THE ATONEMENT:  ITS BIBLICAL BASIS AND HISTORY

A few general remarks are necessary in order to prepare the mind for a satisfactory study of the Atonement.

(1) It is important to include in this study, the various phases of the scriptural presentation, such as expiation, propitiation, redemption, reconciliation, and others of like character. Since the subject may be approached from so many angles, our knowledge of it will be unbalanced and fragmentary, unless we give due consideration to the wide range of material found in the New Testament. (2) It is important to guard against the fallacies which arise through abstract processes of thought. There is not a leading idea of this important subject that has not been drawn out into unprofitable abstractions. Thus the idea of penalty has been so stated as to make it necessary to regard Christ as a sinner. The idea of substitution has been so conceived as to make the atonement merely a commercial transaction. Errors have arisen also by abstracting one attribute of God from the others, and treating it as if it were the whole divine nature. Socinianism exalted the will of God, Calvinism, the justice of God. (3) A sharp distinction should be made between the fact of the atonement, and the various theories which are advanced for its explanation. Some have questioned the value of any attempt to formulate a theory of the atonement; but the word theory as it is here used simply expresses meaning, and no moral fact can be properly related to an intelligent being without it. Otherwise priestcraft would become the dominant factor in religion. Then, too, we are commanded to be able to give a reason for the hope that is within us. Christianity must stimulate, not abjure, intelligence. (4) The literature on this subject is enormous, and apart from basic facts becomes confusing and unprofitable. We shall, therefore, give primary attention to this subject as presented in the Scriptures; and following this, we shall study the various explanations as found in the history of Christian doctrine.

Foreshadowing of the Atonement in the Old Testament. The doctrine of the atonement was gradually unfolded to the world. Three principal stages in its development may be mentioned, (1) The Primitive Sacrifices; (2) The Sacrifices of the Law; and (3) The Predictions of the Prophets.

1. The Primitive Period is everywhere characterized by sacrifices. In the patriarchal story, the altar is always prominent. It is regarded as an essential element in any approach to God. While the Scriptures give us no account of the origin of sacrifice, they do give us a record of sacrificial worship, from the earliest dawn of history to the time when the sacrifices were done away by the atoning work of our Lord Jesus Christ. We may note here, (1) The Divine Origin of the Sacrifices. This is evidenced by the nature of sacrifice itself, and also from the fact, that previous to the deluge, animals were classified as clean and unclean. The strongest argument, however, is to be found in the historical record of particular sacrifices. The first is that of Cain and Abel. Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and his offering (Gen. 4:3, 4). This scripture taken in connection with Hebrews ii 4, reveals two facts: one, that the sacrifice was offered in faith; the other, that it was divinely approved. The second is the sacrifice of Noah, which he offered immediately upon leaving the ark. And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake (Gen. 8:20, 21). Here it is asserted that the sacrifice was marked by divine approbation. The third patriarchal sacrifice is that of Abraham, as recorded in an interesting account found in Genesis 15:9-21. Here it is expressly stated that Abraham offered up animal sacrifices in obedience to the command of God. The acceptance of the offering is indicated by the "burning lamp" which passed between the pieces and hallowed them. (2) The Sacrifices were regarded as Expiatory in Character. This is evidenced primarily by the prohibition of blood in the use of animal food. But the flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat (Gen. 9:4). To this was added later, the Mosaic explanation, I have given it to you upon the altar, to make an atonement for your souls." Furthermore, the end of Abel's offering was pardon and acceptance with God, for he obtained witness that he was righteous (Heb. 11:4). In the sacrifice of Noah, the ground was no more to be cursed for man's sake; and it is said of Abraham, that he believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness (Rom. 4:3). To this was added, also, the confirmatory and declaratory witness of circumcision, as a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised (Rom. 4:11). While these sacrifices had no power in themselves to atone for sin, as is clearly set forth in Hebrews 10:1-4; yet it is wrong to speak of the Old Testament sacrifices as purely ceremonial. Their efficacy lay in the power of Christ's sacrifice, to which as types and symbols, they pointed forward in faith.

2. The Sacrifices of the Law include those of the Mosaic economy. In Israel the consciousness of a need for reconciliation took on an earnest and energetic manifestation. This is shown in its distinction between evil and sin. Instead of regarding evil as unavoidable suffering, as is done in the dualistic theories; or identifying it

[A type, in a theological sense, is a sign or example prepared and designed by God to prefigure some future person or thing. It is required that it should represent this future object with more or less clearness, either by something which it has in common with the antitype, or in being a symbol of some property which it possesses; that it should be prepared and designed by God thus to represent its antitype, which circumstance distinguishes it from a simile and from a hieroglyphic; that it should give place to the antitype as soon as it appears; and that the efficacy of the antitype should exist in the type in appearance only, or in a lower degree. - Wakefield, Christian Theology, p. 352.]

with finitude or corporeity in creation, Hebraism refused to stop at physical evil and traced it back to its root in sin. It was the work of the patriarchs to keep alive this sense of dependence upon God, as the Creator of a universe at harmony with Himself. Hence the presence of evil they regarded as being due to the disorganization and ill-adjustment consequent upon disobedience and sin. It was this consciousness of dependence upon God's power, that made possible the further advance to a stage of law, in which it becomes a dependence upon God's will. Thus it took on a moral character. In the new economy, also there was a further appeal to man's freedom. The universal law of conscience necessarily took on added importance, and at the same time developed a consciousness of sin and a need for atonement. We may note three things in this connection. (1) The Law demanded Holiness. It said, Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them (Lev. 18:5). This might have been understood to mean that man was to obtain righteousness solely by his own efforts, had the law regarded him as being free from sin. But this the law did not do. It regarded all men as guilty before God, and demanded an expiation for past sins. Since holiness was demanded by present obligation, past guilt could not be expiated by mere amendment of life. It necessitated forgiveness. It was found also, that the law but increased the knowledge of sin, and therefore revealed increasingly, the need for expiation. (2) The Institution of Sacrifice. It was

[It was the object of God in appointing these sacrifices, (a) That they should release from the civil punishment of certain crimes. The commission of a crime rendered one unworthy of the community of holy people, and excluded him from it. The offering of sacrifice was the means by which he was externally readmitted to the Jewish community, and rendered externally pure; although he did not, on this account, obtain the pardon of his sin from God. It was designed that all who offered sacrifice should by this act, both make a public confession of their sins, and at the same time see before them, in the sacrifice, the punishment which they had deserved, and to which they acknowledged themselves exposed. Hence sins were said to be laid upon the victim, and borne away by it when sacrificed. (b) Another end of the sacrifices appointed by Moses was, as we are taught in the New Testament, to point the Israelites to the future, and to prefigure by types the greater divine provision for the recovery of the human race, and to excite in the Israelites a feeling of their need for such a provision. - Knapp, Chr. Th., p. 381.]

through the stated sacrifices for the people that the entire national life of Israel was environed by a gracious presence of the divine Spirit. There is deep significance in the fact that the atonement attached to the religious community, and that the sacrifices did not avail for those who separated themselves. It is indicated here that there is a common racial depravity out of which all personal transgressions spring; and that it was for this "sin of the world" that the Lamb of God was to make atonement. Dr. Dorner thinks that the notion of expiatory sacrifice as a real self-efficient substitute for man is baseless. Also that the idea is false which would make the words "to cover" apply in the sense of an equivalent, and thus pay the debt by mulcta. This he says, would break down completely, the idea of expiatory sacrifice; for one could scarcely speak of forgiveness if full satisfaction had been made (cf. Dorner, Syst. Chr. Doct., III, pp. 404, 405). The word which is translated sacrifice, or atonement, signifies in Hebrew "to cover" or "to hide." Since the holiness of Jehovah is His unapproachable majesty, it is thought that the word "to cover" is intended to convey the idea of a defensive covering for those who would approach Him. The primary idea of sacrifice then, is propitiation. After the imposition of hands, the slaying of the sacrifice had reference to the significance of death as a fundamental concept of the Old Testament. Following this, the offering of the blood had a two-fold significance: it was a representation of the pure life which the sinner should have; and it was an atonement made expiatory through death only. Thus the sacrificial lamb became a symbol of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, whose life poured out in its richer, fuller measure, atoned for the sin of the world. Him, God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God (Rom. 3:25).

But we must not pass by the fact also, that it was the life poured out that was pleasing to God. It was the life separated from the body that commanded the attention of God as He saw it in the blood. This was a "sweet savour" to him. The continuation of the penalty of death in respect to the body. Thus St. Paul declares that the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness (Rom. 8:10). But he follows this immediately with another declaration, that in the resurrection of Jesus, the consequences if sin still remaining in the physical realm, shall be removed in the restoration of all things. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you(Rom. 8:11); For the earnest expectation of the creature [the whole creation] waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.... Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God (Rom. 8:19,21). (3) The Messianic Idea. The animal sacrifices of the Mosaic economy, not only pointed to Christ as the great antitype, but they were a revelation of a true nature of human sacrifice. They taught not merely the sacrifice of man himself in a subjective sense, but also that he himself should be the offerer, that is, self-sacrifice. Human sacrifices were prohibited, for these would merely have sacrificed other, and thus have been a mere caricature of the sacrificial idea. And even were it possible for man to offer himself as a perfect sacrifice, he is not qualified as a perfect offerer. Hence, from both the objective and subjective viewpoint, no man could atone for his own sins. Further still, it was impossible upon this ground, for the Old Testament priesthood and kingship to furnish expiatory security for the nation. This could be done only by the Righteous Servant of Jehovah. Hence there developed in Israel, the Messianic idea. It was the Messiah alone who could become the security for the nation, because he was absolutely the Righteous One. He alone could satisfy the righteousness of God, for He only as the incarnate One could personally manifest the unity of God and man. Thus the nation's center must be in Him as the personal manifestation of the covenant, the seed that should come. Since then, the divine thought of the nation centered in Him, there was given to Him also, the power to call forth a new and holy race - not now limited to Israel only, but extended to all mankind. It was only as Christ became a light to lighten the Gentiles, that He became the glory of Israel. The sacrifices of the law revealed the vicarious death of the Messiah, but this was fully developed only in the prophetic era. Outwardly, the Messiah bore the punishment due our sins, and inwardly suffered the chastening of His Spirit in intercession. But since He answered for man's guilt, righteousness may also be implanted by Him. Thus through the restoration of the Holy Spirit, given again to the race in Christ, holiness and righteousness are again made possible, and the idea of kingship is reborn by the inner communication of strength through the Spirit.

3. The Predictions of the Prophets supplemented the sacrifices of the law. The prophets developed more fully the Messianic idea, and with it the idea of His sacrificial sufferings and death. They saw in Him a living totality of truth. Being the God-man, in whom are conjoined Deity and humanity, there is in His consciousness the full range of all truth. His individual words and acts, therefore, spring from that indivisible whole. Thus

[There is one other application of the high-priestly function of our Lord to which it is important in this place to refer, however slightly. The entire scheme of the Christian atonement belongs to this office of Messiah. Not as the Teacher, nor as the Ruler, does He save the world: save as teaching the principles of His sacrificial work and administering the blessings it has purchased. It will hereafter be shown how much the doctrine of the atonement is bound up with the divine government of a Lawgiver who administers His law in a new court, the Court Mediatorial. There He exacts and receives what theological language terms satisfaction. But it must always be remembered that the temple is the true sphere of atoning sacrifice. The evangelical hall of judgment is no other than a court of the temple. And it is something more than a mystical fancy which regards the veil as separating between the outer sanctuary where the oblation that satisfies justice is offered, and the holiest where it is presented for divine acceptance. Our Lord's Atonement is the sacrificial obedience, or the obedient sacrifice which hath put away sin: the obedience was rendered in the outer court where blood reigns unto death, the sacrifice was offered in the inner shrine where mercy reigns unto life. In Christ all these things are one. And the unity is the main object of the evangelical discussion of the Epistle to the Hebrews. - Pope, Compend. Chr. Th., II, pp. 247, 248.]

particular truths are blended with the universal, and the individual is set in proper relation to the race. It was for this reason that it is written, He knew what was in men. It is because all men have an essential relation to Him, that His words have so piercing and familiar a tone. "This is the wondrous charm of His words," says Dorner, "their unfathomable, mysterious depth despite all their simplicity, that they are ever uttered, so to speak, from the heart of the question; for the harmony which binds together and comprehends in one view the opposite ends of things, is livingly and consciously present to Him, since everything is related to His kingdom. Other words of men this or that man might have spoken; nay, most that is spoken or done by us is merely a continuation of others through us, we are simply points of transmission for tradition. But the words which He drew from within - these precious gems, which attest the presence of the Son of man, who is the Son of God - have an originality of a unique order; they are His, because taken from that which is present in Him" (Dorner, Syst. Chr. Doct., III, pp. 397, 398). For this reason, He fills out the Old Testament types and forms, giving to them their true spiritual content. He is the manifestation of personal truth and eternal life, and therefore becomes the goal toward which all men should strive. This profound truth He himself declared when He said, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me (John 14:6).

Perhaps the highest reach of spiritual truth in the Old Testament is to be found in Isaiah's remarkable prophecy concerning the suffering Servant of Jehovah. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all....Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities (Isaiah 53:4-6, 10, 11). Nothing greater has ever been written. While Isaiah speaks of Christ primarily under the figure of a lamb there is doubtless also an allusion to the scapegoat upon which the priest laid his hands, confessed over it the sins of the people and sent it away into the wilderness. But no language can be plainer than that He bore the punishment due our sins, and hence His sacrifice was vicarious and expiatory. He was stricken, smitten, wounded, bruised, and chastised - language which can only indicate that His sufferings were penal inflictions for our sins. And since by His stripes we are justified and healed, His death must in the truest and deepest sense be regarded as propitiatory.

The New Testament Conception of Sacrifice. The conception of Christ's atoning sacrifice as found in the New Testament is simply the completion of that foreshadowed in the Old Testament. For this reason, Christ is described as having died according to the Scriptures. Our Lord himself represents His death as a ransom for men. He laid down His life voluntarily, for no man had power to take it from Him. Hence we must regard the crucifixion not merely as an occurrence brought about by mere circumstances, but as the great end for which He came into the world. He was not merely a martyr to truth; His death was sacrificial and propitiatory. Perhaps the most elaborate treatment of the expiatory death of Christ, is that set forth by St. Paul in Romans 3:21-26. Here Christ is regarded as a propitiatory sacrifice which is accepted of God for all men in such a manner that He is Himself shown to be just, and yet can be the Justifier of all those who put their faith in the efficacy of that

[It is therefore evident that the Prophet Isaiah, six hundred years before the birth of Jesus; that John the Baptist, on the commencement of His ministry; and that St. Peter, His friend, companion and apostle, subsequent to the transaction; speak of Christ's death as an atonement for sin, under the figure of a lamb sacrificed. - WATSON, Dictionary.]

death. The word which is here used for propitiation is hilastrion (ilasthpion), a word which was employed by the Septuagint to signify the lid of the ark, or the mercy-seat. As this was sprinkled with the blood of the sacrifice, so the mercy-seat of the gospel is that which is sprinkled with the precious blood of Christ. The substitute endures the punishment which otherwise would fall upon the guilty themselves. According to this use, the blood of Christ becomes an expiation or a covering which protects the offerer from the wrath of God through the substitution of another life. While the voluntariness of Christ's sacrifice is held out as a constraining motive for the loving self-surrender of men to God, we must never relax our belief in the priestly work of Christ, as offering less than a real objective sacrifice to God. The death of Christ is never represented as merely a means of propitiation, but as an actual propitiatory sacrifice. That the Passover lamb was an objective sacrifice cannot be doubted, and the sprinkling of the blood essential to salvation. So also it is said, that Christ appears in the presence of God for us (Heb. 9:24), or in our behalf. There is no vicarious substitution in the sense of a discharge of all its beneficiaries from an obligation to righteousness. Christ appears for us, that is as the second Adam, the representative of the human race, and the Head of the new creation. It is on this basis of representation that the idea of substitution must be considered. It is impossible, therefore, to interpret the atoning work of Christ apart from His person. The Scriptures

[Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us, as it were on the 14th Nisan, and rose the First Fruits, as it were on the 16th Nisan - and marking that the Synoptists speak of the day of crucifixion as the preparation of the great Sabbath of 15th Nisan, and not on the feast day itself, we are led to the conclusion that the Last Supper was, as St. John records, before the Feast of the Passover, and that the Crucifixion took place on Friday, the 14th Nisan. The disciples who, according to the Synoptists, on the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, put their question, "Where wilt Thou that we prepare for Thee to eat the Passover?" prepared the meal on the 14th Nisan, but before the 13th had ended, that is, on the evening of Thursday, the 13th Nisan, and on that same evening the Lord anticipated the Passover which He so much desired to eat with them. The exact date of the world's redemption may, with near approach to absolute certainty, be assigned to the Friday, 18th of March, 14th Nisan, in the year of Rome 782, A.D. 29. - Pope, Compend. Chr. Th., II, p. 160.]

nowhere teach that the sinlessness of Christ merely gave Him a unique position as an individual in the race. They teach that Christ takes the place of sinners as a whole. His sacrifice was the equivalent for all who had come under the penalty of death by reason of sin. His death, therefore, has a universal significance, and this because of His divine nature. By virtue of this divine nature, the sinless humanity of the God-man reaches as far and as wide as the humanity to which it belongs. The death of Christ is not, therefore, to be limited merely to moral influence as an external and constraining power, but must be regarded as a propitiatory offering which avails for the remission of sins. Since the doctrine of the atonement must be drawn largely from the teachings of the New Testament, we shall give the subject more extended treatment in our next division.

THE BIBLICAL BASIS OF THE ATONEMENT

It is to the Scriptures that we must turn in order to establish the Christian idea of atonement through the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ. Having considered first, the Foreshadowing of the Atonement in the Old Testament; and second, made some general statements concerning the New Testament Conception of Sacrifice, we turn now to a more critical examination of the Scriptures on this important subject. We shall consider (1) The Motive of Atonement; (2) its Vicariousness; and (3) its Scriptural Terminology.

The Motive for the Atonement Is Found in the Love of God. This is sometimes known as the moving cause of redemption. The most prominent text in this connection is the epitome of the gospel found in John 3:16. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son; and again in the following verse, For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved (John 3:17). This is shown also in the following verses from the epistles of St. Paul and St. John. But God commended his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8); and In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him (I John 4:9) The atonement, whether in its motive, its purpose, or its extent must be understood as the provision and expression of God's righteous and holy love. Christ's life and death are the expression of God's love for us, not the producing cause of that love.

The Death of Christ Was a Vicarious Sacrifice. In the words of Mr. Watson, "Christ suffered in our room and stead, or as a proper substitute for us." This is shown by those scriptures which declare that He died for men, or that connect His death with the punishment due our offenses. There are two Greek prepositions which are translated "for" in the Scriptures. The first is hyper (uper) and is found in the following verses: It is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people (John 11:50); Christ died for the ungodly While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:6, 8); if one died for all, then were all dead [or died]....And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him that died for them, and rose again....For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him (2 Cor. 5:14, 15, 21); who gave himself for our sins (Gal. 1:4); Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us (Gal. 3:13); hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour....Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it

[The second Adam also takes the place of humanity; and His sacrificial work must be looked upon as the actual work of humanity itself (satisfactio vicaria). But our innermost consciousness demands that the righteousness and obedience rendered, should not only be without us in another, but should also become personally our own. Now this demand is satisfied by the fact that Christ is our Redeemer as well as our Reconciler: our Savior who removes sin by giving a new life to the race, by establishing a living fellowship between Himself and mankind. All merely external and unspiritual confidence in the atonement arises from a desire to take Christ as Reconciler without taking Him as Redeemer and Sanctifier. The gospel, "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself," must not be separated from the following call, "Be ye reconciled to God!" that is, "appropriate to yourselves the reconciliation accomplished in Christ, by the healing and purifying, the life-giving and sanctifying power which emanates from Christ!" - Martensen, Chr. Dogm., pp. 307, 308]

(Eph. 5:2, 25); our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us (1 Thess. 5:9, 10); who gave himself a ransom for all (1 Tim. 2:6); that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man (Heb. 2:9). The second Greek preposition is anti (anti) and is found in such verses as Matt. 20:28 and Mark 10:45, where Christ is said to give his life a ransom for many. It is sometimes objected that these Greek prepositions do not always signify substitution; that is, that they do not always mean instead of, but are sometimes used as in behalf of, or on account of. Thus we have the expression "Christ died for our sins," which cannot of course mean instead of in this instance. However, that these prepositions are generally used in the sense of substitution, both Watson and Wakefield clearly show (Cf. Note, WAKEFIELD, Chr. Th., p. 359). The vicarious or substitutionary death of Christ is known in theology as the "procuring cause" of salvation.

The Scriptures regard the sufferings of Christ as a propitiation, a redemption, and a reconciliation. As being under the curse of the law, the sinner is guilty and exposed to the wrath of God; but in Christ his guilt is expiated and the wrath of God propitiated. The sinner is under the bondage of Satan and sin, but through the redemptive price of the blood of Christ, he is delivered from bondage and set at liberty. The sinner is estranged from God, but is reconciled by the death on the cross. These scriptures are peculiarly rich and satisfying.

1. Propitiation is a term drawn from the Kapporeth or Mercy-seat as used in the Old Testament scriptures. To propitiate is to appease the wrath of an offended person, or to atone for offenses. The term hilasmos (ilasmoV ) is used in three different senses in the New Testa-

[With reference to the use of the Greek prepositions translated "for," Dr. Wakefield makes the following statement: "All this may be granted but it is nevertheless certain that there are numerous texts of scripture' in which these particles can be interpreted only when taken to mean 'instead of,' or 'in the place of.' When Caiaphas said, 'It is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not' (John 11:50) he plainly taught that either Christ or the nation must perish; and that to put the former to death would be to cause Him to perish instead of the latter. In Romans 5:6-8 the sense in which 'Christ died for us' is indubitably fixed by the context." - Wakefield, Chr. Th., p. 359.]

ment. (1) Christ is the ilasmoV , at once the Propitiator and the virtue of that propitiation. He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world (I John 2:2); He loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins (I John 4:10). (2) He is the hilastarion (ilasthpion) or Mercy-seat as the word is used in the Septuagint. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood (Rom. 3:25). (3) Where the adjective is used, then the term thuma (quma) is understood as in Hebrews 2:17, where the High Priest is said to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. Here the term is hilastarion (ilasthpion) and the correct meaning is "to make propitiation for the sins of the people."

2. Redemption is from the word which means literally ""to buy back." The terms lutroo (lutrow) and apolutrosis (apolutrwsiV ) meaning to redeem and redemption respectively, were used by the ancient Greeks and also by the New Testament writers, to signify the act of setting a captive free through the payment of a lutron (lutron) or redemptive price. The terms therefore came to be used in the broader sense of a deliverance from every kind of evil, through a price paid by another. This is the true scriptural meaning as shown in the following texts: Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus (Rom. 3:24); For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit which are God's (1 Cor. 6:20); Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that han geth on a tree (Gal. 3:13); In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace (Eph. 1:7); Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot (1 Peter 1:18, 19); For thou wast slain, and has redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation (Rev. 5:9). The death of Christ is the redemptive price, who gave his life a ransom (lutron) for many (Matt. 20:28); and He gave himself a ransom (antilutron) for all (1 Tim. 2:6). Here the idea of substitution is clearly evident - one thing is paid for another, the "blood of Christ" for the redemption of captives and condemned men.

3. Reconciliation is from the verbs katallasso (katallassw) or apokatallasso (apokatallassw), both of which are translated "to reconcile." Primarily they denote a change from one state to another, but as used in the Scriptures, this is a change from a state of enmity to one of reconciliation and friendship. The Apostle Paul uses this term freely. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement [or reconciliation, katallaghv] (Rom. 5:10, 11); And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us unto himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18, 19); And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby (Eph. 2:16); And having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight (Col. 1:20-22). Here it is clearly evident that the reconciliation between God and men is effected by Christ. But reconciliation means more than merely laying aside our enmity to God. The relation is a judicial one, and it is this judicial variance between God and man that is referred to in the idea of reconciliation. Moreover, the reconciliation is effected, not by the laying aside of our enmity but by the non-imputation of our trespasses to us. This previous reconciliation of the world to Himself by the death of His Son, is to be distinguished also from "the word of reconciliation" which is to be proclaimed to the guilty, and by which they are entreated to be reconciled unto God.

EARLIER HISTORY OF THE ATONEMENT

The Patristic Doctrine. The apostolic fathers taught that Christ gave himself for our sins, but they did not formulate their views into any definite theory of the atonement. Their successors held every variety of opinion, and on this subject variety was tolerated. The most popular view was that which regarded the atonement as a victory over Satan. This position seems to have been first advanced by Irenæus (c. 200 ?) and was based upon such scriptures as Colossians 2:15 and Hebrews 2:14. It was Origen (185-254), however, who first converted the idea into the theory of a ransom paid to Satan. He held that men had surrendered to Satan and could not, therefore, be delivered from captivity without his consent. Satan was deluded when he accepted Christ as a ransom. The humanity of Christ was the bait, and His divinity the hook by which Satan was caught. Fearing the effect on his captives of the life and teachings of Jesus, and seeing the divine glory of the Lord through the veil of His flesh so obscurely as to be deceived, Satan undertook to rid himself of the danger by putting Christ to death. But to cause the crucifixion was

[The earlier fathers followed very closely the words of scripture in their references to the atonement. Thus Clement of Rome, sometimes identified with the Clement mentioned by St. Paul in Philippians 4:3, says, "On account of the love He bore us, Jesus Christ gave His blood for us by the will of God; His flesh for our flesh, and His soul for our souls" (Chap. xlix). The doctrine of Paul is faithfully reproduced also in the Epistle of Barnabas, where it is stated that "The Lord endured to deliver his body to death, that we might be sanctified by the remission of sins which is the shedding of that blood" (Epistola, 5). Ignatius (c. 116) the pupil of St. John declares that we "have peace through the flesh and blood, and passion of Jesus Christ" (Ad Ephesos, 1). Polycarp (c. 168) likewise acquainted with St. John is more specific. "Christ is our Savior; for through grace we are righteous, not by works; for our sins, He has even taken death upon Himself, has become the servant of us all, and through His death for us our hope, and the pledge of our righteousness. The heaviest sin is unbelief in Christ; His blood will be demanded of unbelievers; for to those to whom the death of Christ, which obtains the forgiveness of sins, does not prove a ground of justification, it proves a ground of condemnation" (Ad. Philippos, i, 8).]

to accept the ransom; the captives were released and the Deliverer escaped. This position finds even more exact statements in Gregory of Nyssa (c. 395). Dr. Banks thinks that this theory in its unqualified form was held only by Gregory, and that it was qualified in the writings of Irenæus and Augustine, either by being shorn of its objectional features, or by being held in conjunction with a propitiation made to God. Dorner, Kahnis and Sheldon hold to the same opinion. Thus, Augustine says, "God the Son, being clothed with humanity, subjugates even the devil to man, extorting nothing from him by violence, but overcoming him by the law of justice; for it would have been injustice if the devil had not had the right to rule over the beings whom he had taken captive." While the approach to this subject is made through the concepts of war and conquest, there are two terms which stand out clearly, that of "honor" and "satisfaction"; and in the later period of chivalry, these took on even greater meaning in their religious application. In the Latin Church, however, the theory of a ransom offered

[The position of Irenæus (c. 200) is thus given in his own words. "The Word of God (the Logos), omnipotent and not wanting in essential justice, proceeded with strict justice even against the apostasy or kingdom of evil itself (apostasiam) redeeming it (ab ea) that which was Ills own originally, not by using violence, as did the devil in the beginning, but by persuasion (secundum suadelam), as it became God, so that neither justice should be infringed upon, nor the original creation of God perish" (Adversus Hæreses i.1). Dr. Shedd points out that two interpretations of this phraseology are possible. The "persuasion" may be referred to Satan, or to man; and the "claims" alluded to, may be regarded as those of the devil, or of law and justice. Against the first interpretation which is urged by the rationalistic school, Dr. Shedd in common with most orthodox writers, maintains that the second interpretation is without doubt the correct one.

Christ's sacrifice is frequently referred to as offered to God for a propitiation. Eusebius says, "That as a victim of God, as a great sacrifice, He might be offered to the Most High for the whole world." Basil also says, "The only begotten Son, who gives life to the world, since He offers himself to God as a victim and oblation for our sins, is called the Lamb of God." "The blood of Christ," says Ambrose, "is the price paid for all, by which the Lord Jesus, who alone has reconciled the Father, has redeemed us." "We were enemies of God through sin, and God had decreed that the sinner should die. One of two things, therefore, was necessary: either God, remaining true, must destroy all, or, using clemency, must annul the sentence issued. But behold the wisdom of God. He maintained both the sentence and the exercise of His goodness. Christ bore our sins in His own body on the tree, so that we, through His death, dead to sins, might live unto righteousness." - City of Jerusalem.]

to Satan never became current, although it was generally admitted that Satan had usurped rights over the apostate race. Leo regarded this usurpation as a tyrannical right, and Gregory the Great held that it was only a seeming right. They maintained, however, that these rights were lost, not by virtue of a contract but through the death of Christ. "Certainly it is just," says Augustine, "that we whom he held as debtors should be dismissed free by believing in Him whom he slew without any debt" (De Trin. xiii, 14).

Athanasius (325-373) is supposed to have been the first to propound the theory that the death of Christ was the payment of a debt due to God. His argument may be briefly stated as follows: God having threatened death as the penalty of sin, would have been untrue, had He not fulfilled His promise. But it would have been unworthy of divine goodness, had He allowed rational beings to whom He had imparted His Spirit to incur death as a consequence of an imposition practiced on them by Satan. Seeing, then, that nothing but death could solve the dilemma, the Word, who could not die, assumed a mortal body, and having fulfilled the law by His death, offered His human nature a sacrifice for all.

It is during this earlier period also, that we first notice a trend toward belief in predestination and a limited atonement. Apart from Augustine and his followers, it was the common belief that Christ died for all, and that it was the unfeigned will of God that all men should partake of salvation through Him. The fact that some are saved and some are not, was explained by reference to man's free agency and not by electing grace. Augustine, himself, distinctly advocated this position at first, but in his controversy with the Pelagians adopted a strictly monergistic system. He held to the total inability of man to exercise good works, and hence, until the individual

[Dr. Sheldon thinks that it is a gross and amazing persistent slander, that for a thousand years the Church knew no other theory of the redemptive work than that which teaches the payment of a ransom to Satan. He says that in both the Greek and Latin churches, the relation of the redemptive work to Satan was only one aspect among many which received attention. - Cf. Sheldon, Hist. Chr. Doct., I, pp. 121-124, 251-257, 362-367.]

was regenerated, there was no power to exercise faith. Grace, therefore, was bestowed solely upon the elect through effectual calling, and the atonement limited to those for whom it availed. Previous to this time, synergism had been the dominant theory, i. e., that the individual in his recovery from sin, works with God through grace universally bestowed as a free gift, in such a manner as to condition the result.

The Anselmic Theory of the Atonement. Anselm (1033-1109) in the latter part of the eleventh century, published his epoch-making book "Cur Deus Homo," in which he gave the first scientific statement to those views of the atonement, which from the beginning had been held implicitly by the fathers. Here the idea of satisfaction to divine justice became the leading formula, and the "satisfaction theory" of the atonement is still called by his name. While giving even a more prominent place than the earlier fathers to such terms as "honor," "justice," ""satisfaction" and "merit," Anselm rejected wholly, the theory of a ransom paid to Satan. This he disposed of in the following brief words: "Was it the law of Satan we had transgressed? Was he the judge that cast us into prison? Was it he to whom we were indebted? Was it ever heard that the ransom price of redemption was paid to the jailer? Whether any of the ancients said so or not, I shall not now trouble myself to inquire, or in what sense they said it; the thing in itself is ridiculous and blasphemous." Anselm's own theory may be stated as follows: Sin violates the divine honor, and deserves infinite punishment since God is infinite. Sin is guilt or a debt, and under the government of God, this debt must be paid. This necessity is grounded in the infinite perfections of God. Either adequate satisfaction must be provided, or vengeance must be exacted. Man cannot pay this debt, for he is not only

[The church at large, as in the previous period, regarded predestination, so far as it is connected with man's moral destiny, as conditioned by foreknowledge. Augustine himself at one time distinctly advocated this position, saying that God chose those who He foreknew would believe, and conjoining with this statement that believing lies in man's power. First man believes, he said, and then God gives grace for good works. - Sheldon, Hist. Chr. Doct, I, p. 258.]

finite, but morally bankrupt through sin. Adequate satisfaction being impossible from a being so inferior to God as man is, the Son of God became man in order to pay the debt for us. Being divine, He could pay the infinite debt; and being both human and sinless, could properly represent men. But as sinless He was not obliged to die, and owing no debt on His own account, He received as a reward of His merit, the forgiveness of our sins. "Can anything be more just," he says, "than for God to remit all debt, when in this way He receives a satisfaction greater than all debt, provided it be offered only with the right sentiment?" It should be noted here, that Christ renders satisfaction to divine justice, not by bearing the penalty of a broken law in the sinner's place, but indirectly by the acquisition of merit. The sacrifice of Christ being infinite, was of greater value than the demerit of sin, and consequently this merit accrues to Christ, and overflows to all who believe. This merit when received in faith becomes the justification of men, and is transferred to them or placed to their account. As such it offsets the demands of justice, in so far as those demands were a fixed barrier against the forgiveness of sins. Thus the divine justice was satisfied, but only in the sense that it secured the honor of that justice, notwithstanding the offer of the forgiveness of sins. Anselm, it will be seen, makes the redeeming work of Christ to center in His voluntary death.

[Dr. A. A. Hodge states Anselm's doctrine of the atonement as follows: "He taught that sin is debt (guilt); that, under the government of God, it is absolutely necessary that his debt should be paid, i.e., that the penalty incurred by the guilt of sin should be suffered; that this necessity has its ground in the infinite perfections of the divine nature; that this penalty must be inflicted upon the sinner in person, unless a substitute can be found having all legal qualifications for his office. This was alone realized in Jesus Christ, a divine person embracing a human nature."

Dr. Sheldon states the theory in these words: "Christ incarnate, then, appears as perfect God and perfect man. As a sinless being, He is under no obligation to die. Consequently, in voluntarily surrendering Himself to death He establishes a merit - a merit proportioned to the dignity of His person, and fully adequate to offset man's demerit. So great a merit deserved an extraordinary reward. But Christ, as being already possessor of all things, needed no gift for Himself. It remained accordingly, that He should be allowed to elect man to receive the benefits which had been purchased by His sacrifice. - Sheldon, Hist. Chr. Doct., I, p. 363.]

The Theory of Abelard. Abelard (1079-1142) differed widely from Anselm in his theory of the atonement. He maintained that it was the rebellion of man that needed subduing, and not the wrath of God that needed propitiating. In place of a satisfaction to divine justice, he held that the atonement should be regarded as a winning exhibition of the divine love. To him, benevolence was the only attribute concerned in redemption. Redemption like creation was by divine fiat, and therefore sin could be abolished and the sinner restored to favor by the will of God, without any need of satisfaction or propitiation. Christ died for the twofold purpose of subduing the opposition of sinners and removing their guilty fears, through a transcendent exhibition of divine love. Abelard's position became the basis of the later Socinianism, and was adopted also by those trinitarian divines, who in modern times have held some form of the moral influence theory of the atonement.

Scholastic Developments. In the history of the atonement, the scholastic period is of importance in that it marks the beginning of those trends which later devel-

[Dr. Sheldon says that Abelard did not discard altogether the sacrificial aspect of Christ's work, or the idea of imputed merit. He recognized in some sense, a vicarious efficacy in the merit acquired by Christ, inasmuch as this comes into supplement, in the sight of God, the deficiency of merit in the elect, or the imperfection of that love which is called forth in them by the revelation of divine love. But this is a subordinate consideration. Love revealed and drawing to returning love, this is the essence of Abelard's theory of the redemptive work of Christ. "Our redemption," says Abelard, "is that supreme love wrought in us by the passion of Christ, which not only frees us from the servitude of sin, but acquires for us the true liberty of the sons of God; so that we fulfill all requirements rather through love than the fear of Him who has exhibited toward us so great a grace - a grace than which there is no greater, according to His own testimony, cannot be found." - Sheldon, Hist. Chr. Doct., I, p. 365.

Abelard was the chief opponent of Anselm; and may be said to have been the founder of a theory of the atonement which shuts out the deepest mystery of the cross. He referred the Christian redemption only to the love of God as its source; and taught that there could be nothing in the divine essence which absolutely required satisfaction for sin. Redemption like creation was a fiat: equally sure, equally free, and equally independent of anything in the creature. The influence of the work of Christ, as accomplished on the cross, and carried on in His intercession, is moral only subduing the heart, awakening repentance, and leading the soul to the boundless mercy of God whose benevolence is the only attribute concerned in the pardon of sin. - Pope, Compend. Chr. Th., II, 305.]

oped into the Tridentine Soteriology of the Roman Catholic Church, and the strict penal satisfaction theory of the earlier Protestant reformers. Peter Lombard (1100-1164) accepted the position of Abelard and opposed that of Anselm. He held that the work of Christ must be supplemented by baptism and penance, and in this we find the secret of the popularity of his Liber Sententiarum in the Roman Catholic Church. Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153) and Hugh of St. Victor (c. 1097-1141) adopted in the main, the position of Anselm. Bernard, however, hesitates to denominate sin as an "infinite evil," and as a consequence does not distinctly assert the intrinsic necessity for an atonement. He prefers to hold with Augustine, a relative necessity founded upon the optional will and arrangement of God. Hugo more nearly approached the Anselmic position, combining both the legal and sacrificial elements in his idea of propitiation. "The Son of God," he says, "by becoming a man, paid man's debt to the Father, and by dying expiated man's guilt." It was Bonaventura (1221-1274) and Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-1274) who largely shaped the theology of the Roman Catholic Church. The teachings of the two are very similar, but Thomas Aquinas being the stronger systematizer, occupies the more prominent position. Several new developments are found in his theology. (1) He held that merit and demerit are strictly personal, and therefore in order to substantiate the idea of vicarious satisfaction, he advanced his idea of the unio mystica, or mystical union existing between Christ and the

[Aquinas attached great importance to the substitutionary value of the pain which Christ endured. In one of his eucharistic hymns he says,

"Blood, of which one drop, for human-kind outpoured,

Might from all transgression have the world restored."

This was characteristic of the age immediately preceding the Reformation. In several hymns of the fifteenth century, not only the cross, but the nails, the spear and other instruments of His passion appear as the actual objects of worship. Later in Protestantism, the suffering of Christ attaches more to His mental anguish. Æpinus (1533) declares that Christ's soul endured the punishments of hell while His body lay in the grave! The Heidelberg Catechism (1563) affirms that He bore the divine wrath during the whole period of His earthly life. Calvin rejected altogether, the ancient doctrine of Christ's descent into hell, explaining the passages bearing on this point as referring to the extreme anguish of His soul. (Cf. Crippen, Hist. Chr. Doct., pp. 136, 138.)]

Church. He based his doctrine upon the statement in Ephesians 5:30, maintaining that this relation is different from any existing in secular life. It is not the external relation which exists between individuals, but is one in which there is a communion of interest and moral life. Thus a sinner united by faith to the Savior may become the ground and cause of judicial infliction upon his atoning Substitute, and in turn, the incarnate Word may become the sinner's propitiation. This idea of the mystical oneness of Christ and the Church pervades his soteriology. (2) He made a distinction also, between satisfactio and meritum, the former applying to the sufferings of Christ as a satisfaction to divine justice, the latter to the merit of His obedience, by which the redeemed are entitled to the rewards of eternal life. He thus anticipated the later distinction in Calvinistic theology, between the "active" and "passive" righteousness of Christ. (3) He taught the doctrine of the superabundance of the merits of Christ. While this seemed to honor the atonement, in reality it resulted in a lower estimate of sin, and led directly to the Roman Catholic theory of supererogation, with a treasury of merit at the command of the Church. (4) He departed from the Anselmic theory of an absolute as distinguished from a relative satisfaction. This resulted in a theory of justification, resting partly upon the work of Christ and partly upon the works of the individual. The lax theory gradually gained in the Roman Catholic Church until it finally obtained ecclesiastical authority in the Soteriology of Trent. But there were developing also, those forces which finally led to the Reformation. The mediating theologians, such as Bonaventura, Alexander of Hales, and many of the later mystics paved the way for this reform, (1) by admitting a relative view of the atonement,

[Duns Scotus opposed Anselm, arguing that the passion of Christ owed its efficacy, not to its intrinsic merit, or to its voluntary endurance, but to its voluntary acceptance by God. The controversy ran high between the adherents of Aquinas and Scotus. The Nominalists in philosophy naturally favored the views of Scotus, for his theory was that of a nominal satisfaction in distinction from that which was real and objective. The views of Thomas Aquinas, however, were more nearly in harmony with the Protestant view and feeling.]

but showing that it could not supersede the absolute idea of satisfaction without great peril to the Church; and (2) by keeping alive the Anselmic idea of absolute satisfaction through Christ alone.

The Tridentine Soteriology. The soteriology of the Roman Catholic Church, as we have shown, was largely the outgrowth of the theological principles of Bonaventura and Thomas Aquinas. The una mystica gave rise to two fundamental errors: (1) it limited redemption to the believer configured to his Lord, in that the guilt of the sinner was transferred to Christ in the same sense that Christ's merit was transferred to the sinner. This contradicted the universality of the atonement and marked the further development of the theory of predestination. (2) In the case of sin after baptism, the believer must be configured to his Lord by personal penance. This penance was of course imperfect, but it was regarded as an expiation joined to that of Christ. The distinction between. satisfaction and merit, and the further distinction between an absolute and a relative atonement, made possible the superabundans satisfactio or the superabundance of Christ's merit. This, added to the idea of a superfluous merit of the saints, constituted the source of the medieval system of indulgences. However, it is chiefly in its subjective character that the error of Roman Catholic theology appears, and this in its individual aspect will be further treated in our discussion of justification.

The Reformation Period. In their reaction against the theology of the Roman Catholic Church, the Reformers revived the Anselmic theory of the absolute necessity for satisfaction in the divine nature. The ideas of satisfaction and merit as held by Anselm were both retained, but given a distinctly different direction. Thus satisfaction became a penal substitutionary offering instead of an accumulation of merit which was imputed to the elect; and merit was viewed in the sense of becoming the ground of their righteousness. That is, the voluntary death of Christ removed the penalty from the elect, and His active obedience assured their personal righteousness. The Reformed churches differed from the Lutheran in this, that while the Lutherans held that the satisfaction of Christ was sufficient for all sins, both original and actual, the Reformed limited the scope of the atonement to the elect. Both Lutherans and Reformed, however, made the death of Christ the center of the atoning work, flanked by the incarnation and the resurrection on either side. With the voluntary death of Christ as the procuring cause of salvation, they associated the merit of His active obedience to law. This they urged on the ground that He was not a subject but the Lord of the law. Over against the Lutheran and Reformed churches the Socinians revived the theory of Abelard, and in a measure that of Duns Scotus. These find their modern expression in the numerous moral influence theories. The Arminians aimed at a middle ground between the extremes of the penal satisfaction theory and the moral influence theories. Grotius argued against Socinus, that God punishes sin, not as an act of retaliation, but as the Ruler of the universe in the upholding of His government. These theories will be discussed in our next division.

MODERN THEORIES OF THE ATONEMENT

We propose to give in this division, not a chronological history of the various theories of the atonement held in modern times, but rather a classification of the principal forms which such theories have taken. These we shall treat under the following classification: (1) The Penal Satisfaction Theory; (2) The Governmental or Rectoral Theory; (3) The various Moral Influence Theories; (4) The Ethical Theory; and (5) The Racial Theory.

The Penal Satisfaction Theory. This is the theory held by the Reformed churches, and generally known as the Calvinistic theory. It is sometimes referred to also, as the Anselmic theory; and although related to it, the Anselmic theory underwent important changes at the hands of the Reformers. In the first place, Anseim taught that the sacrifice of Christ secured such merit as was capable of being imputed to the guilty; while the Reformers held that the satisfaction of Christ was to be considered in the sense of a penal substitution for the sinner. Thus they took over from Anselm the idea of satisfaction but gave it the meaning of substitution instead of merit. In the second place, the Reformers included Christ's active obedience as a part of the redemptive price, as well as His voluntary death, while Anselm maintained that the satisfaction which Christ offered could not have been His obedience, for this He owed to God as a man. We may say then, that while the Socinian theory sets forth the sufferings of Christ as designed to produce a moral effect upon the heart of the individual sinner; and the governmental theory claims that it was designed to produce a moral effect upon an intelligent universe; the Satisfaction theory maintains that the immediate and chief end of Christ's work was to satisfy that essential principle of the divine nature which demands the punishment of sin. Dr. A. A. Hodge, a Calvinist theologian of the federal type, sums up this theory in the following essential points: (1) Sin for its own sake deserves the wrath and curse of God. (2) God is disposed, from the very excellence of His nature, to treat His creatures as they deserve. (3) To satisfy the righteous judgment of God, His Son assumed our nature, was made under the law, fulfilled all righteousness, and bore the

[The Penal Theory is sometimes known also as the "Judicial Theory," in that God is considered in the character of a judge, and satisfaction must be rendered to His justice. Men appear before Him as guilty, but having agreed to accept satisfaction in the person of a substitute, God is obliged on the ground of justice to acquit those for whom it was made. Dr. Charles Hodge says that, "All the benefits which accrue to sinners in consequence of the satisfaction of Christ are to them pure gratuities; blessings to which in themselves they have no claim. They call for gratitude and exclude boasting. Nevertheless it is a matter of justice that the blessings which Christ intended to secure for His people should be actually bestowed upon them. This follows for two reasons: First, they were promised to Him as the reward of His obedience and sufferings. God covenanted with Christ that if He fulfilled the conditions imposed, if He made satisfaction for the sins of His people, they should be saved. It follows, secondly, from the nature of satisfaction. If the claims of justice are satisfied they cannot again be enforced. This is the analogy between the work of Christ and the payment of a debt. The point of agreement between the two cases is not the nature of the satisfaction rendered, but one aspect of the effect produced." - Hodge, Syst. Th., II, p. 472.]

punishment of our sins. (4) By His righteousness, those who believe are constituted righteous, His merit being so imputed to them that they are regarded as righteous in the sight of God (A. A. Hodge, Outline of Theology, p. 303). Dr. J. p. Boyce, the eminent Baptist theologian, says that the Calvinistic theory of the atonement is, that in the sufferings and death of Christ, He incurred the penalty of the sins of those whose substitute He was, so that He made a real satisfaction to the justice of God for the law which they had broken. On this account, God now pardons all their sins, and being fully reconciled to them, His electing love flows out freely toward them. The doctrine as thus taught involves the following points: (I) That the sufferings and death of Christ were a real atonement. (II) That in making it Christ became the substitute of those whom He came to save. (III) That as such He bore the penalty of their transgression. (IV) That in so doing He made ample satisfaction to the demands of the law, and to the justice of God. (V) That thus an actual reconciliation has been made between them and God (cf. Boyce, Abstract of Syst. Th., p. 317).

This type of theory contains a valuable element of truth. Any theory of vicarious satisfaction must admit the idea of the substitutionary work of Christ, but it matters much whether this substitution be regarded merely externally as "instead of," or whether it may be said to be "in behalf of" also. Both Arminian and Calvinistic divines admit that the theory conceives of substitution in too formal and external a manner, and as exalt-

[To the Calvinistic principle that sin must be punished, either in the principal or the substitute, Dr. Miley attaches the following consequences. "Nothing could be punished in Christ which was not transferred to Him, and in some real sense made His. Hence, if sin, with its demerit, could not, as now admitted, be put upon Christ by imputation, no punishment which He suffered fell upon such demerit, or intrinsic evil of sin. And we think it impossible to show how sin is punished according to its demerit, and on that ground, in the total absence of such demerit from the substitute in punishment." To the distinction which the Federalists make between guilt as liability to punishment, and guilt as demerit or culpability, he says, "With the imputation of such an abstract guilt to Christ, while sin, with its turpitude and demerit, with all that is punishable and all that deserves to be left behind, how can the redemptive suffering which He endured be the merited punishinent of sin?" - Miley, Syst. Th., II, pp. 146, 147.

ing the divine honor instead of the divine holiness in which it is grounded. Dr. Miley calls attention to the perplexities in its treatment, and the vacillations and diversities of opinion given in its explanation. He says, "The effect of the imputation of sin to Christ, and the nature and degree of His penal sufferings, are questions entering deeply into the difficulties of the subject. Did imputation carry over sin, with its turpitude and demerit, or only its guilt to Him? Did He suffer, instead of the elect, the same punishment, otherwise, they must have suffered? Did He endure penal suffering equal in amount though differing in kind, to the merited punishment of the redeemed? Did He suffer an equivalent punishment, less in amount but of higher value, and thus a penal equivalent with justice? Did He suffer the torment of the finally lost? Was His punishment potentially or intensively eternal? Such questions have been asked and answered affirmatively; though a negative is now mostly given to those of more extreme import. The boldness of earlier expositors is mainly avoided in the caution of the later. The former are more extravagant, the latter less consistent. But the theory, in every phase of it, asserts the just punishment of sin in Christ; and therefore, asserts or implies all that is requisite to such punishment. A denial of any such requisite is suicidal" (Miley, Syst. Th., II, p. 142). While these questions will be treated more at length in our consideration of the nature of the atonement, it is necessary here to state broadly, some of the weaknesses of this theory.

1. A study of the principles of Calvinism as found in the various creedal statements reveals that it is fundamental to the theory, that sin must be punished on its own account. If it ought to be punished, then God is under obligation to punish it. It is a necessity of the judicial rectitude of God. The divine justice must have penal satisfaction. For this reason the position of Calvinism is sometimes known as the "judicial theory." The penalty must be inflicted upon the sinner or a substitute. Christ, the Son of God, became our Substitute. Whether He bore the identical penalty or its equivalent, Calvinists

have never been able to decide, but it is not essential to the theory. The inconsistency lies in this, that if sin is to be punished on its own account, and if Christ became our Substitute, then our sin must in some sense have been transferred to Him, or He did not merit the punishment inflicted upon Him. Now Calvinists are generally careful to maintain the distinction between the demerit or culpability of sin (reatus culpo), and guilt as liability to punishment (reatus pona), a distinction which it is proper to observe. But this very distinction nullifies their idea of substitution, for the Substitute becomes liable to penalty without demerit, and, therefore, the sin is not actually punished. Its substitute is only an innocent victim. It is in this attempt to impute our sin to Christ as His own, that the weakness of this type of substitution appears. Even the Calvinistic Dr. Strong admits that this theory " "is defective in holding to a merely external transfer of the merits of Christ's work, while it does not clearly state the internal ground of that transfer, in the union of the believer with Christ" (Strong, Syst. Th., II, p. 748).

2. It is frequently claimed by its advocates, that the penal substitutionary theory is the only theory which admits of the substitutionary work of Christ, and therefore to deny it, is to deny Christ as our Substitute. But the Governmental or Rectoral theory holds this fact as fully and as firmly as does the Penal theory. Dr. Miley, its strongest representative among modern theologians, gives proper emphasis to Christ's substitutionary work.

[Dr. Miley in his criticism of this theory states "that the necessary satisfaction of justice, as maintained in this theory, respects not merely a punitive disposition in God, but specially and chiefly an obligation of His justice to punish sin according to its demerit, and on that ground. It is because the punishment of sin is a necessity in the rectitude of divine justice that the only possible atonement is by penal substitution." - Miley, Syst. Th., II, p. 143.

Ebrard says, "If I bear the chastisement of another instead of him, the same suffering which for him would have had the moral quality of a punishment has not for me, who am innocent, the moral quality of a punishment. For the notion of punishment contains, besides the objective element of suffering inflicted by the judge, also the subjective element of the sense of guilt or of an evil conscience endured by the guilty, or the relation between the evil act committed and the consequent suffering inflicted." (Cf. Van Ooterzee, Chr. Dogm., p. 603.)]

Nor is the idea of penal substitution a distinctive fact of this theory. Other theories admit also of the penal sufferings of Christ as the conditional ground of forgiveness. The moderate rectoral theory of Mr. Watson holds firmly to the vicariousness of Christ's sufferings, but grounds this in the ethical character of God as well as in the essentials of government. The deeper and more scriptural approach to this subject is recognized instantly in the words of Dr. Pope. '"As the atonement avails for the human race, and is therefore ours, it must be viewed as a vicarious satisfaction of the claims of divine justice or the expiation of the guilt of sin, and propitiation of the divine favor....The substitutionary idea is in their case qualified by that of representation on the one hand, and the mystical fellowship of his saints on the other....The doctrine is not that a penalty has been endured by Christ instead of His people; that He has occupied their legal place and borne their legal responsibility; and, therefore, that they are forever discharged. It is rather that a sacrificial offering has been presented by Him instead of the race; and that He, making the virtue of His atonement the strength of His plea, represents all that come unto God by Him. The propitiation offered for all men, and accepted, becomes effectual only for the penitent who embraces it by trusting in Him whom God has set forth to be a propitiation in His blood through faith" (Pope, Compend. Chr. Th., II, p. 271).

3. The Penal substitutionary theory leads of necessity, either to universalism on the one hand, or unconditional election on the other. Dr. Miley makes the charge that ""such an atonement, by its very nature, cancels all punitive claims against the elect, and by immediate result forever frees them from all guilt as a liability

[Watson holds that the design of God in the gift of His Son is "that he should die in the place and stead of all men as a sacrificial oblation, by which satisfaction is made for the sins of every individual, so that they become remissible upon the terms of the evangelical covenant, i.e., upon the condition of faith." - Watson, Theol. Inst., II, chap. 25.

Dr. A. A. Hodge says that "the Arminian view, therefore, differs from the Calvinistic in two points. They maintain that Christ died, first, for the relief of all men; second, to make salvation possible. We hold, on the other hand, that Christ died, first, for His elect; second, to make their salvation certain." - HODGE, Outlines of Th., p. 313.]

to the penalty of sin. We know that such a consequence is denied, though we shall show that it is also fully asserted." In proof of his assertion he cites such authorities as Hodge, Dick, Symington and Turretin. Thus Dr. Charles Hodge says, "If the claims of justice are satisfied they cannot again be enforced. This is the analogy between the work of Christ and the payment of a debt. The point of agreement between the two cases is not the nature of the satisfaction rendered, but one aspect of the effect produced. In both cases the persons for whom the satisfaction is made are certainly freed. Their exemption or deliverance is in both cases, and equally in both, a matter of justice." So also, Dr. Symington declares that "the death of Christ being a legal satisfaction for sin, all for whom he died must enjoy the remission of their offenses" (Miley, Syst. Th., II, p. 151; Hodge, Syst. Th., II, p. 472; Symington, Atonement and Intercession, p. 190). It is evident then, that the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement involves the question of its extent also. If Christ died for all men, then all are unconditionally saved as 'universalism maintains. If all are not saved, as the Scriptures clearly teach, then the only alternative is a belief in the atonement as limited to the elect. Thus there is developed as a natural consequence of the theory, an unscriptural and false notion of its application. It must accept either universalism or a limited atonement. This fact is also borne out by the history of Christian doctrine.

4. In its historical development, the penal theory is associated with the Calvinistic ideas of predestination and limited atonement. We object to the theory on the ground that its application necessarily represents the atonement as limited to the elect, whereas the Scriptures declare that Christ died for all. We object further,

[The following statement from Dr. A. A. Hodge confirms the above position. He says, "If it is involved in the very nature of the atonement . . . . that all the legal responsibilities of those for whom he died were laid upon Christ; if he suffered the very penalty which divine justice exacted of them, then it follows necessarily that all those for whom he died are absolved, since justice cannot demand two perfect satisfactions, nor inflict the same penalty once upon the substitute and again upon the principal." - A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, p. 313.]

on the ground that the Scriptures declare that the propitiatory offering of Christ became effective through faith (Rom. 3:22-25); whereas this theory depends solely upon effectual calling, or God's electing grace. This Dr. Boyce admits in his argument against Arminianism. He says that "it does not accord with justice that any should suffer for whom a substitute has actually borne the penalty and made full satisfaction"; and again, ""It makes salvation the result in part of faith; but faith is the result of reconciliation, not its cause; it is the gift of God." He then states his own position in these words, ""That this limitation is one of purpose; that God designed only the actual salvation of some; and that, whatever provision has been made for others, He made this positive arrangement by which the salvation of certain ones is secured (Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology, p. 337). Here we see the substitutionary theory in its unadulterated form. Christ died in the place of some, who must therefore be saved, since it would be wrong to punish both the sinner and his substitute. Christ died for the elect, who are not only foreknown, but foreordained to this state of salvation by the decree of God. Those who are so predestinated, are unconditionally saved by the bestowal of regenerating grace, out of which arise repentance, faith, justification, adoption and sanctification.

5. Our final objection to the satisfaction theory is based upon the fact that it leads logically into antinom-

[Dr. Gammertsfelder offers the following objections to the penal theory: (1) It holds that justice lies deeper in the nature of God than love and mercy, while the Bible as well as reason teaches that love and not justice was the moving cause of redemption. (2) It violates the moral principle which holds that guilt and penalty are not transferable. Salvation is an ethical process and cannot be determined by mere commercial, governmental or juridicial principles. The demerit of sin cannot be transferred; neither can righteousness be transferred. (3) Another objection to the theory is, that no place is left for forgiveness. Now if sins are removed by penal substitution, there is no room for forgiveness. If a debt is paid, there is no room for remission. If God must punish, then He must punish according to absolute justice and cannot punish by fiction. Forgiveness and penalty mutually exclude each other. (4) The fourth objection is found in the quality of unreality in the whole procedure. The satisfaction for sin on which the theory rests, is an unreal satisfaction. Mere physical suffering can never atone for sin; for penalty is more than physical suffering. There must be all the elements of sorrow, shame and contrition enter into it, and these are not transferable. - Gammertsfelder, Syst. Th., pp. 277-279.]

ianism. This its advocates usually deny, but historically, antinomianism has always been held in connection with this type of belief in the atonement. (1) It holds that Christ's active obedience is imputed to believers in such a manner that it is esteemed by God as done by them. They are, therefore, righteous by proxy. (2) This imputation in reality makes Christ's sufferings superfluous; for if He has done for us all that the law requires, why should we be under the necessity of being delivered from penalty by His death. (3) If Christ's active obedience is to be substituted for that of believers, it shuts out the necessity of personal obedience to the law of God. Thus it transfers the requirement of obedience from the subjects of the divine government, to Christ as the substitute, and leaves man without law and God without dominion. Man is therefore left in the position of being tempted to license of every kind, instead of being held strictly accountable for a life of righteousness. (4) This type of satisfaction cannot be called such in truth, for it is merely the performance of all that the law requires by one person substituted for another.

THE PRINCIPLES OF CALVINISM

[We give the following brief summary of the principles of Calvinism, for the purpose of showing the entire system in its logical arrangement. This summary is condensed from the positions of A. A. Hodge, a Calvinist of the federal type. It is against the ideas of predestination, limited atonement, effectual calling and final perseverance as here set forth, that Arminianism has so strongly objected.

1. The Relation of the Creator to Creation. Calvinism teaches Christian theism. It holds that His creatures are momentarily dependent upon the energy of His will for substance, and for the possession of the powers communicated to them as second causes in all their exercises. Before the apostasy, the spirit of man depended for spiritual life and moral integrity upon the concurrence of the Spirit of God, the withdrawal of which is the immediate cause of spiritual death and moral impotence. This divine influence, in one degree, and in one mode or another, is common to all creatures and all their actions; and it is called "grace" when, as undeserved favor, it is in a supernatural manner restored to the souls of sinful men, with the design of affecting their moral character and action.

2. The Design of God in Creation. This is declared to be the manifestation of His own glorious perfections, and becomes a principle of interpretation for all God's dealings with mankind.

3. The Eternal Plan of God. (1) The eternal and immutable plan of God has constituted man a free agent, and consequently can never interfere with the exercise of that freedom of which the exercise of that freedom is itself the foundation. (2) This created free will is not, however, independent, but ever continues to have its ground in the conserving energies of the Creator. (3) In case of an infinitely wise, powerful and free Creator, it is obvious that the certain foreknowledge of all events from the absolute beginning virtually involves the predetermination of each event without exception; for all the causes and consequences, direct and contingent, which are foreseen in creation are of course, determined by creation. (4) Since all events constitute a single system, the Creator must embrace the system as a whole, and every infinitesimal element of it, in one all-comprehensive intention; ends more or less general must be determined by ends which are made dependent upon them; hence while every event remains dependent upon its causes, and contingent upon its conditions, none of God's purposes can possibly be contingent, because in turn, every cause and condition is determined in that purpose, as well as ends which are suspended upon them; all the decrees of God are hence called absolute, because they are ultimately determined always, by "the counsel of His own will," and never by anything exterior to Him which has not in turn been previously determined by Him. (5) This determination, however, instead of interfering with, maintains the true causality of the creature, and the free self-determination of men and angels. Since the holiness of the created moral agent is conditioned upon the indwelling of divine grace, and its turning from grace is the cause of sin, it follows that all the good in the volitions of free agents is to be referred to God as its positive source; but all the evil (which originates in defect or privation) is to be referred simply to his permission. In this view all events, without exception, are embraced in God's eternal purpose; even the primal apostasies of Satan and Adam, as well as those consequences which have flowed from them. The charge of fatalism so often made does not really lie against Calvinism; for the energizing will of the personal Jehovah, at once perfect Light and Love, is very different from fate. It is one thing to be borne along by irresistible yet utterly blind force, and quite another to be led by our heavenly Father's hand.

4. God's Benevolence, Justice and Grace. Justice as well as benevolence is an essential and ultimate property of the divine nature, and hence lies back of and determines the character of, the divine volitions. By the perfection of God's character He is always benevolent to the innocent, and just as equally certain is he determined to punish the guilty. Hence He has exercised both justice and benevolence - justice to the sin and the law, benevolence to the sinner, which benevolence is undeserving in sovereign grace.

5. The Effect of Adam's Apostasy upon the Race. The entire soul with its constitutional faculties and acquired habits is the organ of volition, the agent willing. It possesses the inalienable property of self-determination, the moral character of which depends upon the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and it needs, therefore, divine help to will rightly. Adam was created in fellowship with God, and hence with a holy tendency of heart, with full power not to sin, but also, for a limited period of probation, with power to sin; and when he sinned the Holy Spirit was withdrawn from the race, and he and his descendants lost the original power not to sin, and gained the necessity to sin; in other words, total moral inability....Hence Calvinists hold (1) Human sin, having originated in the free apostatizing act of Adam, deserves God's wrath and curse, and immutable justice demands their infliction. (2) Such, moreover, was the relation subsisting between Adam and his descendants, that God righteously regards and treats each one as he comes into being as worthy of the punishment of that sin, and consequently withdraws his life-giving fellowship from him. The whole race, therefore, and each individual it embraces, is under the just condemnation of God; and hence the gift of Christ, and the entire scheme of redemption in its conception, execution, and application, are throughout and in every sense a product of sovereign grace. God was free to provide it for few or for many, for all or for none, just as He pleased; and in every case of its application the motives determining God cannot be found in the object, but only in the good pleasure of the will of the Divine Agent. (3) As to original sin - since every man comes into the world in a condition of ante-natal forfeiture, because of Adam's apostasy, he is judicially excluded from the morally quickening energy of the Holy Ghost, and hence begins to think, feel and act without a spontaneous bias to moral good. (4) But since moral obligation is positive, and the soul is essentially active, it instantly develops in action, a spiritual blindness and deadness to divine things, and a positive inclination to evil. This involves the corruption of the whole nature; and the absolute impotency of the will to good is, humanly speaking, without remedy, and necessarily tends to the indefinite increase, both of depravity and guilt. It is therefore said to be total.

6. The Nature and Necessity of Regenerating Grace. Grace is free, sovereign favor to the ill-deserving. Calvinists distinguish (1) "common grace," or the moral and suasory influence on the soul, of the Spirit acting through the truth, as the result of Christ's work, which tends to restrain evil passions, but which may be resisted, and is always prevailingly resisted by the unregenerate, from (2) "effectual calling" which is a single act of God, changing the moral character of the will of the subject, and implanting a prevailing tendency to co-operate with future grace in all forms of holy obedience. By reason of the new creative energy within it, the soul spontaneously embraces Christ and turns to God. Afterwards this same divine energy continues to support the soul, and prepare it for, and concur with it in, every good work. This grace is now prevailingly co-operated with by the regenerated soul, and t times resisted, until the status of grace is succeeded by the status of glory.

7. The Application of the Plan of Redemption. Predestination, or the purpose of God to secure the salvation of some men, and not all, has been popularly regarded as the distinguishing feature of Calvinism, and one of the most revolting to the moral sense. Some Calvinists reasoning downward from the nature of God as absolute, and developing this doctrine in a strictly speculative manner, have made it the foundation of their system. These have necessarily conceived of it in the high and logically coherent supralapsarian sense (election before creation; the decree to create, and permit men to fall, in order to carry out their predestined salvation or perdition), which has been rejected by the great body of Reformed theologians as unscriptural, and revolting to the moral sense. The vast majority of Calvinists, however, are influenced by practical, and not speculative considerations, and therefore hold to the infralapsarian (election after creation) view. God, they say, elects His people out of the mass of guilty sinners, and provides redemption for them, thus securing for them faith and repentance whereby they may be saved. These gifts cannot, therefore, be conditions of salvation, as Arminians hold: rather they are its predetermined and graciously effected results. Gottschalk taught a double predestination - the elect to salvation and the reprobate to damnation. But this theory is not taught in the recognized standards of Calvinism. God elects of free grace all those He purposes to save, and actually saves them; while those whom He does not elect are simply left under the operation of the law of exact justice, whatever that may be. Calvinistic "particularism" admits the actual results of salvation in their widest scope, and refers all to the gracious purpose and power of God, but does not restrict it within the limits determined by the facts themselves.]

The Governmental Theory. This theory as developed by Grotius, held that the atonement was not a satisfaction to any internal principle of the divine nature, but to the necessities of government. It arose as a protest against the rigorous penal substitution theory on the one hand, and the Socinian rejection of all vicarious intervention on the other. The theory was first advanced by James Arminius and his follower Hugo Grotius, although later, Grotius departed from the earlier position. Together they agreed to uphold, not the exactitude of divine justice wholly, or even mainly, as in the Anselmic theory, but also the just and compassionate will of God as a true element in the atonement. They thus sought to lay emphasis upon the love of God as well as His justice. Grotius differed from Arminius in the later development of these principles, by limiting the satisfaction which was made by Christ, to the dignity of the law, the honor of the lawgiver and the protection of the universe. The death of Christ and His sufferings became, therefore, not an exhibition of love to draw men to God, as in the moral influence theories, but a deterrent to sin through an exhibition of its punishment.

Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) was a distinguished Dutch jurist, and patterned his idea of the atonement after the method of civil law. His great work was entitled, "A Defense of the Catholic Faith Concerning the Satisfaction of Christ Against Faustus Socinus" (1617). But while

[The Grotian Theory was adopted in England by Richard Baxter (1615-1691) and Samuel Clarke (1675-1729). His first work published in 1617 was translated into English by Dr. F. H. Foster, the historian of New England Theology, and published at Andover in 1889. Dr. Foster shows, however, that Grotius' theological writings were in Yale College library in 1733. These were published in four folio volumes at London and Amsterdam in 1679 and at Basle in 1732. The theory was advocated by the New England theologians since the days of Jonathan Edwards, but to what extent, it has been difficult to determine. Many of them advocated only the governmental demand for an atonement, making this the point of departure for a further demand. Dr. Dickie states that the New England divines developed their doctrine of the atonement from Grotius, much as the Schoolmen used the Sentences of Lombard, and were likewise soon lost in the fog of speculation. The leading New England discussions were collected and published at Boston, with an Introductory Essay by Dr. E. A. Park of Andover. The views of Dr. R. W. Dale, and Dr. J. Scott Lidgett are but modernizations of the Grotian Theory.]

 

seeking to defend the orthodox faith, he really transformed it into a new theory, commonly known as the Governmental or Rectoral Theory. Here the central idea of the defense was that God must not be regarded as the offended or injured party, but as the moral Governor of the universe. He must therefore uphold the authority of His government in the interests of the general good. Consequently the sufferings of our Lord are to be regarded, not as the exact equivalent of our punishment, but only in the sense that the dignity of the divine government was as effectively upheld and vindicated, as it would have been if we had received the punishment we deserved. This truth, the great jurist regarded as self-evident in the sphere of jurisprudence, and it is difficult to understand his position unless this fact be taken into account. It was at this point, however, that the satisfactionists urged their criticism of his position. He taught that the law under which man is held, both as to penalty and precept, is a positive product of the divine will; and therefore He may, as a moral Governor, relax its demands. It was this position as to the relaxation of the demands of the law that subjected him to criticism. He introduced the term acceptilatio, which Duns Scotus had used against the Anselmic position, and was therefore accused of conceding too much to the Socinians. The acceptilatio in Roman law was an acquittance from obligation by word of mouth without real payment. Grotius, however, insisted that his theory of satisfaction was far more than the acceptilatio of Roman jurisprudence; that it was of infinite value, though not the precise equivalent. Thus there was a relaxation of the claims of the law in one sense, though not in another. Dr. Pope makes the remark that ""the most rig-

[But Grotius, its later representative, did not agree with the Arminian theology when he limited the satisfaction to the dignity of the law, the honor of the Lawgiver, the protection of the interests of the universe, and the exhibition of a deterrent example. Grotius founded what has been called the Rectoral or Governmental Theory of the Atonement, which dwells too exclusively on its necessity for the vindication of God's righteousness as the Ruler of all. Not to speak of the invincible repugnance felt by every reverent mind to the thought that our Lord was thus made a spectacle to the universe, this theory errs by making a subordinate purpose supreme. - Pope, Compend. Chr. Th., II, p. 313.]

orous Anselmic theory must admit the principle, so far as the acceptance of a substitute goes; why not then carry the principle a little farther and make the interfering act extend to the value of the thing substituted, as well as to the principle of substitution; especially as the value here is infinite?" (Pope, Compend. Chr. Th., II, p. 313). Dr. Miley attributes the acceptilatio to the Anselmic position, rather than to that of Grotius, holding that the latter does not admit of a theory of the atonement based on any such sense of debt and payment.

Richard Watson (1781-1823) taught a modified form of the governmental theory. He held that the atonement is a satisfaction to the ethical nature of God, as well as an expedient for sustaining the majesty of His government. This he did on the ground that there should be

[The following summary of the Governmental Theory as held by Grotius is taken mainly from the account of it as stated by Dr. Charles Hodge.

1. That in the forgiveness of sin God is to be regarded neither as an offended party, nor as a creditor, nor as a master, but as a moral governor. A creditor can remit the debt due him at pleasure; a master may punish or not punish as he sees fit; but a ruler must act, not according to his feelings or caprice, but with a view to the best interests of those under his authority.

2. The end of punishment is the prevention of crime, or the preservation of order and the promotion of the best interests of the community.

3. As a good governor cannot allow sin to be committed with immunity, God cannot pardon the sins of men without some adequate exhibition of His displeasure, and of His determination to punish it. This was the design of the sufferings and death of Christ. God punished sin in Him as an example. This example was the more impressive on account of the dignity of Christ's person, and therefore in view of His death, God can consistently with the best interests of His government remit the penalty of the law in the case of penitent believers.

4. Punishment is defined as suffering inflicted on account of sin. It need not be imposed on account of the personal demerit of the sufferer; nor with the design of satisfying justice, in the ordinary sense of that word. It was enough that it should be on account of sin. As the sufferings of Christ were caused by our sins, inasmuch as they were designed to render their remission consistent with the interest of God's moral government, they fall within the comprehensive definition of the word punishment. Grotius, therefore, could say that Christ suffered the punishment of our sins, as His sufferings were an example of what sin deserved.

5. The essence of the atonement, therefore, according to Grotius consisted in this, that the sufferings and death of Christ were designed as an exhibition of God's displeasure against sin. They were intended to teach that in the estimation of God, sin deserves to be punished; and that, therefore, the impenitent cannot escape the penalty due to their offenses. - Hodge, Syst. Th., II, pp. 573-575.]

no moral chasm between the laws and the nature of God; and that what satisfies the one is agreeable to the other. Mr. Watson states his position as follows: "The death of Christ, then, is the satisfaction accepted; and this being a satisfaction to justice, that is, a consideration which satisfied God, as a being essentially righteous, and as having strict and inflexible respect to the justice of His government; pardon through, or for the sake of that death, became, in consequence, "a declaration of the righteousness of God,' as the only appointed method of remitting the punishment of the guilty; and if so, satisfaction respects not....the honor of the law of God, but its authority, and the upholding of that righteous and holy character of the Lawgiver, and of his administration, of which that law is the visible and public expression. Nor is this to be regarded as a merely wise and fit expedient of government, a point to which even Grotius leans too much, as well as many other divines . . . . and that it is to be concluded, that no other alternative existed but that of exchanging a righteous government for one careless and relaxed, to the dishonor of the divine attributes, and the sanctioning of moral disorder; or the upholding of such a government by the personal and extreme punishment of every offender; or else the acceptance of the vicarious death of an infinitely dignified and glorious being, through whom pardon should be offered, and in whose hands a process for the moral restoration of the lapsed should be placed" (Watson, Institutes, II, p. 139).

Dr. John Miley (1813-1895) is the outstanding representative of the governmental theory in modern times. In accepting this theory, however, he does so, not in any particular exposition which has been given to it, but that which he constructs himself, out of its fundamental prin-

[Dr. Sheldon says that Watson stood on the ground of the governmental theory, and that this may be regarded as largely current among Methodist theologians. Here he classifies also Dr. Henry B. Smith, and also many of the more orthodox Lutheran theologians of modern time5. These regard the satisfaction of Christ as referring to general rather than distributive justice. In opposition to the Grotian theory, therefore, these theologians agree with Mr. Watson in finding a ground for it in the ethical nature of God, and not merely in the demands of administration. (Cf. Sheldon, Hist. Chr. Doct., II, p. 356.)]

 

ciples. He holds with good reason, that the theory has not always been fortunate in its exposition, particularly in its beginning. Alien elements have been retained, and vital facts either omitted or wrongly placed. From the premises which he lays, Dr. Miley builds up a strong and logical system, although he stands almost alone among modern theologians. He holds, however, that Mr. Watson grounds the necessity of the atonement in the governmental theory, although he differs from him in his exposition of it. He holds further, that while Dr. Whedon has never given his theory of the atonement in the style of the governmental, yet it is in principle the same. Dr. Raymond he understands to hold the same idea of the atonement as Dr. Whedon. Dr. Tigert, in Summers' Systematic Theology, especially criticizes the theory of Dr. Miley, the most serious objection being his lack of emphasis upon the idea of propitiation.

Dr. Miley's governmental theory of the atonement briefly summarized is as follows: (1) Substitution by Atonement. The sufferings of Christ are an atonement for sin by substitution, in the sense that they were intentionally endured for sinners under judicial condemnation, and for the sake of their forgiveness. They render forgiveness consistent with the divine justice. (2) Conditional Substitution. The forgiveness of sin has a real conditionality. An atonement for all by absolute substitution would inevitably achieve the salvation of all. Therefore a universal atonement, with the fact of

[The question now arises, Is Dr. Miley's the Methodist doctrine of the atonement? Can we regard it as fortunate that the only express Methodist treatise on atonement should ground its theory exclusively in a governmental necessity? Does Dr. Miley's theory adequately interpret Scripture in those profound texts which represent the demand for propitiation and reconciliation as arising among the divine attributes in the innermost recesses of the divine nature? Or is Dr. Summers nearer the truth of Scripture, and nearer the Methodist doctrine as taught by Watson, the first, and Pope, the last, of great Methodist writers on systematic theology? Can the atonement be represented as a satisfaction to God, a harmonization of the divine nature and attributes, and a reconciliation of God and the world, without the errors of the Calvinistic theory of commercial substitution?.... Watson, Pope, and Summers seem to think that those scriptures teach that the atonement is a real satisfaction to the demands of the divine nature, and that this is consistent with the true Arminian doctrine of the atonement, Dr. Miley to the contrary notwithstanding." - Summers, Syst. Th., I, p. 272.]

a limited actual salvation, is conclusive of a real conditionality in its saving grace. (3) Substitution in Suffering. The substitution of Christ must be of a nature agreeing with the provisory character of the atonement. It could not, therefore, be a substitution in penalty as the merited punishment of sin, for such an atonement is absolute. The substitution, therefore, is in suffering without the penal element. (4) The Atonement Must Be Related to Public Justice. As in the satisfaction theory, so in the rectoral, the sufferings of Christ are an atonement for sin only as in some sense they take the place of penalty. In the one they take its place as a penal substitute, thus fulfilling the office of justice in the actual punishment of sin; in the other they take its place in the fulfillment of its office as concerned with the interests of moral government. (5) Remissibility of Its Penalties. There is no sufficient reason why sin must be punished solely on the ground of its demerit. The forgiveness of the actual sinner, as a real remission of penalty at the time of his justification and acceptance in the divine favor, is proof positive to the contrary. (6) The Place of Atonement. Thus the way is open for some substitutional provision which may replace the actual infliction of penalty upon sin. The theory of satisfaction really leaves no place for vicarious atonement. Its most fundamental and ever asserted principle, that sin as such must be punished, makes the punishment of the actual sinner an absolute necessity. But as penalties are remissible so far as a purely retributive justice is concerned, so, having a special end in the interest of moral government, they may give place to any substitutional measure equally securing that end. Here is a place for vicarious atonement. (7) Nature of the Atonement. The nature of the atonement in the sufferings of Christ follows necessarily from the above principle. It cannot be of the nature required by the principles of the satisfaction theory. In asserting the absoluteness of divine justice in its purely retributive element, the theory excludes the possibility of a penal substitution in atonement for sin. And, therefore, the sufferings of Christ are not, as they cannot be, an atonement by penal substitution. But while His sufferings could not take the place of penalty in the actual punishment of sin, they could, and do, take its place in its strictly rectoral end. And the atonement is thus determined to consist in the sufferings of Christ, as a provisory substitute for penalty in the interest of moral government (Miley, Systematic Theology, II, pp. 155-156.)

The objections to this theory will be given consideration in our constructive treatment of the atonement. It is sufficient here to mention only briefly, the objections which are usually urged against it. (1) It does not attach sufficient importance to the idea of propitiation, and therefore minifies the idea of a real satisfaction of the divine attributes. (2) It emphasizes the mercy of God in much the same sense that Calvinism emphasizes the justice of God. A true theory of the atonement must satisfy all the attributes of the divine nature. (3) It is built upon a false philosophical principle that utility is the ground of moral obligation. (4) It practically ignores the immanent holiness of God, and substitutes for the chief aim of the atonement, that which is only subordinate. Dr. Miley is called in question also by Dr. Tigert, for his assumption that there is no true middle ground between the Calvinistic idea of satisfaction and the strict rectoral theory. He thinks that the satisfaction theory can be held apart from its Calvinistic additions. "Watson, Pope, and Summers are certainly satisfactionists," he says, "but this is not their theory. Miley denies that there is any scientific place for them." They must either be Calvinists or deny their adhesion to the pure rectoral

[Dr. Tigert says, "It is strange that all these Methodist theologians (referring to Watson, Pope and Summers) some of whom are certainly possessed of as much exegetical skill, metaphysical acumen, and logical power as Dr. Miley has manifested in any part of his treatise, should have all lodged in an unscientific and indefensible half-way position, unable to see that If they abandoned the Calvinistic theory of commercial substitution their principles must carry them over to the governmental theory of atonement. Dr. Miley is free to essay the rescue of Methodism and of these uncritical theologians from an inconsistent doctrine; but undoubtedly, the whole ground must be carefully reviewed before he can be permitted to hold the field unchallenged. He must make good his position." - Summers, Syst. Th., I, p. 273.]

theory. Dr. Strong objects to this theory on the ground that it is an exhibition of justice which is not justice; and an exhibition of regard for law, which will make it safe to pardon the violators of law. But it must be admitted that the governmental factor is essential to any true theory of the atonement. It is only the undue emphasis upon this element to the disparagement of other equally essential elements, which makes the theory wrong. This whole subject will be given further consideration in our next chapter.

The Moral Influence Theories. The moral influence theories take their name from the basic assumption, that salvation comes through the appeal of divine love. They limit the efficacy of Christ's death to Adam's race, making its value consist, not in its influence upon the divine mind, nor upon the universe at large, but upon the power of love to subdue the enmity of the human heart. They do not hold that the sacrifice of Christ expiated sin, or placated the divine wrath by suffering; or that the atonement in any wise satisfied divine justice. They maintain that the sole obstacle to the forgiveness of sins, is to be found in the sinner's own unbelief and hardness of heart. This Christ's death was designed to remove by a display of God's love in the death of His Son. With this hardness of heart removed, God can be just and the justifier of him who believes in Jesus. They look upon God, therefore, as exhibiting nothing but complacent love, upon sin as its own punishment, and upon men as saved by becoming good. The work of Christ tends to save men by assuring them of God's love, and by persuading them to love Him. These theories are numerous, but they are all one in emphasizing the basic idea of moral influence. We shall mention briefly, only four general types: (1) The Socinian Theories; (2) The Mystical Theories; (3) Bushnell's Theory of Moral Influence; and (4) The New Theology of McLeod Campbell and the Andover School.

1. Socinianism. Socinianism was the precursor of modern unitarianism. Dr. Strong calls it ""The Example Theory of the Atonement," for it altogether denies any idea of propitiation or satisfaction. Its sole method of reconciliation is to better man's moral condition, and this can be effected only by man's own will through repentance and reformation. The death of Christ is regarded as that of a noble martyr. His loyalty to truth and faithfulness to duty provide us with a powerful incentive to moral improvement. Socinianism like Calvinism is based upon the idea of divine sovereignty, but in a very different manner; in Calvinism, predestination applies to the destinies of men; in Socinianism, it governs the attributes of God. That is, it holds that God is free to do that which He wills, and refuses to admit of any immutable qualities in the divine nature, whether of mercy or justice. His occasional will is called out by the conduct of men. He is free to forgive sin without any satisfaction to divine justice, if He desires to do so, simply on the ground of repentance. The death of Christ is designed to remove the hardness of the sinner's heart as the obstacle to repentance. The theory advanced by Lælius Socinus, the uncle, and Faustus Socinus, the nephew, represents the seventeenth century attack of rationalism on the penal satisfaction theory of the atonement. As such it

 

[Dr. Alvah Hovey characterizes the moral influence theories as those "which affirm that the atonement made by Christ benefits and saves men by its moral influence on their characters, and by that alone."

According to the teaching of early Socinianism - as distinguished from that of modern Unitarianism - the Savior's priestly office was only figuratively on earth, and began in heaven where He uses His exalted authority to plead for mankind. "The sacerdotal office consists in this, that as He can in royal authority help us in all our necessities, so in His priestly character; and the character of His help is called by a figure His sacrifice." But it may be said that forgiveness is never represented as bestowed save through a real sacrifice: God is in Christ reconciling the world to Himself; and for Christ's sake forgives sins which only the Spirit obtained by the atonement enables us to confess and forsake.Pope, Compend. Chr. Th., II, p. 311.

In the Socinian theory Christ is a prophet, a teacher. He saves His people as a teacher saves his pupils - by instruction, He saves them from the evils of ignorance, and blesses them with the immunities and benefits of knowledge. Christ teaches the will of God and the way to heaven, and thus saves them who heed His instructions....But man has other needs besides instruction....The Savior of mankind must be more than a teacher, more than a prophet; He must be a priest, a king; indeed He must be to man all in all. Man as a sinner is lost; so far as his own resources are concerned, irretrievably lost. He is nothing, has nothing, can do nothing, without a Savior. - Raymond, Syst. Th., II, pp. 222-224.]

consisted almost wholly of an array of arguments against Anselmic principles.

2. The Mystical Theories. These represent the type of the moral influence theory as held by Schleiermacher, Ritschl, Maurice, Irving and others. Dr. Bruce calls it "Redemption by Sample." The mysticism lies in the identification of Christ with the race in the sense that He rendered to God, the perfect devotion and obedience which we ought to render; and which in some sense mankind offered in Him. This it holds, is the only meaning of sacrifice in the Scriptures - self-sacrifice by self-consecration to God's service. These theories are sometimes known also, as ""redemption by incarnation."

Schleiermacher (1769-1834) held that the atonement is purely subjective, and denied any objective satisfaction to God by the substitutionary work of Christ. Such ideas as reparation, compensation, substitution, satisfaction and propitiation, he held to be wholly Jewish. His conception of the work of Christ consisted in this - that being one with God, Christ taught men that they could be one with God; and His consciousness of being in God and knowing God, gave Him the power to communicate it to others. For this reason, He became a Mediator and a Savior.

Ritschl (1822-1889) was one of the most influential representatives of the moral influence in Germany. He did not, like Schleiermacher, set aside historical revelation, but nevertheless held inadequate views of the Redeemer. To him, Christ was a Savior in much the same sense as Buddha - achieving His lordship over it by His indifference to it. He was the Word of God only in so far as He revealed this divine indifference to things. The sense of sin was regarded as an illusion which it was the work of Christ to dispel.

Maurice (1805-1872) held that Christ was the archetype and root of humanity, and in His own body offered an acceptable sacrifice to God for the race. This was not a substitutionary offering in the commonly accepted sense of the term, but such a mystical union of the race with Christ, that it could make a perfect offering through Him. The sacrifice of Christ consisted in a complete renunciation of that human self-will which is the cause of all men's crimes and miseries. This he held, was the meaning of the ancient sacrifices - not as substitutes for the offerer, but as symbols of his devotion. These found their fulfillment in Christ, who in His life and death, offered up the one and only complete sacrifice ever offered, a perfect surrender to the divine will. Hence in Him, the archetypal man, the race offered a sacrifice acceptable to God.

[On Irving's theory, evil inclinations are not sinful. Sinfulness belongs only to evil acts. The loose connection between the Logos and humanity savors of Nestorianism. It is the work of the person to rid itself of something in the humanity which does not really render it sinful. If Jesus' sinfulness of nature did not render His person sinful, this must be true of us, which is a Pelagian element, revealed also in the denial that for our redemption we need Christ as an atoning sacrifice. It is not necessary to a complete incarnation for Christ to take a sinful nature, unless sin is essential to human nature. In Irving's view, the death of Christ's body works the regeneration of His sinful nature. But this is to make sin a merely physical thing, and the body the only part of man needing redemption. Penalty would thus become a reformer, and death a savior - Dorner, Syst. Chr. Doct., III, p. 361.

Dr. Strong points out, that according to this theory, the glory of Christ was not in saving others, but in saving Himself, and so demonstrating the power of man through the Holy Spirit to cast out sin from his heart and life. - Strong, Syst. Th., II, p. 746.

Freer, one of Irving's followers, modified this doctrine, stating that "Unfallen humanity needed not redemption, therefore, Jesus did not take it. He took fallen humanity, but purged it in the act of taking it The nature of which He took part was sinful in the lump, but in His person most holy."

The Mystical Theory, while existing in numerous forms, may be stated as follows: The reconciliation effected by Christ is brought about by a mysterious union of God and man, accomplished by His incarnation. The theory was held by the Platonizing fathers, by the followers of Scotus Erigena during the Middle Ages, by Osiander and Schwenkfeld at the Reformation, and the disciples of Schieiermacher among modern German theologians. One reason why the mystical theory seems so vague, is due to the fact that it has not been held as an exclusive theory, but differently colored by different writers.

Thomas Erskine taught that "Christ came into Adam's place. This is the real substitution....We are separated from each other by being individual persons. But Jesus had no human personality. He had the human nature under the personality of the Son of God. And so His human nature was more open to the commonness of men; for the divine personality while it separated Him from sinners in point of sin, united Him to them in love. And thus the sins of other men were to Jesus what the affections and lusts of his own particular flesh are to each individual believer. Every man was a part of Him, and He felt the sins of every man - just as the new nature in every believer feels the sins of the old nature - not in sympathy, but in sorrow and abhorrence. Erskine, "The Brazen Serpent."]

Irving (1792-1834) held what is commonly known as the "Theory of Gradually Extirpated Depravity." According to Irving, Christ took upon Himself our human nature, not in its purity, but in its likeness after the Fall. Hence there was in Him, a fallen nature with its inborn corruption and predisposition to moral evil. He held that there were two kinds of sin - guiltless sin and guilty sin. Passive depravity did not regard as guilty, but became such only when expressed in action. The passive sin Christ took, and through the power of the Holy Spirit, not only kept His human nature from manifesting itself in actual sin, but through struggle and suffering, gradually purified this passive sinful nature, until in His death, He completely extirpated it, and reunited the spirit to God. This is subjective purification, but there is no idea of a substitutionary atonement.

3. Bushnell's Theory of Moral Influence. This is frequently regarded as the clearest and best statement of moral influence in relation to the atonement. Dr. Miley

[Bruce says, "Unless we are to treat the Epistle to the Hebrews as a portion of scripture practically meaningless, as possessing no permanent value for the Church, as being indeed nothing more than an ingenious piece of reasoning for a temporary purpose, we must regard Christ's priesthood as a great reality." - Bruce, Humiliation of Christ.

Dr. Miley calls attention to the fact that in the analogy of certain pathologies, such as personal resentment against sin, "the scheme lowers God into the likeness of men; so that in Him, as in them, the great hindrance to forgiveness is in these same personal resentments. Thus 'one kind of forgiveness matches and interprets the other, for they have a common property. They come to the same point when they are genuine, and require also the same preparations and conditions precedent.' The theory commands no lofty view of the divine goodness. Nor can it give any proper significance to the sacred proclamation of the divine love as the original of the redemptive economy. Such a love is held in no bonds of personal resentment. The theory has no profound and glorious doctrine of divine love; and indeed, is found on a true sounding to be shallow." - Miley, Syst. Th., II, p. 118.

In recent times Socinian principles have been introduced into the Latitudinarian theology of many who do not reject the doctrine of the Trinity. And it is here that they are most dangerous. In the works of some divines, the love of God alone is introduced into the atoning sacrifice, which on Christ's part is a sublime and supreme act of repentance for man, His amen to the sentence of the law, and to man himself an affecting representative sorrow which he must make his own by adding to it the personal consciousness of guilt. The latter idea links it with the Romish doctrine of human additional expiation; and, as to the former, a representative sorrow that does not taste the wrath of God against sin falls immeasurably below the scriptural illustrations of the atoning passion in which our Lord was made a curse for us. - Pope, Compend. Chr. Th., II, p. 312.]

 

calls it the theory of "Self-propitiation by Self-sacrifice." It belongs to the class of mystical theories, in that it regards the race as identified with Christ, but is given separate mention because of its distinct character. Dr. Bushnell resolves Christ's priesthood into "sympathy"; that is, there are certain moral sentiments similar in God and in man, such as the repulsiveness of sin and resentment against wrong, which must not be extirpated, but mastered and allowed to remain. God, therefore, forgives just as man does. "They come to the same point where they require exactly the same preparations and conditions. So God must propitiate the cost and suffering for our good. This He did in sacrifice on the cross, that sublime act of cost, in which God has bent himself downward in loss and sorrow, over the hard face of sin, to say, and in saying to make good, 'Thy sins be forgiven thee" (Bushnell, Forgiveness and Law, p. 35). There is here no propitiation by Christ's death, but only suffering in and with the sins of His creatures. The theory, therefore, is strictly Socinian and Unitarian, although Bushnell was himself a trinitarian.

4. The New Theology. The New Theology is a term applied to the more systematized forms of the mystical theory of the atonement, as found in the writings of McLeod Campbell of Scotland, and the Andover School of New England. The theory is essentially the same as that held by Maurice, Robertson, Bushnell and R. J. Campbell.

John McLeod Campbell (1800-1872) in his Nature of the Atonement (1856) advocated that Christ made a perfect confession and an adequate repentance of sin for us. He saw as we cannot, the depths of sin, and therefore was enabled to make full acknowledgment for us, this reparation being in some sense, an act of vicarious re-

[Horace Bushnell's moral influence theory as set forth in his "Vicarious Sacrifice" failed to satisfy his mind, and in his "Forgiveness and Law" he held that "reconciliation" not only applies to what happens in men, but also to that which in a certain measure applies to the divine attitude toward men. That is, as we by making cost to ourselves for an enemy, overcome our reluctance to forgive, so God by entering into a sacrifice for sinners, becomes in His own feeling, fully at peace with Himself in extending grace to them.]

pentance. It is for this reason that Dr. Dickie calls it the theory of "Vicarious Repentance." He held also, that Christ became the Head of a new humanity, in which He lives as a quickening Spirit, imparting to it the same attitude toward God's holiness and love, as were realized in His own life of obedience and love. As the root of this new life in humanity, there was revealed in it, an inestimable preciousness, brought into manifestation by the Son of God, for the Revealer of the Father was also the Revealer of man made in His image. "Therefore," he continues, "there must be a relation between the Son of God and the sons of men, not according to the flesh only, but according to the Spirit - the second Adam must be a quickening Spirit, and the head of every man be Christ." This was interpreted to mean, whether rightly or wrongly, that man has in him an element of the divine, and that a difference in degree and not in kind, marked the dividing line between man and Christ. As a consequence, the New Theology came into immediate conflict with the older orthodox beliefs. The attempt to break down the dividing line between man and Christ gave rise to two errors, (1) it lowered the conception of Christ as Deity and led directly to unitarianism; and (2) it precluded the idea of total depravity, and therefore minified both sin and redemption. Here again we have unitarian principles held by a trinitarian divine.

The Andover School or "New Theology" is another form of the moral influence theory, and takes its name from the prominence given to the "New Theology" by the Andover divines. The theories held by this school were first advanced in a series of articles on "Progressive Orthodoxy" published in the fourth volume of the Andover Review in 1885. The third of this series is on the atonement. Dr. Dickie connects this theory with the Rectoral or Governmental theory. Dr. Boyce treats it as a separate theory of the atonement, but connects it with the moral influence theory as advocated by Bushnell and McLeod Campbell. It holds more nearly to the cosmological than the soteriological view of Christ's work, regards Christ as a representative of the race in the suffering for sin and repenting of it, denies any imputation or transfer of man's sins to Christ, or Christ's righteousness to man, maintains that love is the source of appeal to man, and holds that even the wrath of God is but one form of the manifestation of His love.

Aside from the three historical theories, there are two modern theories of the atonement which combine the three essential elements - satisfaction, governmental and moral influence, in a manner deserving of special consideration. These are the Ethical Theory of Dr. A. H. Strong, and the Racial Theory of Dr. Olin A. Curtis. Both give prominence to the idea of holiness in the nature of God and the necessity for propitiation. The Ethical Theory of Dr. Strong should not, however, be confused with the moral influence theories.

The Ethical Theory. Dr. A. H. Strong has sought to combine the essential elements of atonement in what he calls the Ethical Theory. He arranges his material according to two main principles. (1) The atonement as related to the holiness of God. The Ethical Theory holds that the necessity for atonement is grounded in the holiness of God, of which conscience in man is a finite reflection. The ethical principle in the divine nature demands that sin shall be punished. Aside from its results, sin is essentially ill-deserving. As those who are made in God's

[The following is a summary of the principles of the Andover School. (1) Christ is the universal Mediator, and therefore must appear wherever there is need for His aid in any portion of the universe; (2) That Christ would probably have come as the incarnate one, even if there had been no sin from which to be redeemed; (3) The work of Christ changed the relation of God to man, and therefore man's relation to God; (4) There is no imputation in the work of the atonement - neither of man's sins to Christ, or of Christ's righteousness to man; (5) Christ as the substitute for the race approaches God as a representative of man through a mystical union, and therefore offers a vicarious suffering and adequate repentance; (6) This substitutionary suffering, however, is not available apart from man's own repentance; (7) The sufferings and death of Christ can be considered vicarious only in the sense that it expressed fully God's abhorrence of sin; (8) The application of the gospel is made by the Spirit who regenerates men, but not apart from their personal knowledge and experience of it; (9) Justice to God's own love requires that the gospel be preached to every sinner; (10) The judgment does not come until the gospel is preached to all nations. This last is interpreted to mean, not merely a proclamation of the truth within certain geographical bounds, but only when in reality all individuals of all nations have known it. (For further study, cf. Boyce, Abstract of Syst. Th., pp. 298ff.)]

image, mark their growth in purity by their increasing hatred of impurity, so infinite purity is a consuming fire of all iniquity. Punishment is, therefore, the constitutional reaction of God's being against moral evil - the self-assertion of infinite holiness against its antagonist and would-be destroyer. In God this demand is devoid of all passion, and is consistent with infinite benevolence. The atonement then, must be regarded as the satisfaction of an ethical demand in the divine nature, through the substitution of Christ's penal sufferings for the punishment of the guilty. On the part of God, it has its ground (1) in the holiness of God, which must visit sin with condemnation, even though this condemnation brings death to His Son; and (2) in the love of God which provides the sacrifice, by suffering in and with His Son for the sins of men, but through this suffering opening a way of salvation. (3) The atonement as related to the humanity of Christ. The Ethical Theory maintains that Christ stands in such relation to humanity, that what God's holiness demands Christ is under obligation to pay, longs to pay, inevitably does pay, and pays so fully, in virtue of His twofold nature, that the claim of justice is satisfied, and the sinner who accepts what Christ has done is saved. If Christ had been born into the world by ordinary generation, He too, would have had depravity, guilt and penalty. But He was not so born. In the womb of the virgin, the human nature which He took was purged from its depravity. But this purging of depravity did not take away guilt, in the sense of liability to punishment. Although Christ's nature was pure, His obligation to suffer still remained. He might have declined to join Himself to humanity, and then He need not have suffered. But once born of the virgin, once possessed of the human nature that was under the curse, He was bound to suffer. The whole weight of God's displeasure against the race fell on Him, when once He became a member of the race. The atonement on the part of man, therefore, is accomplished, (1) through the solidarity of the race; of which (2) Christ is the life, and so its representative and surety; and (3) justly yet voluntarily bearing its guilt and shame and condemnation as His own. Christ as the incarnate One, in some sense, rather revealed the atonement than made it. The historical work was finished upon the cross, but that historical work only revealed to men the atonement made both before and since the extra-mundane Logos. The theory is stated and discussed at length by Dr. Strong in his Systematic Theology (Vol. II, pp. 750-771).

The Racial Theory. This is the theory of Dr. Olin A. Curtis, in his excellent work entitled The Christian Faith (pp. 316-334). As in the Ethical Theory, holiness in God becomes the supreme factor in determining the nature of the atonement. Dr. Curtis introduces the subject by giving an account of his dissatisfaction with the three historical theories, and his attempt to combine the essential qualities of each by the method of eclectic synthesis. The result, however, was so mechanical that it had to be given up. Then came the vision of the full Christian meaning of the human race - a vision which not only vitalized but transformed the entire theological situation. From that time he studied the Bible more profoundly, being impressed with the tremendous emphasis placed upon the event of physical death as abnormal in human experience; and finding in St. Paul's teachings a racial view of our Lord's redemptive work. He found also, to his astonishment, that the elements in the old theories which he desired to preserve, appeared in a stronger light when viewed from the racial standpoint. The satisfaction theory required that justice be

[Dr. Strong holds that the guilt which Christ took upon Himself by His union with humanity was: (1) not the guilt of personal sin - such guilt as belongs to every adult member of the race; (2) not the guilt of inherited depravity - such as belongs to infants, and to those who have not come to moral consciousness; but (3) solely the guilt of Adam's sin, which belongs prior to personal transgression, and apart from inherited depravity, to every member of the race who has derived his life from Adam. This original sin and inherited guilt, but without the depravity that ordinarily accompanies them, Christ takes, and so takes away. He can justly bear penalty, because He inherits guilt. And since this guilt is not His personal guilt, but the guilt of that one sin in which "all sinned" - the guilt of the common transgression in Adam, the guilt of the root sin from which all other sins have sprung - He who is personally pure can vicariously bear the penalty due to the sin of the fall. - Strong, Syst. Th., II, pp. 757, 758.]

exchanged for holiness, and the automatic necessity be exchanged for the personal need of structural expression. The governmental idea required a profounder conception of the moral law, making it reach into the structure of the divine nature, and granting it a racial goal. The moral influence theory required that its conception of love should be so united to moral concern as to furnish a new atmosphere for holiness. That is, it should be holy love.

The main points of the theory may be summed up as follows: (1) The new race is by the death of Christ, so related to the Adamic race, penally, that it must express in perfect continuity, God's condemnation of sin; (2) the center of the new race is the Son of God himself, with a human racial experience completed by suffering; (3) the new race is so constituted that it can be entered only on the most rigid moral terms; (4) the race moves through history as the one thoroughly reliable servant of the moral concern of God; (5) this new race makes it possible for each human being to find a holy completion of himself in his brethren and in his Redeemer in perfect service, rest and joy; and (6) this new race will finally be the victorious realization of God's original design in creation.