureofhiswill,electedsometoeternallifeandtoallthemeansthereof;andthen,inordertoaccomplishthispurposeofelectinglove,hegavehisSontoredeemhispeoplebyhis

death.Hereallisconsistent.Therearenotwoinconsistentpurposes;noinefficacious will; no love making infinite sacrifices for its objects, yetsuspending their participation in the benefits thereof upon conditionsknowntobeimpossible;andnoconditionaldecreesintheinfiniteGod;but one single, consistent sovereign purpose logically pursued frombeginningtoend.

Amyraldus, on the other hand, unfolded his conception of the divinepurposes in thismanner: God purposed to createman, then to permithimtofall,thenoutofageneralloveforallmenhegavehisSontodieforall, and to secure their salvation on the condition of their believing onhim;butforeseeingthat, if lefttothemselves,notoneofthewholeracewouldbelieve, and thus the redemptionofChrist utterly fail of its end,and moved by a special personal love for the elect, sovereignlydetermined to give them special grace to lead them to faith, andhencecertainlytosecuretheirsalvation.*Accordingtothisview,therearetwodistinctpurposesrespectingsalvationinthedivinemindfrometernity—thegeneralpurpose,whichconcernsthehumanraceasawholewithoutmakinganydiscriminationofpersons;thespecialpurpose,selectingoutof the mass certain persons and appointing them to salvation. Thegeneralpurposehasrespecttoobjectivegrace,whichitgivestoallalike.Thespecialpurposehasrespecttosubjectivegrace,whichitgivesaloneto the elect. The general purpose respects the removing that externalimpediment to salvation out of the way of all which results from theirinability to satisfy divine justice. The special purpose respects theremoving out of the way of the elect that internal impediment whichresultsfromtheirinabilitytobelieve.

ThisviewrepresentsGodaslovingthenon-electsufficientlytogivethemhisSon todie for them,butnot loving themenough togive them faithand repentance. It represents him as purposing that allmen should besavedonconditionoffaith—aconditionknowntobeimpossible;andatthesametimepurposingthatalargeproportionoftheraceredeemedatsuchcostshouldremaininignoranceofthegospel,andoftheconditionsuponwhichparticipation in itsbenefitsaresuspendedIt represents theall-perfect sacrifice as saving no one, and as depending upon asubsequent decree of election for its very partial success. It represents

Godaswillingatthesametimethatallmenbesavedandthatonlytheelectbesaved.Itdenies,inoppositiontotheArminian,thatanyofGod'sdecrees are conditioned upon the self-determined will of the creature,andyetputsintothemouthsofprofessedCalviniststheverycatch-wordsof theArminian system, suchasuniversal grace, the conditionalwill ofGod,universalredemption,&c.,&c.Althoughthisschemehasbeenheldbysomemenoftalent,whohavebeenatthesametimehonestprofessorsoftheCalvinisticsystemandofthetruedoctrineastothenatureoftheAtonement inparticular—as, for instance,Amyraldus,BishopDavenantandRichardBaxter,&c.—yet the judgmentof theMethodist theologian,RichardWatson,isunquestionablytrue,that"itisthemostinconsistenttheory towhich the attempts tomodifyCalvinismhave given rise."* Inthecaseofmenotherwisecandidandintelligentprofessorsoforthodoxy,these distinctions amount to nothing but words; and therefore do notindicateastateoffaithtowhichthepredicatehereticalproperlyapplies.When Amyraldus and Testardus were brought before the Synod ofAlençon (A.D. 1637) to answer for the "Novelties"wherewith they hadgreatly disturbed the peace of the Reformed Churches, they explainedawaytheirdistinctionsintermswhichsatisfiedthemostorthodox."TheydeclaredthatJesusChristdied forallmensufficiently,but for theelectonly effectually; and that consequently his intention was to die for allmeninrespecttothesufficiencyofhissatisfaction,butfortheelectonlywithrespecttoitsquickeningandsavingvirtueandefficacy.…Andasforthe conditional decree, they declared that they never did understandanythingthanGod'swillrevealedinhiswordtogivegraceandlifeuntobelievers."* This declaration reduces the whole matter to the oldCalvinistic commonplace that the work of Christ is sufficient for all,adapted to all, andhonestly offered to all, butnot intended for all, norprovidedforthesakeofall.Whenusedbymenotherwiseorthodoxthis"Novelty"is,therefore,notheresy,butanevidenceofabsurdlyconfusedthoughtanddisorderedlanguageuponthesubject.Theseriousobjectiontoitisthatitnecessarilyinvolvestheuseoflanguagewhichproperlyandby common usage is significant of Arminian error. Its use generallymarksastateof transitionfromcomparativeorthodoxytomoreseriouserror. It often covers a secret sympathy with heresies not distinctlyavowed. In latter years it has been generally associated with radicallydefectiveviewsastothenatureoftheAtonement.Itisofnouse,forifit

meansnoheresy, it relieves thehardness of no truth.Every competentthinkerknows that thewholedifficultyaswell as strengthofCalvinismliesintheconceptionofaneternal,all-comprehensive,absolutepurpose,determining all things, alike physical and moral. The gloss we areconsidering fails to conciliateSociniansorArminians,while it alienatestrueCalvinists.Theexperiencedshunit,becausetheyknowhowoftenitconcealsseriouserror. InFrancethenationaldevelopmentof thiserrorwascutshortbytherevocationoftheEdictofNantes(A.D.1685),whilein England, Scotland and America, the same language and the samearguments are used to mark the boundary-lines of a system of errorwhich explorers have discovered to transect all the zones of modifiedCalvinism,ArminianismandradicalPelagianism.

2.Thefamousworkentitled"MarrowofModernDivinity"waspublishedin England in 1646. In 1718 it was republished in Scotland with arecommendatoryprefacebytheRev.JamesHogg,ofCarnock,andagainin 1726with copious explanatory notes by theRev. ThomasBoston, ofEttrick;whichlasteditionwasreproducedafewyearsagobyourBoardofPublication.Thisexcellentandorthodoxbookbecametheoccasionofaprotracted controversy, styled the "Marrow Controversy," whichconspired with other and deeper causes to effect that alienation whichissued in the formation of the Secession Church. Therewere good andsound men on both sides, but the most eminent Christians andtheologiansof that agewere rankedamong the "Marrowmen," suchastheRev.JamesHogg,ThomasBoston,RalphandEbenezerErskine,&c.Wehaveatpresentnothingtodowiththegeneralcourseormeritsofthiscontroversy. I refer to it only for the purpose of noticing the peculiarlanguage which these men used with respect to what they called the"double reference" of the Atonement—a peculiaritywhich consequentlyfor a long time unhappily distinguished the theology of the SecessionChurches fromthatof thegreatcurrentof theReformedChurches.Thelanguageof the "Marrowmen"was far lessphilosophical andprofoundthanthatusedforverymuchthesamepurposebyAmyraldusandBaxterin the preceding century, while, perhaps, for the same cause theirspeculations were far more innocent. The characteristic interest of theprofessors of Saumurwas speculative,while that of the "Marrowmen"was practical andmoral. The one partywas composed of professors of

theology, theotherofpreachersof thegospel.Theonesought todefinetheorderof theDivineDecrees, theothersoughttoestablishfirmlytheWarrantofFaith.

ThestatementintheMarrowfromwhichtheytooktheirdepartureisasfollows:"IbeseechyoutoconsiderthatGodtheFather,asheisinhisSonJesusChrist,movedbynothing but his free love tomankind lost, hathmadeadeedofgiftandgrantuntoallmen,thatwhosoevershallbelievein his Son shall not perish, but have eternal life."* The "Marrowmen"were all sound as to the nature of the Atonement, and as to the greatCalvinisticprinciplethatChristdiedinpursuanceofaneternalcovenantwiththeFatherinordertosecurethesalvationofhiselect.Asfarasthebearing of the Atonement upon the electwas concerned, theirwritingsweremarked by no peculiarity. Their distinctionwas that they insistedthattheAtonementhadALSOadesignedgeneralreferencetoallsinnersofmankind as such. The early "Marrowmen" were accustomed to saythatalthoughChristdidnotdieforall—thatis,tosaveall—yetthatheisdeadforall,thatis,availableforalliftheywillreceivehim.ThatGod,outofhisgeneralphilanthropy,orloveforhumansinnersassuch,hasmadea Deed of Gift of Christ and of the benefits of his redemption to allindifferently,tobeclaimedupontheconditionoffaith.ThisgeneralloveofGodisstyledhis"givinglove,"andisdistinguishedfromhis"electinglove," ofwhichonly the elect, andhis "complacent love," ofwhichonlythesanctifiedaretheobjects.ThisDeedofGiftorGrantofChrist toallsinnersassuch, theyheld, isnot tobemerelyresolved into thegeneralofferof the gospel, but is tobe regardedas the foundationuponwhichthatgeneralofferrests.Itisarealgrant;universal;anexpressionoflove;conditionedonfaith;thefoundationuponwhichtheministerialofferofsalvation rests; and it is the "warrant" upon which the faith of everybelieverrests,andbywhichthatfaithisjustified.

As lateas1843,Dr.Balmerandthe late learnedandexcellentDr.JohnBrown,professorsintheUnitedSecessionChurch,wereexaminedastotheir doctrinal views under suspicion of heresy. After Balmer's deathBrownwas libelled forheresybefore theSynod in 1845.The statementthenmadebyBrownofhisviewsastotheextentoftheAtonementwasinsubstance as follows: "The proposition 'that Christ died for men,' had

been held in three senses. In the sense of the Universalist, that Christdiedsoastosecuresalvation,Iholdthathediedonlyfortheelect.InthesenseoftheArminian,thatChristdiedsoastopurchaseeasiertermsofsalvationandcommongracetoenablementocomplywiththoseterms,Iholdthathediedfornoman.InthesenseofthegreatbodyofCalvinists,thatChristdiedtoremovelegalobstaclesinthewayofhumansalvation,bymakingperfectsatisfactionforsin,Iholdthathediedforallmen."*

Now,doubtless,asheldbythesemen,all thiswasconsistentwithstrictorthodoxy.Theymeantnomorethanthatincidentallytohisgreatdesignof saving the elect, and in order to that end, God had made certainprovisions which were sufficient for all, adapted to each, and freelyofferedthemtoall.Butall their formsofexpressionwereconfusedandtheir laboriousdistinctionsutterlyprofitless.What is thesignificancyofmakingaspecialheadofthat"givinglove"whichmakesanactualgrantof salvation upon conditions known to be absolutely impossible, andwhichmakesnoprovisionfor itsapplication,andwhichnever intendedthe salvation of its objects? What real idea is signalized by the verbaldistinctionbetweenthebonafideofferofthegospeltoall,andthe"DeedofGift" of Christ uponwhich it is said to rest?What is the virtue of a"DeedofGiftorGrant"whichactually conveysnothing,andwhichwaseternally intended to convey nothing? Besides this, this language isinjurious,because it leadstotheperversionofscriptural languageuponthis subject, and to the great emptying of its proper force. We haveprovedthattheScripturesteachthatthedesignedeffectofChrist'sdeathwas to "save his people from their sins," and not simply, as Brownintimates, to remove legal obstacles out of the way of all sinnersindifferently. In Scripture language the purpose of Christ in his deathcannot fail. According to the implications of Brown's language, thatdesigned effect is left, as respects the vast majority of its objects,suspendeduponthecontingencyofsecondcauses.InScripturelanguageGod's "giving love" is that highest and most wonderful form of love,which "sparednothisownSon,"and therefore, à fortiori,will infalliblysecurewithhimthegiftof"allthings"necessaryforsalvation.John3:16;Gal.2:20;Eph.2:4;5:25;Rom.8:32;1John3:16;4:9.Inthelanguageofthe "Marrow men" God's "giving love" signifies a general benevolencetowards all human sinners as such, consistent with his purpose that a

largeportionofthemshallbelefttotheinevitableconsequencesoftheirownsin.

In this century a few, likeWardlawandJamesRichards,haveheld thedoctrine of the general reference of the Atonement in connection withstrict orthodoxy as to other points. The greatmajority, however, of theCalvinisticadvocatesofageneralredemptionhavebeentheprofessorsofthe New England or Edwardean Theology generally, such as Emmons,Taylor,Park,Fiskeandothers.ThelanguageofAmyraldus,the"Marrowmen,"Baxter,Wardlaw,Richards,Brownandothersisnowusedtocovermuch more serious departures from the truth. All really consistentCalvinistsoughttohavelearnedbythistimethattheoriginalpositionsofthe great writers and confessions of the Reformed Churches have onlybeenconfused,andneitherimproved,strengthenednorillustrated,byallthetalkwithwhichtheChurchhas,inthemeantime,beendistractedastothe"doublewill"ofGod,orthe"doublereference"oftheAtonement.Ifmenwillbeconsistentintheiradherencetothese"Novelties,"theymustbecome Arminians. If they would hold consistently to the essentialprinciplesofCalvinism,theymustdiscardthe"Novelties."

It has always been a marked characteristic of the Arminians, in theircontroversieswithCalvinists,thattheyinsistupontheimportanceofthedistinctionbetweentheImpetrationandtheApplicationofRedemption.Theformer,theyinsist,isgeneral;thelatter,theyadmittobelimitedtobelievers. Professed Calvinists of a certain school insist upon the samedistinction.TheAtonement, theymaintain, isgeneral,while theyadmitthatRedemption,includingtheactualapplicationofgrace,isconfinedtotheelect.Theyurgeustoconsider"theAtonementinitself,"apartfromall thoughtof itsapplication.But ifyouseparateall thoughtofpurposeand design from the sufferings of Christ, you would have of coursenothingmorethancalamitiesdevoidofallmoralsignificance.Hediedforapurpose.Thequestionis,Whatdidheaimtoaccomplishinhisdeath?Ichallenge any one to show (1) how the intended application of theAtonementcouldhavebeenanymoregeneralthanitsactualapplication?And(2)iftheintendedapplicationisadmittedtohavebeenlimitedtotheelect,whatremainstothegeneralreferenceoftheAtonementexcept(a)the intrinsic sufficiency; (b) the exact adaptation; and (c) thebona fide

offer—allwhich,itisagreedonallhands,iswithoutanylimitatall?

Thequestionwedebate,andwhichtheReformedChurchhasdecided,isastotheintendedapplicationoftheAtonement.Ifanymaninsistsuponourabstractingthat intendedapplication,andconsideringapart fromitthe sufferings of Christ by themselves, we have no objection toacknowledge that when considered apart from all design or intentionwhatsoever, themere literal sufferingwhich remains is indifferently aswelladaptedtothecaseofonemanastothatofanother.

CHAPTERV:THEQUESTIONS,WHATWASTHEOPINIONOFCALVINASTOTHE

DESIGNOFTHEATONEMENT?—WHATISTHESTANDARDOFCALVINISM?—ANDWHATISTHEDOCTRINEONTHISSUBJECTOFTHEWESTMINSTERCONFESSIONANDCATECHISM?CONSIDEREDANDANSWERED

WEcomenowtoconsiderthequestions,WhatwastheopinionofCalvinastothedesignofChristindying?—Whatisthestandardofthatsystemof faith held, by common consent, by the Reformed Churches?—andespecially, What doctrine on this subject is solemnly professed by allthosewhoadopt theWestminsterConfession as the confessionof theirfaith?

Many,inourday,whoholdveryimperfectviewsastothenatureoftheAtonement,andastothedesignofGodinit,fallbackuponsomeofthe

vaguestatementsastothelatterpointwhichtheyareabletogleanoutofCalvin'svoluminousworks,andundercoverofhisgreatnameclaimthattheirvariousspecialtiescomelegitimatelyunderthecategoryofgenuineCalvinism.Jenkyn, inwordsborrowed fromBishopHorsley, challengesthe advocates of definite and personal redemption to remember that"thosewhoboastinthenameofCALVINshouldknowwhatCALVINISMis."WhatIhavetosayastoCalvinandthestandardofCalvinismwillbepresentedunderthefollowingheads.

1. Ithasbeenaveryold,and isstillaverycommontrickoferrorists toseek to cover themselves with the authority of the general andunscientific statements of eminent theologians, written before anyparticular doctrine in question has been consciously considered andclearlydiscriminatedanddefinedbytheresponsiblerepresentativesandorgansoftheChurch.ThusArians,SociniansandPelagianshaveofold,for their own justification, paraded fragments torn out of theunsystematicwritingsof theFathers,whowrotebefore the timesof theCouncilofNiceorofthecontroversiesofAugustinewithPelagius.PapistsfindalargemeasureofmaterialapparentlyjustifyingtheirdistinguishingpositionsinthewritingsofthebesttheologiansprecedingtheeraoftheReformation,eveninthewritingsofAugustinehimself.Arminiansquotemuch that they find to their mind in the books of all the Fathers,especiallythoseoftheearlyChurch.Inlikemannertheadvocatesofself-styled"improvementsintheology,"onoccasion,findittotheirinteresttoquote the general and indefinite language of Reformers, who wrotewithouteverconsciouslyentertainingtheprecisepointsinquestion,suchasthosedevelopedbymeansofthe"Novelties"subsequentlyintroducedbytheschoolofSaumur—specialquestions,forinstance,involvedinthenature of justification, themethod and grounds of imputation, and thedesignoftheAtonement.Letthefactbewellnoted,therefore,thatCalvindoesnotappeartohavegiventhequestionweareatpresentdiscussingadeliberateconsideration,andhascertainlynotleftbehindhimaclearandconsistentstatementofhisviews.

2. I have already sufficiently proved that Calvin held the SatisfactionTheoryof theAtonement in its strictest sense, andall theworldknowsthatasapredestinarianhewenttothelengthofSupralapsarianism,from

whichsuchtheologiansasTurretin,WitsiusandOwen,andtheSynodofDort,andtheAssemblyofWestminster,recoiled.Whentheadvocatesofa general atonement claim to stand by Calvin, they ought to be wellprepared for the arduous undertaking. The entire analogy and spirit ofCalvin'ssystemwasasawholebroadlycharacterizedbythesubjectionofRedemption to Election as a means to an end. The able, learned andimpartialF.ChristianBaur,inhisHistoryoftheAtonement(A.D.1838),says:"ZwingleandCalvindidindeedadheretothedogmaofSatisfactioninitstraditionalform;butfromtheirpointofviewtheSatisfactionitselfwassubsumedundertheideaoftheabsolutedecree,inrelationtowhichthe satisfaction of Christ was not the causameritoria of salvation, butonly the causa instrumentalis carrying out thepurpose of redemption."Thatthisistrue,sofarasitrepresentsCalvinsubordinatingthepurposeofredemptionto thepurposeofelection,everystudentofhis InstitutesandofhisConsensusGenevensisknows,andthatthisconclusivelysettlesthepresentdebateeverycompetenttheologianwillconfess.HedeclaresthegiftofChrististheresultofhisinfinitelovetothepersonsforwhomheisgiven;*thatChristreallymeritseternal lifeandallspiritualgracesforthoseforwhomhedied;†thatChrististousboththeclearmirrorandthe pledge and security of the eternal and secret election ofGod,* thatGod, eternally anterior to their creation and irrespective of theircharacter, loved the elect, and hated the non-elect, predestinating thefirsttoholinessandhappiness,andtheothertosinandmiseryforever.It is true that at times Calvin uses general terms with respect to thedesignofChrist'sdeathinamoreunguardedmannerthanwouldnowbedonebyoneofhisconsistentdisciples.SeeRom.5:18.Butatothertimeshe explicitly denies that he believes in an indiscriminate Atonement inthe sense of Barnes and the greatmajority of themodern advocates ofGeneral Redemption. And let it be remembered that one deliberatestatementlimitingthedesignofChrist'sdeathissufficienttodefinethesenseofany finitenumberof vagueand indefinite expressions, suchasthat referred to above in his comment on Rom. 5:18. Thus in hiscomment on 1 John 2:2, he declared his adhesion to the Scholasticformula that "Christ died sufficiently for all, but efficiently only for theelect," which is very different from the opinion of thosewho hold thatChristdiedforthepurposeofremovinglegalobstaclesoutofthewayofall men indifferently. And at the same time he denies utterly that the

apostle,insayingthatChrististhe"propitiationforthesinsofthewholeworld"(totiusmundi)couldhavemeanttoincludethereprobate."Suchamonstrousthingdeservesnorefutation.ThedesignofJohnwasnootherthantomakethisbenefitcommontothewholeChurch.Thenunderthewordallorwhole,hedoesnotincludethereprobate,butdesignatesthosewho should believe, as well as those who were then scattered throughvariouspartsoftheworld."Commentaries1John2:2.*

3. But whatever the personal opinions of Calvin may have been, thesecondquestionastowhatisCalvinism?isentirelyindependentofthem.ThetitleCalvinismhas—whetherwithproprietyornot,neverthelessasafixedfact—beengiventoadefinitesystem,whichpossessesanidentityofcharacterandofhistoryindependentofanysinglemanthateverlived.Itis doubtless convenient, but it is eminently unscholarly, to attempt tosettlethetheologyoftheReformedChurchesbyreferencetothewritingsofasingleman.Therearetwowaysofdeterminingwhatseveralelementslegitimatelybelongtothissystem:(1.)Byananalysisandcomparisonofall the elements of the system, trying each proposed element by thefundamentalprinciples,thegeneralspirit,logicalrelationsandanalogyofthewhole. This has been, I suppose, sufficiently done in the precedinganalysis and statement of the question. (2.) The second method is anhistoricalappealtothecommonconsentofthatgreatfamilyofChurcheswhoagreeinprofessingthefundamentalprinciplesofthatsystem,asthisconsent is expressed by their great representative Confessions andclassical theologicalwritings,preparedafter the topics inquestionhavebeenconsciouslyandspecificallydiscussedanddefined.

All the world knows that the seventeenth century, including the latterpartof the sixteenth,was theerawhenall theelementsof all thegreatsystems of theology were subjected, by means of controversies, to athorough analysis and adjustment, when each system was elaboratedwithadistinctness,anddefinedwithanaccuracy,anddiscussedwithapower, and received each by its entire circle of adherents with aunanimity which surpasses all the subsequent as much as all theprecedentachievementsoftheChurch.Thiswastheagewhich,takeninits wide limits, produced the Roman Catholic, Robert Bellarmine; theUnitarian, Crellius, and the other authors of the Bibliotheca Fratrum

Polonorum; theLutheran,Gerhard,Calovius,Quenstedt; theArminian,Arminius, Episcopius Limborch and Grotius; the CalvinisticUniversalists, Cameron, Placæus, Amyraldus, Daillé; the ReformedSynods of Dort, Alez and Charenton, the Westminster Assembly, theFormulaConsensusHelvetica,theSavoyConfession,&c.,&c.,&c.Welayitdown,therefore,asacanon,whichnostudentofhistoricaltheologywillcare to deny, that the COMMON CONSENT OF THE REFORMEDCHURCHES, DURING THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY, ASWITNESSEDINTHEIRCREEDSANDINTHEWRITINGSOFTHEIRREPRESENTATIVE THEOLOGIANS, IS THE STANDARD OFCALVINISM.

TheonlyotherpointwhichourargumentrequiresustoestablishisthatthedecisionsoftheReformedChurches,duringtheseventeenthcentury,were universally and explicitly in confirmation of our view of theAtonement as definite and personal. Both of the learned and impartialcritics,WenerandHagenbach,agreethatthedeliverancesoftheBelgic*and Gallic† Confessions (A. D. 1571), and of the Synod of Dort (A. D.1619),expresslyteachadefiniteAtonement."Forthiswasthemostfreecouncil,andgraciouswillandintentionofGodtheFather,thatthelife-giving and saving efficacy of the most precious death of his own Son,shouldexert itself inall theelect, inorder togive themalone justifyingfaith,andtherebytoleadthemtoeternallife;thatis,thatGodwilledthatChrist, through thebloodof thecross (bywhichheconfirmeth thenewcovenant), should out of every people, tribe, nation and language,efficaciously redeem all those, and those only, who were from eternitychosentosalvation,andgiventohimbytheFather."Undertheheadofthe rejection of errors concerning redemption, "The Synod rejects theerrorsofthosewhoteach'thatGodtheFatherdestinedhisownSonuntothe death of the cross,without a certain and definite counsel of savinganyonebyname.'…ForthisassertioniscontumelioustothewisdomofGod and themerit of Jesus Christ, and is contrary to Scripture, as theSavioursays, 'I laydownmy life for thesheep,andIknowthem.'John10:15, 27."* "Who teach that 'Christ, by his satisfaction, did not withcertaintymeritthatverysalvationandfaithbywhichthissatisfactionofChristmaybeeffectuallyapplieduntosalvation.'"†Herethedoctrineofdefinite Atonement is taught with singular fulness and variety of

statement.Thus(a)itisstatedthatChristdiedtosecurethesalvationofthe elect, and the elect only. (b.) That Christ died in pursuance of adefinitecovenantarrangementbetweentheFatherandtheSon.(c.)ThatChrist, by his death, actually merited and secured faith and spiritualgrace for those forwhomhedied.Hence. thosewhonever received thegiftoffaithareprovednottobethoseforwhomhedied.

TheWestminster Confession was prepared in 1648. There has been inthis generation a very uncandid attemptmade by somewho profess toreceive thisConfession,exanimo,as the fit expressionof their faith, toshowthatitdoesnotexplicitlyaffirmaspecificandpersonalredemptionoftheelecttotheexclusionofageneralredemptionofall.ThesepartiesadmitthattheConfessionmaybechargeablewiththesinofomissioninrespecttothefailuretoaffirmthatredemptionisgeneralandindefinite.Buttheydenythatitaffirmsthecontrary.ItissaidthattheConfessionisverycarefultotraceouttherelationofChrist'sworktotheelect,whileitleavesthewayopentoall to indulgewhatopinionstheypleaseasto itsrelations to the non-elect. This is obviously amistake. Our Confessionexplicitly—andpreciselyinthoseformsofstatementmostsignificantandemphatic,whenviewedinconnectionwiththestateofthecontroversyonthis question at that time—affirms, that the redemptive work of Christwaspersonalanddefinite, and thereforenot impersonaland indefinite."Theywhoareelected,beingfalleninAdam,areredeemedbyChrist,areeffectuallycalleduntofaithinChristbyhisSpiritworkingindueseason;arejustified,adopted,sanctifiedandkeptbyhispowerthroughfaithuntosalvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called,justified, adopted, sanctified and saved, but the elect only."*Here it isexplicitlydeclaredthattheelectareredeemed,andthatonlytheelectareredeemed by Christ. "The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience andsacrificeofhimself,whichhe,throughtheeternalSpiritonceofferedupuntoGod,hathfullysatisfiedthejusticeoftheFather;andpurchasednotonly reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom ofheaven, for all those whom the Father hath given him." Here it isexplicitlysaidthattheatoningworkofChristsecuresforthoseinwhosebehalf it was offered reconciliation—not reconciliability—and that itpurchasesforthemaneverlastinginheritanceinheaven.They,therefore,whoneverreceivethereconciliationnortheinheritancecannotbethose

for whom they were purchased. "TO ALL FOR WHOM Christ hathpurchased redemption he doth certainly and effectually apply andcommunicatethesame,makingintercessionforthem,andrevealinguntothem, in and by the word, the mysteries of salvation, effectuallypersuadingthembyhisSpirittobelieveandobey."*HereitisexpresslysaidthatChristactuallysavesallthoseforwhomhedied,anditfollows,of course, that he shed his blood for none whom he does not actuallysave. "This statement contains, and was intended to contain, the truestatusquæstionisinthecontroversyabouttheextentoftheAtonement.Itis to be explained by a reference to the mode of conducting thiscontroversy,betweentheCalvinistsandtheArminiansaboutthetimeoftheSynodofDort, and also to themodeof conducting the controversyexcitedinFrancebyCameron,andafterwardscarriedonbyAmyraldusinFranceandHolland,andbyBaxterinEngland."

The Formula Consensus Helvetica was prepared in 1675 by HeideggerandTurretin for theexpresspurposeofopposing the "Novelties"of theschoolofSaumur,anditreceivedthesuffragesofalltheSwissChurchesofthatage."AccordinglyinthedeathofChrist,onlytheelect,whointimearemadenewcreatures(2Cor.5:17),andforwhomChrist inhisdeathwassubstitutedasanexpiatorysacrifice,areregardedashavingdiedwithhim and as being justified from sin; and thus, with the counsel of theFather,whogave toChristnonebut theelect tobe redeemed,andalsowiththeworkingoftheHolySpirit,whosanctifiesandsealsuntoalivinghope of eternal life none but the elect, the will of Christ who died soagreesandamicablyconspiresinperfectharmony,thatthesphereoftheFather'selection, theSon'sredemption,andtheSpirit'ssanctification isoneandthesame."*

The decrees of the Synod of Dort were accepted with unparalelledunanimitybyall theReformedChurches.TheywereadoptedagainandagainbytheNationalSynodoftheReformedChurchofFrance,atAlez,in1620;atCharenton,in1623;andateverysubsequentsessionuntiltheyceased tomeet. Again and again the French Synod examined this veryquestion,anddecided,asIshowedabovefromtheminutesoftheSynodofAlençon(A.D.1637),thatChristdiedwiththeintentionofsavingonlytheelect,whilehisworkisfreelyofferedtoall.Thetheologicalfacultyof

Geneva,thesuccessorsofCalvin,onlyeightyyearsafterhisdeath,unitewiththetheologicalfacultiesofLeyden,Sedan,FranekerandGronegen,in writing earnestly to the Synod, protesting against the doctrines ofAmyraldus, calling them "novelties," "upstarted opinions," "newdoctrines," &c., and recommending theworkwritten to refute them bythat"famousdivineAndrewRivet,"pastorandprofessoratLeyden.

TheSavoyConfession(A.D.1658)adoptedbytheEnglishIndependentsagreeswiththeWestminsterastothedesignofredemption.TheBostonConfession (A. D. 1680) explicitly teaches the same doctrine. TheCambridge Synod (A. D. 1648), when they formed the CambridgePlatform, solemnly adopted the Westminster Confession as theirdoctrinalsymbol.TheSynodoftheConnecticutChurches,whichformedtheSaybrookPlatform in 1703, adopted theBostonConfessionof 1680for their doctrinal symbol. The Westminster Confession has beensubsequentlyadoptedasthedoctrinalConfessionofallthePresbyteriansandIndependentsofBritishdescentintheworld.Thismuch,atleastincommonhonesty,ought tobeheldassettled, thatwhatevermaybe thecaseastotheteachingsofScripture,itisnotanopenquestionwhatisthedoctrine of theReformed Churches as to the design of the Atonement.There is no question whether the International Synod of Dort; theNational Synods of France and Westminster; the Formula ConsensusHelvetica; the theological schools of Geneva, Sedan, Leyden, FranekerandGronegen; the theologians Beza, Voetius, Diodati, Gomarus, Rivet,DuMoulin,Spanheim,Heidegger,Turretin,Cocceius,Witsius,Vitringa,Van Mastricht, Marckius, De Moor, Pictet and Owen,—there is noquestion whether these represent truly and fully the theology of theReformedChurches.TheconsensusoftheseisthestandardofCalvinism.

CHAPTERVI:THEARGUMENTSSTATEDUPONWHICHTHEREFORMEDDOCTRINEASTOTHEDESIGNOFTHEATONEMENT

RESTS

WE are, under this fifth head, to consider the evidence relied upon byCalvinists as establishing the truth of their view of the Atonement aspersonalanddefinite. Ibelieve that thegeneralprinciplesofCalvinism,and the Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement in particular, beingassumedastrue,theonlyquestionastothedesignofChrist'sworkthatremainspossible is fullydisposedofbyadiscriminatingandexhaustivestatementofthepointsatissue.Havingspentsomuchtimeinrenderingsuch a statement, I propose now to present the positive argumentsestablishingourviewofthequestioninaverycursorymanner.

1. That the design of the Atonement was the salvation of the electpersonallyanddefinitely,wethink,certainlyfollowsfromtheverynatureoftheAtonementitself,whichhasbeenfullydemonstratedintheformerpartofthisvolume.

(1.) We then proved that Christ wrought our salvation as ourSUBSTITUTEinthestrictsenseofthatterm,andthathissufferingandobedience was strictly vicarious. He occupied our law-place, and thesentenceduetotheprincipalswasexecutedonhim.Nowthisfact,wedonotbelieve,involvesanycalculationastothekindoramountofsuffering.WhetheraSubstituteforfeworformany,adivinePersonmightsurely,bythesameactionsandinthesametime,dischargealltheobligations.ofall indifferently.Buta strict substitutionofperson forpersons, and theinfliction on the one part, and the voluntary suffering on the other, ofvicariouspunishmentsurelyimpliesadefiniterecognition,onthepartofthe Sovereign, and of the Substitute of the persons for whom theSubstitute acts, whose sins he bears and whose penal obligation hedischarges. The very conception of substitution necessarily involvesdefinite,personalrelations.

(2.)WehavealsoclearlyprovedthattheworkofChristasourSubstitute

wasacompleteSATISFACTION,fullydischargingallthedemandsofthelaw as a broken covenant ofworks. The demands of the law terminateuponpersons. Itsdemandscanbe satisfiedonlywith respect to certaindefinite persons, and not with respect to amass indefinitely. The law,moreover, has no further demands upon those personswith respect towhomall its conditionshavebeenonce fully satisfied. Ithence follows,that all of those for whom Christ has in this sense made a perfectsatisfaction must be saved. This does not imply at all that the sinnerhimselfhasanyclaimuponthegracewherebyheissaved,northatGodisany the less anabsoluteSovereign ingiving it to, and inwithholding itfrom,whomsoeverhewill.Thewholematter lies in the intentionof theFather in giving the Son, and the intention of the Son in dying. Thedemands of the governmentwith relation to an individual are satisfiedwhentheservicesofanotherashissubstitutearecreditedtohisaccount.Itdependssimplyuponthewillofthesubstituteanduponthepleasureofthe government whether these services shall be credited to one or toanother. For whomsoever they are designed, they avail to cancel theirobligations If God's will in the matter should change, the persons towhom the law-satisfying righteousnesswouldbe creditedwould changealso. Yet, even in that case, the changed destination would make nodifferenceastothepersonalanddefinitereferenceofthesatisfaction.ButsinceGodcannotchange,thesamepersonswhomGodinthebeginningchose toeternal lifeare thepersons forwhomChristmadesatisfaction,andthepersonsforwhomhemadesatisfactionarethepersonswhomhenowjustifies,andwillhereafterglorify.

(3.)EveryformwhichitispossiblefortheGeneralAtonementTheorytoassumenecessarilyinvolvesthehypothesisthatinitsessentialnaturetheAtonement effects only the removal of legal obstacles out of thewayofthe salvation ofmen,makingGod reconcilable, not actually reconcilinghim;making the salvation of allmen possible, not actually saving any.ButtheScripturesteachthatChristactuallycametosavethoseforwhomhedied—"TheSonofGodcametosavethatwhichwaslost."Matt.18:11;Luke19:10.2Cor.5:21:"Forhehathmadehimtobesinforus,whoknewnosin;thatwemightbemadetherighteousnessofGodinhim."Gal.1:4:"Hegavehimselfforoursins,thathemightdeliverusfromthispresentevilworld,accordingto thewillofGod."Gal.4:5:"Hewasmadeunder

thelaw,thathemight(ἵνα)redeemthemthatareunderthelaw,thatwemight (ἵνα) receive the adoptionof sons. 1Tim. 1:15: "This is a faithfulsaying,… thatChristJesuscame into theworld to save sinners."Againthe Scriptures declare that the effect of Christ's death is reconciliationand justification. Rom. 5:10: "For if when we were enemies we werereconciledtoGodbythedeathofhisSon,muchmore,beingreconciled,we shall be saved by his life." Eph. 2:16: "Christ died that he mightreconcilebothuntoGodinonebodybythecross."ThedesignofChrist,moreover,was to secure for those forwhomhedied thedirecteffectofremissionofsins,peacewithGod,anddeliverancefromthecurseofthelaw,fromwrath,fromdeath,fromsin,&c.Inwhomwehaveredemptionthroughhisblood,theforgivenessofsins.Eph.2:14:"Forheisourpeacewhohathmadebothone."1Thess.1:10:"EvenJesus,whichdeliveredusfrom the wrath to come." Heb. 2:14: "That through death he mightdestroyhimthathadthepowerofdeath,anddeliverthem,whothroughfearofdeath,"&c.Gal.3:13: "Christhasredeemedus fromthecurseofthelaw,beingmadeacurseforus."1Pet.1:18:"Forasmuchasyeknowthat ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, … but with theprecious blood of Christ." But to make salvation possible, to makepossible purification, deliverance, reconciliation, is something verydifferentindeedfromactuallysaving,purifying,deliveringorreconciling.Nomanhas a right to empty the glorious terms inwhich the gospel isrevealed of all their saving power. It is not we who teach a limitedatonement, but our opponents. That must be a limited redemptionindeedwhich leaves themajority of those forwhom itwas designed inhell for ever;which onlymakes salvation possible to allmen in such asense that it continuesabsolutely impossible toalluntil,bya sovereigngrace which is antecedent to and independent of all redemption, it ismadesubjectivelypossibletoafew.

2. None of the advocates of a general and indefinite Atonement canbelievethatChristpurchasedrepentance,faithorobedienceforthoseforwhomhedied,forinthatcaseallforwhomhediedmustrepent,believeand obey. But the Scriptures teach that Christ did purchase thoseblessingsforthoseforwhomhedied.Thisisplain(1)becausemenhavenonaturalpowertofurnishthoseconditionsthemselves.TheScriptureseverywhereascribethewholegroundandcauseofoursalvationtoChrist.

ButifthedifferentiatinggracewhichdistinguishesthebelieverfromtheunbelieveristobeattributedtoanycauseexteriortoChrist'sredemption,then that cause, and not his redemption, is the cause of salvation. (2.)FaithandredemptionareexpresslysaidtobegiftsofGod.Eph.2:8:"Forbygraceareyesavedthroughfaith;andthatnotofyourselves; it is thegift of God." Acts 5:31: "Him hath God exalted to be a prince and aSaviour, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins." (3.)TheyaregiventousforChrist'ssakeasthepurchaseofhisblood.InPhil.1:29itissaidtobegivenusinbehalfofChristtobelieveonhim.Eph.1:3,4:"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hathblessed us with all spiritual blessing in heavenly things in Christ:accordingashehathchosenusinhimbeforethefoundationoftheworld,thatweshouldbeholyandwithoutblamebeforehiminlove."Titus3:5,6:"Notbyworksofrighteousnesswhichwehavedone,butaccordingtohismercyhe savedus,by thewashingof regenerationand renewingoftheHolyGhost; which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus ChristourSaviour."Gal.3:13,14:"Christredeemedusfromthecurseofthelaw… that wemight receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." Acts2:33: "Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and havingreceivedoftheFatherthepromiseoftheHolyGhost,hehathshedforththis which ye now see and hear." Emmons, the logical advocate of ageneralAtonement,assertsthattheonlybenefitwereceivefromChristisforgiveness of sins on condition of faith.* But the Scriptures over andoveragaindeclarethatChristdiedwiththedesignandeffectofprocuringfor those for whom he died the subjective grace of sanctification,including faith,aswellas theobjectivegraceof forgivenessconditionedon faith. "Who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from alliniquity,andpurifytohimselfapeculiarpeoplezealousofgoodworks."Titus2:14."ChristalsolovedtheChurchandgavehimselfforit:thathemightsanctifyandcleanseitwiththewashingofwaterbytheword,thathe might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot orwrinkle or any such thing: but that it should be holy and withoutblemish." Eph. 5:26, 27. "Who of God is made unto us wisdom, andrighteousness, and sanctification, and redemption." (4.) All whom theFather gave to the Son believe, and none others. "All that the Fathergivethtomeshallcometome,…andthisistheFather'swill,thatofallwhichhehathgivenmeIshouldlosenothing."John6:37,39."Mysheep

hearmyvoiceandIknowthem,andtheyfollowme,andIgivetothemeternal life.…MyFatherwhichgave themme is greater thanall." John10:27,28.Christsaid,inthetenthchapterofJohn,"Ilaydownmylifeforthesheep,"andthensaidtotheJews,"Yebelievenotbecauseyearenotmy sheep." John 10:26. "As many as were ordained to eternal lifebelieved."Acts 13:48.Christ said tohis disciples, "To you it is given toknowthemysteriesofthekingdomofheaven,buttothemitisnotgiven."Matt.13:12.

If,then,astheScripturesteach,Christpurchasedallspiritualgracesforthoseforwhomhedied,allthoseforwhomhediedmustbelieve.Iftheobject forwhichhediedwas tosanctifyandcleanse those forwhomhedied,thenthatgreatmassofmenwholiveanddie,eatentothecorewitheveryformofcorruption,cannotbethoseforwhomChristdied.

3.AlltheadvocatesofgeneralredemptionbelievethatChrist,movedbyan impersonal and indiscriminatephilanthropyor loveofmenas such,died in order tomake the salvation of allmenpossible to themon theconditionoffaith.Butthefactsofthecaseare—(a)thatChristdiedaftergenerations of men had been going to perdition during four thousandyears.Withregardtothathalfoftheracewhoperishedbeforehisadventit is hard to see thebearingsof a general redemption.And if it hadnobearingupontheircase,itishardtoseeinwhatsensetheredemptionisgeneral.(b.)ThattheconditionuponwhichitissaidChristdiedtosavethem he has, for two thousand years since his work of atonement wasfinished,withheld fromtheknowledgeof three-fourthsof therace. It ishard to see inwhat sense thedeathofChristmade the salvationof theheathen possible, or how he died on purpose to save them on thecondition of faith, when he has never revealed to them his purpose ofsalvation, nor the conditions upon which it is suspended. And if theAtonementhasnoreferencetothesalvationoftheuntaughtheathen,itisveryhardindeedtoseeinwhatsenseitisgeneral.

4. Christ died in execution of the terms of an eternal Covenant ofRedemption formed between the Father and the Son. The conditionsassumedbyChristonhispartwerethatheshould,inlivinganddying,byaction and suffering, fulfil all the legal obligations of his people. Theconditions promised by the Father were that Christ should "see of the

travailofhissoulandbesatisfied."

That there was such a covenant formed in eternity is plain. (1.) Godalways acts on a plan, and there must therefore have been a mutualcounsel and design on the part of the several persons of the Godheaddistributing their several functions in the economy of redemption. (2.)TheScripturesexplicitlystatealltheelementsofatruecovenantinthisrelation,givingthemutualpromisesandconditionsofthetwoparties."ItheLordhavecalled thee in righteousness,andwillhold thyhand,andwillkeepthee,andgivetheeforacovenantofthepeople,foralightoftheGentiles; to open the blind eyes," &c. Isa. 42:6, 7. "I have made acovenantwithmychosen,IhavesworntoDavidmyservant…thyseedwill Iestablish forever,andbuildup thy throne toallgenerations."Ps.89:3, 4. "Whenhis soul shallmake an offering for sin, he shall see hisseed,…andthepleasureoftheLORDshallprosperinhishand.Heshallseeofthetravailofhissoulandbesatisfied:byhisknowledgeshallmyrighteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.THEREFOREwillIdividehimaportionwiththegreat,"&c.Isa.53:10,11. (3.) Christ, while accomplishing his work on earth,makes constantreferencetoapreviouscommissionhehadreceivedoftheFatherwhosewillhehascometoexecute."Icametodothewillofhimthatsentme.""ThiscommandmentIhavereceivedofmyFather.""AsmyFatherhathappointed unto me." (4.) Christ claims the reward which had beenconditioneduponthefulfilmentofthatcommission."Ihaveglorifiedtheeon the earth; I have finished thework that thou gavestme to do. Andnow,OFather,glorifythoumewiththineownself,withtheglorywhichIhadwiththeebeforetheworldwas.Ihavemanifestedthynametothosewhomthouhastgivenmeoutoftheworld.Iprayforthem:Ipraynotfortheworld,butforthemthatthouhastgivenme."John17:4–9.(5.)Christconstantly speaks of those that believe as having been previously givenhimbytheFather.HisFatherhadgiventhem—"Helaiddownhislifeforthe sheep." John 10:15. Theywere given him by the Father.He knowsthem.Theyhearhisvoice.They shallneverperish.The reason that thereprobatedonotbelieveisbecausetheyarenothissheep.John10:26.Hepraysnotfortheworld;hepraysonlyforthosetheFatherhadgivenhimoutoftheworld.

IfhediedinpursuanceofamutualunderstandingbetweenhimselfandtheFather,ifheshallseeofthetravailofhissoulandbesatisfied,andifeveryonethattheFathergavehiminthatcovenantshallbesaved,thensurelythosewhoarenotsavedarenotthoseforwhomhedied.

5.TheScriptureshabituallyaffirmthattheMOTIVEwhichledtheFathertogivehisSon,andtheSontodie,wasnotameregeneralphilanthropy,butthehighest,mostpeculiarandpersonallove.Christ'struepurposeindyingcancertainlyhavenomoreexactandcompleteexpressionthanhisoutpouringsofsoulintheearofhisFatherontheterriblenightprecedinghissacrifice,recordedintheseventeenthchapterofJohn.Ifevertherealdesignofhisdeathwasuppermostinhisheartandspeech,itmusthavebeen then. If ever the motives which led to his dying were in strongaction,itmusthavebeenthen.Butallthathesaysoftheworldisthathedoesnotprayfor it.All theunutterabletreasuresofhis lovearepouredforthuponthosewhomtheFathergavehimoutoftheworld."Fortheirsakes." he said, "I sanctifymyself"—that is, devotemyself to this awfulservice.John17:13:"Thattheymayhavemyjoyfulfilledinthemselves.""Greaterlovehathnomanthanthis,thatamanlaydownhislifeforhisfriends."John15:13."Godcommendethhislovetowardus,inthatwhilewewereyetsinners,Christdiedforus."Rom.5:8."Thatyemaybeabletocomprehendwithallsaints,whatisthebreadthandlength,anddepthandheight,andtoknowtheloveofChristwhichpassethknowledge,thatye may be filled with all the fulness of God." Eph. 3:18, 19. "Herebyperceivewe the love of God." "In thiswasmanifested the love of God,becausehesenthisonly-begottenSon into theworld,"&c. 1John3:16;4:9,10.ThisloveofChristforhisChurchhasforitstypethepersonalandexclusiveloveofthehusbandforthewife.Eph.5:25–27.

Itisinconceivablethatthishighestandmostpeculiarlove,whichmovedGodtogivehisonly-begottenandwell-belovedSontoundergoapainfuland shameful death, could have had for its objects the myriads fromwhom,bothbeforeandafterChrist,hehadwithheldallknowledgeofthegospel; or those to whom,while he gives them the outward call of theword,herefusestogivetheinwardcallofhisSpirit.CansuchloveasthedeathofChristexpresses,wellingupandpouringforthfromtheheartoftheomnipotentGod,failtosecurethecertainblessednessofitsobjects?

Paulexpresseshisopinionupon thisprecisepoint: "He thatsparednothisownSon,butdeliveredhimupforusall,howshallhenotwithhimalso freely give us all things?" Rom. 8:32. Surely it is a profanedefamationof this lovetosaythat itseffectsmaybemeasured inGod'sproviding a salvation for all men to accrue to them upon conditionsknownandintendedinthecaseofmosttobeimpossible.Itissurelyanabuse of Scripture to say that the elect and the reprobate, "thoseappointed to honour" and "those appointed to dishonour," those who"beforewereofoldordainedtothiscondemnation"andthosewhowere"ordained unto eternal life," those whom God "hardeneth" and thoseuponwhomhe "hathmercy," the "world" and those "chosenout of theworld,"areall indiscriminatelytheobjectsofthisamazing,thisheaven-moving,thissoul-redeeminglove.

6.TheScriptureshabituallyrepresentthedefinitedesignofthedeathofChrist to be the saving of "many," the redemption of "his sheep," "hisChurch,""hispeople,""hischildren,"the"elect.""AndthoushaltcallhisnameJesus,forheshallsavehispeoplefromtheirsins."Matt.1:21."Thegoodshepherdgivethhis life for thesheep.""I laydownmy life for thesheep."John10:11,15."TheChurchofGodwhichhehathpurchasedwithhis ownblood."Acts 20:28. "Husbands, love yourwives, asChrist alsoloved the Church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify andcleanse it;… thathemightpresent it tohimself a gloriousChurch,nothavingspotorwrinkleoranysuchthing,butthatitshouldbeholyandwithoutblemish."Eph.5:25,26,27.Christissaid(John11:51,52)tohavedied to gather together in one the children of God who are scatteredabroad."HethatsparednothisownSon,butdeliveredhimupforusall,how shall he notwith him also freely give us all things?Who shall layanythingtothechargeofGod'sELECT?ItisGodthatjustifieth;whoishethatcondemneth?ItisChristthatdied,yearatherthatisrisenagain,whois even at the right hand of God, who alsomaketh intercession for us.WhoshallseparateusfromtheloveofChrist?"Rom.8:32–35.

Now,manyplausiblereasonsmaybeassignedwhy,onthesuppositionofa personal and definite Atonement, general terms should be used onsomeoccasionstoillustratethefactthattheredemptionissuitedforall,sufficient for all, offered to all; that the elect are chosen out of every

family, tribe and nation under heaven, and from every successivegeneration;andthat finally thewholeearthshallberedeemedfromthecurse, the gospel triumph among all nations, and the saints inherit theregeneratedworld. Butwe affirm that, on the contrary hypothesis of ageneraland indefiniteAtonement,noplausiblepretext canbegiven fortheuseof thedefinite languageabovequoted. IfChrist lovedthewholeworldsoastodieforit,whysaythatthemotiveforhisdyingwasthathissheepshouldbesaved?

7.Christ'sworkasHighPriestisonework,accomplishedinall itspartswith one design and with one effect, and having respect to the samepersons.Theworkofthehighpriest,asIshowedinChapterix.,PartI.,includedsacrificeoroblationandintercession.Iprovedalso(a)thattheworkoftheancientpriestsecuredtheactualandcertainremissionofthesinsofallforwhomheacted,andthatitboreadefinitereferencetothepersonsofallthosewhomherepresented,andtononeothers.(b.)Thattheancientpriestofferedintercessionforpreciselythesamepersons—forall of them, and for none others—for whom he had previously madeexpiation. This argument I will not here repeat. It will answer ourpurposetonotice—

(1.) That the Scriptures declare that the ancient priest was in all theserespectsa typeofChrist.OurLord,havingmadeexpiation in theoutercourt,wentwithintheveiltomakeintercession."Neitherbythebloodofgoatsandcalves,butbyhisownblood,heenteredinonceintotheholyplace, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For Christ is notenteredintotheholyplacesmadewithhands,whicharethefiguresofthetrue;butintoheavenitself,nowtoappearinthepresenceofGodforus.Whereheeverlivethtomakeintercessionforus."Heb.7:25;9:12,24.

(2.)ButChristintercededonlyforhis"sheep."Thisiscertain,(a)becauseitisalwayseffectual.Heintercedesas"apriestuponhisthrone."Hesayshis "Fatherhearethhimalways."His formof intercession is, "Father, Iwill that they alsowhom thou hast givenme," &c. John 17:24. (b.)Heexpresslydeclares the fact thathe intercedesonly for the elect—"Iprayfor them; I praynot for theworld, but for themwhich thouhast givenme."John17:9."NeitherprayIforthesealone;butforthemalsowhichshallbelieveonmethroughtheirword."John17:20."OthersheepIhave

whicharenotofthisfold;themalsoImustbring,andtheyshallhearmyvoice,andthereshallbeonefoldandoneshepherd."John10:16.

(3.)But ifChristmakes intercession for theelectonly,hecanofcoursehave died for them alone. As proved before, the ancient priest madeintercession forall forwhomhemadeexpiation.Thepriestlyworkwasoneindesignandeffectinallitsparts.Itissimplyabsurdtosupposethatthepriestactedasamediatorforonepartywhenhemadetheoblation,andforanotherwhenhemadetheintercession.Thisistheviewcertainlythat Paul took of thematter—"Who shall lay anything to the charge ofGod'select?Whoishethatcondemneth?ItisChristthatdied,yearatherthatisrisenagain,whoisalsoattherighthandofGod,whoalsomakethintercession forus.Whoshall separateus from the loveofChrist?"&c.Hereit isplainthattheargumentestablishesthesecurityofthe"elect."Thegrounduponwhich that security rests is, thatChristdied for themandintercedesforthem.Plainlythedyingandtheintercessionhaveoneandthesamepersonalobject.

(4.) This is renderedmore certain by the very nature of that perpetualintercessionwhichChrist offers in behalf of his elect. "For us it is nowperfectedinheaven;it isnotanhumbledejectionofhimself,withcries,tearsandsupplications;nayitcannotbeconsideredasvocalbythewayofentreaty,butmerelyreal,bythepresentationofhimself,sprinkledwiththebloodofthecovenant,beforethethroneofgraceinourbehalf.Withhisownblood—toappearinthepresenceofGodforus.Heb.9:12,24.Sopresenting himself that his former oblation might have its perpetualefficacy,untilthemanysonsgivenhimarebroughttoglory.Andhereinhis intercession consisteth, being nothing as it were but his oblationcontinued. He was the 'Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.'Rev.13:8.Nowhisintercessionbeforehisactualoblationinthefulnessoftime being nothing but a presenting of the engagement that was uponhim for thework in due time to be accomplished, certainly thatwhichfollows it is nothing but a presenting of what, according to thatengagement, is fulfilled; so that it is nothing but a continuation of hisoblation in postulating, by remembrance and declaration of it, thosethingswhichbyitwereprocured.How,then,isitpossiblethattheoneoftheseshouldbeof largercompassandextentthantheother?Canhebe

said to offer for them for whom he doth not intercede, when hisintercession is nothingbut a presenting of his oblation in thebehalf ofthemforwhomhesuffered,and for thebestowingof thosegood thingswhichbythatwerepurchased."*

8.TherelationwhichthisquestionsustainstothedoctrineofElectionisself-evident.TheCalvinisticdoctrinethatGodofhismeregoodpleasurehasfrometernityinfalliblypredestinatedcertainpersonsoutofthemassoffallenhumanitytosalvationandtoallthemeansthereof,andthatinsodoinghehassovereignlypassedovertherestofmankindandleftthemtothenaturalconsequencesof theirsin,necessarilysettles thequestionastothedesignofGodingivinghisSontodie.It ispurelyunthinkablethatthesamemindthatsovereignlypredestinatedtheelecttosalvation,and the restofmankind to thepunishmentof their sins, should, at thesametime,makeagreatsacrificeforthesakeofremovinglegalobstaclesoutofthewayofthosefromwhosepathitisdecreedotherobstaclesshallnotberemoved.Schweitzer,inhisarticleinHerzog'sEncyclopædia,saysthatAmyraldus,towardsthecloseofhislife,cametoseethattherewasnothing real in all the new distinctions with which he had beenattemptingtosmooththeharshnessofCalvinism,andtoobviatesomeofthe more specious objections to it. Unquestionably there is nocompromisebetweenArminianismandCalvinism.Thosewhoattempttostandbetweenmustcontentthemselveswithtreadingtheairwhiletheyreceivethefireofbothsides.WedonotobjecttoCalvinisticUniversalism(that is, universal particularism, or particular universalism) because ofanydangerwithwhich—whenconsideredasafinalposition—itthreatensorthodoxy.Wedistrust it ratherbecause it isnota finalposition,but isthefirststepintheeasydescentoferror.

9.Ourviewhasthecapitaladvantageofagreeingwithandharmonizingallthefactsofthecase,andofrepresentingChristashavingdesignedtoaccomplishbyhisdeathpreciselywhatintheeventisaccomplished,andnothingelse.Webelievethathedesignedtoaccomplishbyhisdeaththefollowing ends: (1.) Evidently as the end towhich all other ends standrelated as means, the only end which affords any adequate reason forwhat he did, he purposed to secure certainly the salvation of his ownpeople, thosewhom theFatherhadgivenuntohim. (2.)To secure that

end he designed to purchase for them, and then efficaciously tocommunicate to them, faith and repentance and all the fruits of theSpirit.(3.)Inordertothegreatendabovestatedhepurposedtopurchasemany temporal and other blessings short of salvation for all mankind,and in various degrees for individual men, just as they are actuallyexperiencedunderthedispensationsofProvidence.(4.)Inorderalso,asafurthermeanstothesameend,tolay, intheperfectsufficiencyoftheAtonementforallanditsexactadaptationtoeach,arealfoundationforthe bona fide offer of salvation to all men indiscriminately on theconditionoffaith.Thedesignhastheelectforitssole,ultimateend,andit in anyway respects thenon-elect only as themethodwhichGodhaschosenfortheapplicationofredemptiontotheelectnecessarilyinvolvesthe bringing to bear upon the non-elect, among whom they live,influences,moralandotherwise,whichinvariousdegreesinvolvestheircharactersanddestinies.

ThehypothesisofageneralandindefiniteAtonementadmitsbutoftwodistinct positions, that of the Arminian and that of the CalvinisticUniversalist.AccordingtotheArminianview,theFatherandtheSondidallthatproperlybelongedtoeitherofthemtodotosecurethesalvationof all men. TheHoly Spirit also impartially gives common grace to allmen. Each of the divine Persons, therefore, is baffled in the mutualdesign as far as the multitude of the lost is concerned. As far as theintrinsic efficacyof theAtonement is concerned, itmighthave failed inevery case, as it has failed in a majority of the cases for which it wasdesigned. Indeed, the Atonement has, properly speaking, secured thesalvationofnoone—hasbeen,onthecontrary,dependent ineverycaseupon the self-determined choiceof sinfulmen forwhatevermeasureofsuccessithasattained.Thereis,moreover,uponthisview,amysteriouswant of conformity between God's dispensation of redemption and hisdispensationofprovidence.Inhisdispensationofredemptionandgracehe has done all he could to accomplish his design of saving all menindifferently; while in his dispensation of providence he has withheldthose essential conditions of knowledge, without which salvation issimplyimpossible,fromthree-fourthsofthepeoplelivingonthefaceoftheearth.

According to the view of the Calvinistic Universalist, God loved allenough to give his Son to die for them, and yet loved only the electenoughtogivethemhisSpirit.HedesignedinthesacrificeofhisSontomake the salvation of all men possible, while at the same time hesovereignly intended that only the elect should be saved.His decree ofredemption is conditional, but the conditions were intended to beimpossible.Hisdecreeofelectionisunconditional.Godwenttoworkatgreatcosttomakethesalvationofallmenobjectivelypossible,whileheattheverysametimeintendedthatthesalvationofthemajorityshouldcontinue subjectively impossible. God the Redeemer died that all menmightbe saved if theywouldbelieve afterhalf of themwere already inperdition,whileGod the providential Ruler left two-thirds of the otherhalfpermanentlyignorantofthefactthatanysalvationwasprovided,orofthetermsuponwhichitmightbesecured.Atpresentthisistheviewof"advancedthinkers."

CHAPTERVII:THEOBJECTIONSBROUGHTAGAINSTTHEREFORMED

VIEWOFTHEDESIGNOFTHEATONEMENTSTATED,ANDTHEANSWER

TOTHEMINDICATED

WE have now come in conclusion to consider the principal argumentswhichtheadvocatesofageneralandindefiniteAtonementrelyuponasrefuting our doctrine and as establishing their own. By far the mostconsiderable of these arguments are those founded (1) on the admittedfact of the indiscriminate offer of the gospel to all men. (2.) On those

passages of Scripture which say in general terms that Christ "bore thesins of the world," and "suffered for all." (3.) And on those passageswhichspeakofthepossibilityofthosedyingforwhomChristdied.

1. It is claimed that if Christ did not die for the purpose of providingsalvation for all men indifferently, then the indiscriminate offer ofsalvationmade in the gospel to allmen is an empty form, offering thenon-electanatonement,when,as farashe isconcerned,noatonementhasbeenmade.Thereisunquestionablyadifficultyinthisneighborhood,but it will require some discrimination to determine exactly the pointupon which the difficulty presses. There are three distinct respects inwhichapersonalanddefiniteAtonementappearstobeinconsistentwiththe indiscriminate offer of salvation, which are sometimes distinctlystated, but are generally jumbled together in a confused charge ofinconsistency.Theseare,(a)thatiftheAtonementwasdesignedonlyfortheelect,itisnotconsistentwithtruththatGodshouldoffersalvationtoall men. (b.) That in such a case there is no solid warrant for theministerialofferofsalvationtoallmen.(c.)That insuchacasethereisnosolidwarrantforanyman,whoisnotprivatelyandinfalliblyassuredof his own election, to rest his trust upon that Atonement, which,althoughofferedtoall,wasintendedonlyforthebenefitoftheelect.

As to thewarrant for theministerialofferof salvation toall, itmustbefoundaloneinthegreatcommissionwithwhicheveryministerissentoutbytheauthorityoftheMasterhimself.NomatterwhatmaybethenatureorthedesignoftheAtonement,noservanthasanyrighttogobackofhiscommission,andinsistuponunderstandinghisMaster'ssecretpurposesoraims.Nomatterwhatelseistrueornottrue,thecommandto"gointoalltheworldandpreachthegospeltoeverycreature"istheentireandall-sufficientwarrantfortheministerialoffer.EveniftheAtonementcanbedemonstratedtobeuniversal,ourrighttoofferittoallmencannotrestuponthatdemonstration,but,assaidbefore,upontheplaintermsofthatcommissionwhichwealreadyhave.

Astothewarrantofpersonalfaithuponthepartofmenwhocanknownothing as to their election, the case is precisely similar. The warrantrests sufficiently and exclusively in the indiscriminate invitations,commands and promises of the gospel. If we were all assured of the

absolute universality of redemption, or if we could read plainly everynamerecorded in theLamb'sbookof life, thecasewouldbenoplainerand no more certain than it now is. The absolutely righteous, theinfinitelywiseandpowerfulGodsolemnlydeclaresthat"whosoeverwillmaytakeofthewateroflifefreely,"andthat"whosoevercomeshewillinnowise cast out." Any otherwarrant than this is inconsistentwith thenature of faith. To demand any otherwarrant is sheer rationalism andrebellion.

With respect to thewarrant forGod's actingashedoes in the case,wemight surely content ourselveswith referring to the infinite perfectionsand absolute sovereignty of God upon the one hand, and to the entireignorance ofman upon the other. But in order thatwemay locate thedifficulty,whicheveryonevaguelyfeels,at theprecisepointtowhichitbelongs,observethatthedefiniteandpersonaldesignoftheAtonement,andtheunconditionalandpersonalelectionofsomementoeternallife,areidenticallyoneandthesameintheirbearingupontheindiscriminateoffersof thegospel.Viewingthematter fromtheArminianstand-point,wechallengeouropponentstoshowwhythesovereignelectionofsomemen,andthesovereignleavingofotherstothenaturalconsequencesoftheirownsins,areanymore inconsistentwith thegood faithofGod inthe indiscriminate offers of salvation to all than is that divine infallibleforeknowledge which the Arminians admit. If God certainly foreknowsthattothevastmassofthosetowhomtheofferofsalvationisbroughtitwillbeonlyasavourofdeathuntodeath,awfullyaggravatingtheirdoom,howisitconsistentwithhissupposeddesireandlabourtosaveallmenalike thathe should thusknowingly aggravate the condemnationof themajorityofthoseheprofessestodesiretosave.

Besidesthis,thedeclarationofpurposewhichGodmakesintheuniversaloffersofthegospelisallliterallytrue,electionornoelection.Itiseveryman'sdutyandinteresttorepentandbelievewhetherhewillornot.ItisGod'spurposetoreceiveandsaveallthatbelieveonhisSon,electornot.Itiseverywordtrue.Neitherdoesthesalvationoftheelectmakethecaseofthenon-electanyworse.Noristheindiscriminateofferofsalvationtoall,includingthenon-elect,awantonorimpropermockeryoftheircase,because(a)theofferisrealandsincere;(b)theonlyreasontheydonot

benefit by it is their own wilful rejection of it; (c) it is, therefore, anadmirable test of their character, displaying the inveteracy of their sin,andjustifyingtherighteousjudgmentsofGod(Ps.51:4;John3:19);(d)itis an essential and admirably efficient part of God's plan to gather hiselectintothefold.

Viewingthematterfromthestand-pointoftheCalvinisticUniversalists,we challenge our opponents to show us wherein there is any moreinconsistencywiththegoodfaithoftheindiscriminateofferofaninterestintheredemptionofChristuponourviewthat itwasdesignedonlyfortheelect,thanthereisupontheirviewthatGodforeknewandintendedthat the conditions upon which it is offered to all men should beimpossible.Remember that thequestionbetween themandus respectsthesinglepointastothedesignoftheAtonement.Webelieveasfullyastheydo(a)thattheAtonementissufficientforall,(b)exactlyadaptedtoeach;andhence,(c)thatalllegalobstaclesareremovedoutofthewayofGod'ssavingwhomsoeverhepleases;and(d)thatitissincerelyofferedtoall towhomthegospel ispreached;andhence, (e) inapurelyobjectivesense, salvation is available to all if they believe. What, then, is theobjection if God, having prepared a feast for his friends, should—therebeing enough and to spare—if it pleased him, invite his foes to come,whethertheywillornotGodcansavewhomsoeverhepleasesnow;butsincehismindchangesnot,hepleasestosavenowpreciselythosewhomhedesignedtosavewhenhesacrificedhisSon.

An indiscriminateofferof an interest in theAtonementhasbeenmadefor two thousand years since Christ died. But remember that the sameindiscriminate offer wasmade for four thousand years before he died.The offer then was that if men would believe upon a Christ to besacrificedhereaftertheyshouldbesaved.Now,isitsenseornonsensetobelieve that at the endof those four thousandyearsChristdied for thepurpose of saving those who had already rejected him, and who hadconsequentlygonetotheirownplace?Woulditnothavemettheprecisecaseofallwholivedonearthbeforehisadventifhehadpromisedthemthatattheendoftimehewoulddietosaveallthosewhohadpreviouslybelieved?Would there have been any propriety in his promising to diealsoforthosewhohadpreviouslyrejectedhiskindoffersandbeenlost?

AsfarasthedesignoftheAtonement,thepurposetobeattainedbyhisdeath, is concerned, what conceivable difference does itmake whetherthesacrificeofChristbeofferedatthebeginning,themiddleortheendofhumanhistory?Ifhehaddiedat theend,hecertainlycouldnotdie forthosewhohadpreviouslyrejectedhisoffersandperished therefor.Andsincehediddieinthemiddle,whymaynotthegospelbeofferedonthesame terms to all men, as well after as before his death? The onlydifficulty lies in the fact that finite creatures are utterly unable tocomprehend the sovereign will and the unchangeable all-knowledge ofGod,whichabsolutelyshutsoutallcontingencyinrelationtothehopes,thefears,thedoubts,theresponsibilities,thestrugglesofhumanbeings.Events are contingent in themselves. But there is no contingency inrelation to the divine purpose.One event is conditioned upon another,but there are no conditions in the divine decree. God's purpose, hisdesignofredemption, likeeveryotherdivinepurpose, istimeless.Whathasbeenandwhatwillbe,whohavebelievedandwhowillbelieve,areallthe same to him. To him the believers and the elect are identical. HisdesignintheAtonementmaywithabsoluteindifferencebestatedeitherasadesigntosavetheelect,orasadesigntosaveallwhohadbelievedorwhowouldbelieveonhisSon.*

2. It is claimed that that large class of Scripture passages in which ingeneraltermsitissaidthatChrist"sufferedforall,"andgavehislifeforthe"world,"expresslyteachthatthedesignoftheAtonementwasgeneraland impersonal.Thesepassagesaresuchas the following: "For there isoneGodandoneMediatorbetweenGodandmen,themanChristJesus;whogavehimselfaransomforall,tobetestifiedinduetime."1Tim.2:5,6."Andifanymansin,wehaveanAdvocatewiththeFather,JesusChristthe righteous: and he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for oursonly,butalsoforthesinsofthewholeworld."1John2:1,2."Godsolovedtheworld,thathegavehisonly-begottenSon,thatwhosoeverbelievethinhimshouldnotperish,buthaveeverlasting life."John3:16."Forthis isgood and acceptable in the sight ofGod our Saviour;whowill have allmen tobesaved,and tocomeunto theknowledgeof the truth." 1Tim.2:3,4. "Thathemight tastedeath foreveryman." It is confessedonallsides that these phrases "all" and "world" do not of themselvesnecessarily settle the question.When it is said that "a decreewent out

fromCæsarAugustus thatall theworldshouldbe taxed"(Luke2:1),nomanunderstandsthattheterm"alltheworld"istobetakenabsolutely.Itisevidentthattheonlywayinwhichthiscontroversycanbesettledistotakeupthephrasesseverallyinwhichthesegeneraltermsareused,andsubject them, in connection with their context, to a thorough criticalexamination, in order to determine the intent of the inspiredwriter ineachpassage taken as awhole; then to do the same thingwith each ofthosepassages inwhich it isasserted,as shownabove, thatChristdiedfortheelect;andthen,byanimpartialcomparisonofthetwoclassesofpassages thus examined, to determine which class is to be takenabsolutely, andwhich is to yield to theother.For aworkof this kind Ihave neither the space nor the taste, nor is it proper, since—as Prof.MosesStuart says inapassage tobequotedbelow—such is thestateofthe question as to the usage of the words "all" and "world" in suchpassagesthatitcannotbedecidedbyanyappealtogrammarorlexicons,andbelongsrathertothefieldofthetheologianthanofthecommentator.Believing that I have settled the question on the former ground, in thediscussionjustclosedabove,IwillnowcontentmyselfwithreferringthereadertothetriumphantproofaffordedbyCandlishinthethirdchapterof the first part of his admirable work on the Atonement, that thesepassages, when rightly interpreted, do not in the least contradict ourdoctrineofadefiniteAtonement,andwithmakingthefollowingremarks.

(1.)Iwouldrecallaremarkmadeabove,thateverymanfamiliarwiththeusagecommontoallhumanlanguageswithrespecttogeneralterms,willacknowledge that particular and definite expressions must limit theinterpretationofthegeneralones,ratherthanthereverse.Itisplainlyfareasier toassignplausiblereasonswhy, ifChristdiedparticularly forhiselect,theybeingasyetscatteredamongallnationsandgenerations,andundistinguishablebyus from themassof fallenhumanity towhom thegospel is indiscriminately offered, he should be said in certainconnectionstohavediedfortheworldorforall,thanitcanbetoassignanyplausiblereasonwhy,ifhediedtomakethesalvationofallpossible,he should nevertheless be said in any connection to have died for thepurposeofcertainlysavinghiselect.

(2.) Moses Stuart—who, as a theologian, believed in a general and

indefinite Atonement—was too well informed as an exegete, and toocandidasaman,tobuildhisfaithontheclassofscripturalpassagestowhich I am referring. In his comments on Heb. 2:9, he says: "Ὑπὲρπαντὸςmeans,allmenwithoutdistinction,thatis,bothJewandGentile.The same view is often given of the death of Christ. See John 3:14–17;4:42; 12:32; 1 John 2:2; 4:14; 1 Tim. 2:3, 4; Titus 2:11; 2 Pet. 3:7.Compare Rom. 3:29, 30; 10:11–13. In all these and the like cases thewordsallandallmenevidentlymeanJewandGentile.Theyareopposedto the Jewish idea that the Messiah was connected appropriately andexclusively with the Jews, and that the blessings of the kingdom wereappropriately, if not exclusively, theirs. The sacred writers mean todeclarebysuchexpressionsthatChristdiedreallyandtrulyaswellandasmuchfortheGentilesasfortheJews;thatthereisnodifferenceatallin regard to the privileges of any onewhomaybelong to his kingdom;andthatallmenwithoutexceptionhaveequalandfreeaccessto it.Butthe considerate interpreter, who understands the nature of this idiom,willneverthinkofseeking,inexpressionsofthiskind,proofofthefinalsalvation of every individual of the human race. Nor do they, whenstrictly scanned by the usus loquendi of the New Testament, decidedirectly against the views of those who advocate what is called aparticular redemption. The question in all these phrases evidentlyrespects the offer of salvation, the opportunity to acquire it through aRedeemer; not the actual application of promises; the fulfilment isconnectedonlywithrepentanceandfaith.Butwhethersuchanoffercanbe made with sincerity to those who are reprobates (and whom theSaviourknowsareandwillbesuch),consistentlywiththegroundswhichthe advocates for particular redemptionmaintain, is a question for thetheologianratherthanthecommentatortodiscuss."

(3.) Their own canon of interpretation goes too far for evangelicalArminiansandCalvinisticadvocatesofageneralAtonement.Itiscertainthat the principle of interpretation which make the Scriptures teachuniversal atonement infallibly brings out in companywith it absolutelyuniversalsalvation."ForasinAdamalldie,evensoinChristshallallbemadealive." 1Cor. 15:22;Col. 1:20;2Cor.5:14;John12:32;Eph. 1:10;Rom.5:18,&c.TheArminianssayallbelievers.Buttheinstanttheydosothey abandon their high ground that the language of Scripture in such

casesistobetakenabsolutelyandliterally.

(4.)Rememberwhatwehaveoverandoveragainaffirmed,(a)Christdidliterallyandabsolutelydie forallmen, inthesenseofsecuringforallalengthenedrespiteandmanytemporalbenefits,moralaswellasphysical;(b)hisAtonementwassufficientforall;(c)exactlyadaptedtotheneedsof each; (d) it is offered indiscriminately to all; hence, as far as God'spreceptive will is concerned, the Atonement is universal. It is to bepreachedtoall,andtobeacceptedbyall.Itisforallasfarasdeterminingthedutyof all and layingobligationsuponall.Andpractically itmakessalvation objectively available to all upon the condition of faith. God'sdecretive will or design in making the Atonement is a very differentmatter.

3.ItisclaimedbyouropponentsthatthosepassageswhichspeakofthepossibilityofthosedyingforwhomChristdiedareinconsistentwithourdoctrine that the design of his deathwas to secure the salvation of hiselect.Thepassagesinquestionaresuchas—"Thereshallbefalseteachersamongyou,whoshallbringindamnableheresies,evendenyingtheLordthat bought them." 2 Pet. 2:1. "But if thy brother be grieved with thymeat,nowwalkest thounot charitably.Destroynothimwith thymeat,forwhomChristdied."Rom.14:15."Andthroughthyknowledgeshalltheweakbrotherperish,forwhomChristdied?"1Cor.8:11.

ThesepassagesarejustlikethoseconstantwarningswhichareaddressedinScripture to the elect,whicharedesignedasmeans to carryout andsecure that perseverance in grace which is the end of election, andtherefore are in no sense inconsistent with its certainty. "If thosepassagesareconsistentwiththecertaintyofthesalvationofalltheelect,thenthispassageisconsistentwiththecertaintyofthesalvationofthoseforwhomChristspecificallydied.ItwasabsolutelycertainthatnooneofPaul's companions in shipwreck was, on that occasion, to lose his life,because the salvation of the whole company had been predicted andpromised;andyettheapostlesaidthatifthesailorswereallowedtotakeaway their boats, those left on board could not be saved. This appealsecured the accomplishment of the promise. So God's telling the electthat if they apostatize they shall perish prevents their apostasy.And inlike manner the Bible teaching that those for whom Christ died shall

perish if they violate their conscience prevents their transgressing orbringsthemtorepentance.God'spurposesembracethemeansaswellastheend.Ifthemeansfail,theendwillfail.Hesecurestheendbysecuringthemeans. It is justascertain that those forwhomChristdiedshallbesavedasthattheelectshallbesaved.Yetinbothcasestheeventisspokenofasconditional.Thereisnotonlyapossibility,butanabsolutecertainty,thattheywillperishiftheyfallaway.ButthisispreciselywhatGodhaspromised to prevent."* Falling away (a) is the natural tendency of thehuman heart, and (b) the natural result of those sins from which theScriptureswarn us.God has left his blood-bought elect for the presentmixedindistinguishablytohumaneyewiththemassofhumanity.Toallmen thepresumption is thatChristdied forhimself and for eachothermanuntilfinalreprobationprovesthereverse.Thereforeweareallunderobligation to carry ourselves, and to regard and treat all othermen asthose for whom Christ died until the contrary is proved. And Godpreventsthenaturaltendencyofhiselecttoapostatize,inpartatleast,bymeansofthepassagesinquestion,warningthemtrulyofthenaturalandcertain effect of sin. Children ought to know that God's sovereign andeternal decrees carry the means as well as the end. If the non-electbelieves,hewillbenonethelesssavedbecauseofhisnon-election.Iftheelectdoesnotbelieveandperseveretotheend,hewillnonethemorebesavedbecauseofhiselection.

INDEX

ABELARD,269,285.

Acceptilation,doctrineof,241.

ActiveandPassiveObedience.SeeObedience

Adam,FederalHeadshipof,78–121;RealisticTheoryofourunionwith,99–107;PresidentEdwards'theoryofourrelationto,108,109;ReformedDoctrineofourrelationto,stated,112–114.

Augustine,102,272,281,373.

Amyraldus,351,360,363,375,376,378,384.

Andrea,293.

Ante-NiceneFathers,273–277.

Anselm,268,273,284,285,317.

ApplicationofRedemptionasdistinguishedfromitsImpetration,40–43.

Aquinas,Thomas,43,235,244,253,268,285.

Arians,269,372.

Arminians,373.

Athanasius,268,271,272,279.

Atonement, statement of the doctrine, 25–31; Points involved in thedoctrine of, severally stated, 44–47;God'smotive in, 29, 409–411;Thenatureof,29;Theeffectof,30,179–197;MeaningandUsageofthetermdefined, 33; Usage of the term as distinguished from the termRedemption, 41–43; A very definite doctrine of, accurately taught inScripture,194–196;Inwhatsensenecessary,234,235;Thenecessityof,proved, 234–239; The nature of, proved from the fact of its absolutenecessity,236;Theperfectionof,240–247;Securesitsownapplicationineverycase,246,247;401–405.

———The Orthodox Doctrine of, does not involve the imputation of

vindictiveness to God, 302–306; Does not exclude grace, 306, 307;Comprehendsthewholetruthtaughtbytheothertheories,andprovidesfor theproductionofamoral effect farbetter than the "MoralTheory,"319–325;Anditprovidesfortheproductionofagovernmentaleffectfarbetterthanthe"GovernmentalTheory,"331–332.

Atonement,theGovernmentalTheoryof,28,64,150,151,193,210,245,269, 298, 299, 303; Doctrine stated, 328, 329; History of, 327, 328;Theory discussed, 325–346; Advantages of, 330; Objections to, stated,331–346; Rests on a false theory of virtue, 334–338; represents thesacrificeofChristasamoralillusion,338,339;Disprovedbyitshistory,341;DevelopednotfromScripture,butfromreason,341,342;necessarilyconnectedwithafalseviewastoJustification,341;Andwithafalseviewas to the Design of the Atonement, 340, 343, 344, 366; It is as anhistoricalfactArminian,andnotCalvinistic,initsorigin,345,346.

———HopkinsianorNewEnglandTheory,328.

———"MoralInfluence,Theoryof,"28,150,193,209,210,212,231,240,266–268, 297, 303; The Theory discussed and refuted, 315–337; AsstatedbySocinus,316;As statedbyBushnell, 317;As statedbyYoung,318; Fails to account rationally for the production of the moral effectintended,319–325;Fails toprovide for the salvationof thosewhodiedbeforeChrist,326;Itiscondemnedbyitshistory,326,327.

———SocinianTheoryof,316.

———TheDesignof.SeeDesignoftheAtonement.

Augustin,373.

BÄHR,127,128.

Baird,Dr.S.J.,99.

Balmer,351,380.

Barnes,55,165.

Baur,F.Christian,389.

Baxter,Richard,364,378,384.

Beecher,Dr.Edward,95,97,165,168.

Bernard,268,272,285.

Beza,121,398.

Bonaventura,268,285.

Boston,Thomas,380.

Brown,Dr.John,351,380,381,384.

Burge,328.

Bushnell,D.D.,Horace,123,125,129,161,162,177,178,303,316,317,321.

Butler,Bishop,126.

CALVIN,268,271,273,288,289,291,374,387;Hisdoctrineas to theDesignoftheAtonement,387–391.

Calvinism,Whatisitsstandard?391,392,398.

CalvinisticUniversalists,theirpositionshowntobeillogical,416.

Calamities,howdistinguishedfromChastisements,37.

Cameron,375.

Candlish,423,425.

CatechismusRomanus,289.

Charenton,theSynodof,90.

Christ the Substitute of his people, 76, 77, 163, 164;Our sinswere laiduponhim,169–178;Heis theSurety,HeadandAdvocateofhispeople,206, 207; He secures for his people more than pardon, 223; Hisrighteousnessincludesactiveaswellaspassiveobedience,248–264;HisworkasHighPriestwasonework,heintercedesforallthoseandonlyforthoseforwhomhedied,411–413;Theobedienceof.SeeObedience.

Churches,theGreek,theRoman,theLutheran,theReformed,269,273,289.

Chrysostom,280.

Claude,BishopofTurin,268,272,283.

ClementRomanus,276.

Coleridge,S.T.,345.

Confessions of the Greek Church, 289; The Second Helvetic Confess.,292; Gallic Confess., 292, 374, 393; Belgic Confess., 293, 374, 393;WestministerConfess.,104,294,364,374;CanonsoftheSynodofDort,374,394;FrenchSynodofAlezandCharenton,374;FormulaConsensusHelvetica,103,104,295,375,396,398;TheConsensusGenevensis,389,390.

CouncilofTrent,DecreesandCanonsof,289.

CovenantofgracebetweentheFatherandtheSonineternity,406–408.

Cranmer,288.

Creationism,103,115,116.

Cunningham,D.D.,William,339,359,367,391,396.

Curcellæus,242.

CyrilofJerusalem,280.

DAILLÉ,375.

Davenant,Bishop,373,378.

Definitionoftechnicaltermsintheirestablishedsense,32–43.

DeMoor,398.

DesignorIntendedApplicationoftheAtonement,347–429;Asinvolvedin the Arminian controversy, 348–350; As involved in the controversywith Calvinistic Universalists, 350–354; The Orthodox Doctrine of,stated,355–364,384;Thequestionshownnottorelatetothesufficiencyof theAtonement,356;nor to itsuniversalapplicability,356;nor to itsuniversaloffer,357,358;Thequestion,HowtheproblemastotheDesignof theAtonement is related to the problem as to itsNature, discussed,365–370,399–403;Doctrineof,asheldbytheReformedChurches,368;And as held by the Arminians, 369;History of the doctrine of, amongCalvinists, 371–386; Augustine's opinion of, 373; View of, held by theFrenchProfessorsatSaumur,375–380;Viewof,taughtbythe"Marrow-men,"380–384;Viewof, entertainedbyCalvin, 387–391;Thedoctrineof, common to all the Reformed Churches, stated and historicallyestablished,392–398;Doctrineof, explicitly taughtby theWestminsterConfessiondemonstrated,394–396;TheOrthodoxdoctrineof,provedtobe true, 399–417; Objections to the Orthodox doctrine of, considered,418–429.

Diognetus,Epistleto,277.

Disinterestedbenevolencenotthewholeofvirtue,54,55,338.

DivineLawabsolutelyimmutable,58–67;Itspreceptsintrinsicallygood,59, 60; Penalty an essential part of, 62; Penalty literally and strictlysufferedbyChrist,65,66;AsawholefulfilledbyChrist,66.

Doctrinaldefinitionsnecessary,18–22.

Dorner,274.

DuMoulin,364.

Dwight,President,88,328.

EDWARDS,SR.,President,108,109,295.

Edwards,Jr.,Dr.,88,328.

Election,theCalvinisticdoctrineof,settlesthequestionastotheExtentoftheAtonement,414.

Emerson,87.

Emmons,88,328,384;DoctrineofJustificationof,257.

Erroralwayspartialtruth,17.

Erskine,Ebenezer,380.

Erskine,Ralph,380.

EusebiusofCæsarea,274,279.

Expiation,termdefined,39.

FABER,G.S.,274.

Faith the instrumental cause, not the ground of justification, 226, 227,232; "In"or "on"Christ the single conditionof salvation,229; includestrust, 228,229;Effectsof, 230;Scripturaldoctrineof, shownnot tobeconsistentwith theMoral Theory of the Atonement, 231;Norwith theGovernmentalview,232.

FederalRelationtothelaw,72–77HeadshipofAdam,78–121.

Fiske,D.D.,Daniel,T.,60,63,335,343.

FormulaConcordiæ,293;ConsensusHelvetica,103,104,295,375,396,398.

GENERAL reference of the Atonement as held by the "Marrow-men,"380–384.

"Gethsemane,"366.

God,hisultimatemotivestoactionalwaysself-derived,48;Holinessanessentialattributeofhisnatureaswellasofhiswill,50;Hishatredofsinproved,51;Thedifferentreasonsassignedwhyhepunishessindiscussed,53; Propitiation of, 180–184; Immutability not inconsistent with thedoctrineofPropitiation,187.

Gomarus,398.

Graceintrinsicallyoptional,57.

GregorytheGreat,281.

Grotius,Hugo,241,300,327,338,339,343;Hisideaoflaw,58.

Guilt,technicalmeaningoftermdefined,40.

HEGEL,87.

Heidegger,396.

HeidelbergCatechism,291.

History of the doctrine of theChristianChurch from the second to theeighteenth century, 265–300; of the Atonement controversy in theSecessionChurch,byRev.AndrewRobertson,383.

Hogg,James,380.

Hopkins,Samuel,88.

IMPETRATION, term defined, 40; Of redemption, how distinguishedfrom application of the same, 40, 384; Of righteousness necessarilysecuresitsapplication,246,363,364,401–405.

Impreventabilityofsin,thetheoryof,85,86.

Imputation of Adam's sin, 89, 112; Immediate and antecedent, notmediate and consequent, 89–92; New England theory of, 88–94;

Reformeddoctrineof,stated,112–114;OfoursintoChrist,174,175;OfChrist'srighteousnesstous,226;Orthodoxdoctrineof,doesnotinvolvetheabsurdfigmentofthetransferofmoralcharacter,312.

Incenseoffering,thesymbolicaldesignof,154.

Innatecorruptionandguilt,79–81.

Irenæus,279.

JENKYNontheAtonement,351,356,362,373.

JohnofDamascus,282.

Jowett,125,126–128,129,316,339.

JusticenotoptionalwithGod,57;Essentialattributeofthedivinenature,304–306.

Justification essentially forensic, 212–217; the doctrine of the greatprincipleof theReformation,217,218;Notequivalent toSanctification,217;viewof,heldbytheadvocatesoftheGovernmentalTheory,219–221,257; That it's not mere pardon, proved, 221–224; Founded on therighteousness of Christ, imputed, 224–227; It is by means of, but notfoundedupon,faith,227;Calvinisticviewof,proved,258,259;Arminianviewof,256.

JustinMartyr,277.

KNOX,John,288.

LAW. SeeDivine Law. Ceremonial andMoral, see distinction between,61; The Natural, Federal and Penal relations of, distinguished, 72–77,251;Canbesatisfiedonlywithaperfectrighteousness,225;Notrelaxedby the introductionof theschemeof redemption,241–243;Christowesnopersonalobedienceto,313.

Limborch,300.

Littononthenatureofatype,andthedistinctionbetweenatypeandasymbol,143.

Lollards,320.

Luther, 268, 273, 288, 290; Misrepresentations of his doctrine ofJustification,exposed,175.

Lutherans, 320;Doctrines of, as tohuman inability, as todivine grace,andas to the indefinitedesignof theAtonement,showntobemutuallyinconsistent,367,368.

MANICHÆISM,84,85.

Marckius,398.

MarrowofModernDivinity,380.

Maurice,Rev.Frederick,123,125,128,316,317.

Maxey,328.

Mediatorial officeofChrist,natureof,definedbyhis character asHighPriest,163,164.

Meritum,meaningoftermdefined,43.

Methodists,320.

Miller,Hugh,120.

Moravians,320.

MotiveofGodingivinghisSontodie,29,409–411.

Müller,Julius,95,97.

NEANDER,274.

Necessity of the Atonement founded on the essential attributes of the

divine nature, 236–239; And proves the Orthodox doctrine as to itsnaturetobetrue,234–239.

Nevin,D.D.,JohnW.,94.

NewEnglandTheology,88–94,384.

"NewEnglander,"54.

NiceneFathers,277–282.

NicolasofMethone,273,284,285.

OBEDIENCE, active and passive, 43; Active and passive, howdistinguished 248, 264; Active, inseparable from passive, 249, 250;Activeandpassive,donotconstitutetwodistinctsatisfactionstothelaw,butoneperfectsatisfaction,263;Perfect,demandedbythelaw,225;Bothactiveandpassive,renderedbyChrist inbehalfofhispeople,248–264;Christdidnotoweanyforhimself,262,313.

Objections to theOrthodoxdoctrine as to thenature of theAtonementstated and answered, 301–314; To theMoral Theory of the Atonementexposed,319–327;Also those to theGovernmentalTheory stated,327–346; To the Orthodox doctrine of the design of the Atonementconsidered,418–429.

Objectiveandsubjectivegrace,distinctionproposedbyAmyraldus,360,377.

Offer of the gospel to all men indiscriminately, what is involved in it,418–423.

Olevianus,291.

Orderofthedivinedecrees,376–380.

Origen,95,278.

Outram,274.

Owen,John,356,364,367,389,413.

PARK,Prof.,384.

Parker,Theodore,87.

Pelagius,373.

Pelagians,372.

PenalsatisfactionofChristafullequivalentforthepenalobligationofhispeople,243.

Penalty defined, and difference between calamities, chastisements andpenalevilspointedout,37–39;Thevainimaginationof"asubstituteforapenalty,"64;Anessentialpartoflaw,62;WasliterallysufferedbyChrist,65,66.

PerfectionoftheAtonement,240,247.

Piscator,263.

Placæus,Joshua,89,90,109.

Pœnavicaria,what,40.

Polycarp,276.

Pre-existence,theoryof,95–97.

Priests, the effect of the work of, terminated on God, 151–154; Anddirectlyeffectedremissionofsin,155;Andhaddefiniterespecttocertainpersons,155,166.

Priesthood, essential nature of, proved, 151–155; Two-fold function of,154;OfChrist, realandnotmetaphorical,156–159;Inferencesas to thenatureoftheAtonementdrawnfromthatfact,159,160.

Priestly,Dr.,303.

Probation,aperiodofinstablemoralequilibrium,73,74.

Propitiation,termdefined,39;OfGod,181–184;

Puritans,320.

QUICK'SSynodicon,379.

RANSOM,191.

Rationalists,372.

Realistic theoryof ourunionwithAdam,99–107;Provednot tobe thedoctrineoftheReformedChurches,101–104.

Reatus,orguilt,definitionofterm,40.

ReconciliationofGodtoman,179–184.

Redemption,biblicalusageofthephrase,190,193;Nottobetakeninacommercial sense, 191, 192; How related to Atonement, 195–197;Subordinateand inorder to thedecreeof election,361,362,370,375–380,389–392.

Remonstrants,269.

Richards,D.D.,James,351,384.

Righteousness of Christ proved to be the ground of justification, 224–227;OfChristincludeshisactiveaswellashispassiveobedience,248–264;ofthelaw,what,261,262.

Rivet,364,398.

SACRIFICE of Christ proved to have been of the same nature as thoseappointed by theMosaic ritual, 144–147; And declared to produce thesameeffect,147.

Sacrifices,theirdivineorigin,122–124;Theancientwereexpiatory,125;Their universality expressing the universal sentiment ofmankind, 126;

TheMosaicwerepiacular,127–143;AndweretypicalofChrist,143–148,159; Different kinds of bleeding, 130, 131; The occasions of sin andtrespass,132;Qualificationsprescribedfor,133;Significantdesignationsof,133;Ritualof,133–137;Thepromisedeffectof,137–140;Impositionofhandsandconfessionofsins,134–136;Testimonyoftheprophetsandapostles and ancient Jews and Christians to the piacular character of,140–143.

Satisfactiotermdefined,43;AsdistinguishedfromMeritum,253;

Satisfaction of Christ, the effect not the cause of the love of God, 188;Orthodoxdoctrineof,doesnotinvolvetritheisticviewsofGod,188–190;Of Christ includes his active as well as passive obedience, 248–264;Definitionandusageof,34;Securesfaith,sanctificationandeternal lifeforallforwhomhedied,401–405;Penalandpecuniary,thedistinctiondefined, 34–37;Of Christ always secures the designed effect, 39, 246–248.

Saumur,270.

Schaff,274.

Schoolmen,284,360,361,374.

Schweizer,376,414.

Scotus,Duns,241,285.

ScotusErigena,269,285.

Semi-Pelagians,372.

Shedd,D.D.,W.G.T.,99,100,274.

Sinintrinsicallyinvolvesill-desert,52–54;Anddemandspunishmentforitsown sake, 55;WhyGodpunishes it, different reasonsdiscussed, 53;Remissionof,inordertosanctification,70;Original,involvesbothinnatecorruptionandguilt,79–81;Differenttheoriesastothesourceof,statedandclassifiedanddiscussed,83–121;Itspretendedimpreventability,85,

86;Pantheistictheoryof,87;Differentsensesinwhichthewordisused,170;The imputationof, 170–174;Thebearingof thescripturalusageofthetermconsidered,176,177;Theexpiationof,184,190.

Smalley,328.

Socinus,285,306,310,316,317,338,339.

Socinians,372.

Souls,differenttheoriesastotheoriginof,discussed,114–116.

Spanheim,363.

Spring,328.

Stapfer,109.

Stuart,Moses,425,426.

St.Victor,Hugo,268,285.

Substitute,definedbyBarnes,165,169.

Substitution,definitionof,39.

SufferingsofChrist,thoughfiniteandtemporary,afullequivalentforthepenaltyofthelaw,andwhy,310.

Surety,usageoftheterm,207.

Symington,249.

SynodofFrance,National,374,378,379.

TAYLOR,John,88,127.

Taylor,D.D.,N.W.,54,304,335,384.

Testardus,363,375,378.

Thirty-nineArticlesoftheChurchofEngland,293.

"Tobearsin,"scripturalusageofthephrase,176,177.

Traducianism,103,115,116.

Turretin,Francis,64,72,102,103,356,367,376,389,396.

Twisse,Dr.,53,235.

Type,what,andhowdistinguishedfromsymbol,143.

UNION,differentkindsof,20;OfChristwithhispeople,197–211;Natureof,207,208.

Unitarians,321.

Universalofferofthegospelnot inconsistentwiththedefinitedesignoftheAtonement,358,418–423.

UniversalismusHypotheticus,doctrineof,375.

Ursinus,116,291.

VALLENSES,268,272,283,320.

Vicarious,meaningoftermdefined,39;Bushnell'sdefinitionof,161,162;UsedinthestrictestsensewhenappliedtotheworkofChrist,165–168;Vicariouspenalsufferingsnotunjust,198–201.

Virtue,thetruetheoryof,defined,54–55.

WARDLAW,351,384.

Warrant of Faith, what, 381, 382, 419, 420; Of theministerial offer ofsalvationtoallmen,what,419.

Watson,Richard,253,263,378.

Wesley,John,253.

Wessel,John,268,272,287.

WestminsterConfession,104,294,364,374,395,396;Thedoctrineof,astothedesignoftheAtonement,statedandproved,394–396.

Wycliffe,268,272,286.

Wiggers,373.

Witsius,356,367,389,398.

Works,allkindsof,excludedasagroundofjustification,325.

YOUNG,L.L.D.,John,54,67,125–129,186,188,218,219,271,273,274,275,298,303,316,317,318,326.

ZWINGLE,268,273,274,288,289.

Hodge, A. A. (1867). The atonement. Philadelphia, PA: PresbyterianBoardofPublication.